Medicare for All advocates march in Los Angeles in February 2017. (Photo: Molly Adams/Flickr/cc)
Jake Tapper's Flawed 'Happy Fact Check Friday' on Medicare for All Widely Condemned
"Once again, the main impediment to the success of Medicare for All is actually liberals who are either stupid or dishonest about this stuff."
CNN anchor Jake Tapper added his name to a growing list of journalists in the corporate media who set out to debunk progressives' calls for Medicare for All on Friday with a "Friday Fact Check" segment, promptly misrepresenting statements by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and New York Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well as the conclusions of a Koch Brothers-funded study.
In his segment, produced in partnership with FactCheck.org, Tapper played two clips of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez stating, respectively, that "Medicare for all would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period" and that it is "actually much cheaper than the current system."
Tapper responded as though the two progressives had asserted that the system would be cheaper for the U.S. government--a claim Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez did not make--and ignored a conclusion of cost-savings that was buried in the study.
Watch:
Billy Gendell, a Sanders staffer, was among the critics who pushed back against Tapper's attempt to fact check.
Rather than arguing that Medicare for All would save money for the U.S. government--which was able to afford a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans last year and passed a National Defense Authorization Act this week allocating more than $717 billion to its military--single-payer healthcare advocates have generally focused on how such a system would save trillions of dollars in overall healthcare spending, including for U.S. families, 26 percent of whom report struggling to pay medical expenses.
As The Intercept's Ryan Grim and Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, tried to make clear to Tapper:
The study cited in Tapper's segment and in a Common Dreams report last month was completed by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which has received millions of dollars in funding from the right-wing Koch Brothers.
Bruenig, a policy analyst who has been detailing the study for readers, has noted that its author, Charles Blahous, focused largely on the $32.6 trillion he found Medicare for All would cost over the next decade and buried "the money-saving finding in the report's tables."
But Blahous, and Tapper in his assessment, failed to mention the more than $3.4 trillion the U.S. currently spends on healthcare per year, a number that suggests that the country will pay at least $34 trillion to keep the current for-profit health insurance industry running for another decade--about $2 trillion more than Blahous's projection for Sanders' Medicare for All plan.
"That's right," wrote Bruenig in a piece titled "Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers on Medicare-for-All" earlier this week, "the same estimate with the scary $32.6 trillion figure they were promoting to all the journalists in the country also said that the U.S. could insure 30 million more Americans, virtually eliminate out-of-pocket expenses, and cover dental, vision, and hearing care for everyone all while spending $2 trillion less over the next 10 years."
As Tapper mentioned, CNN spoke with Blahous, who denied Sanders' and Ocasio-Cortez's conclusions about single-payer's savings.
One social media user wrote, "Matt Bruenig so thoroughly exposed the Koch brothers' report as benefiting consumers that the authors of the study (who want to discredit the people citing it positively) are trying to squeeze good PR out of fact-checking and again by misrepresenting THEIR OWN report."
Despite numerous critics correcting Tapper's conclusion, the "State of the Union" anchor would not budge.
Tapper is just the most recent corporate news anchor to show hostility toward Medicare for All advocates while relying on shaky reasoning. Earlier this month, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo pointedly asked Ocasio-Cortez how the country would cope with the "sticker shock" of Medicare for All, appearing surprised when she responded, "When it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war, we seem to be able to invent that money very easily."
Following Tapper's segment, Bruenig shared his concern that conservatives are likely not the greatest threat to the possibility of providing healthcare to all Americans.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
CNN anchor Jake Tapper added his name to a growing list of journalists in the corporate media who set out to debunk progressives' calls for Medicare for All on Friday with a "Friday Fact Check" segment, promptly misrepresenting statements by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and New York Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well as the conclusions of a Koch Brothers-funded study.
In his segment, produced in partnership with FactCheck.org, Tapper played two clips of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez stating, respectively, that "Medicare for all would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period" and that it is "actually much cheaper than the current system."
Tapper responded as though the two progressives had asserted that the system would be cheaper for the U.S. government--a claim Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez did not make--and ignored a conclusion of cost-savings that was buried in the study.
Watch:
Billy Gendell, a Sanders staffer, was among the critics who pushed back against Tapper's attempt to fact check.
Rather than arguing that Medicare for All would save money for the U.S. government--which was able to afford a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans last year and passed a National Defense Authorization Act this week allocating more than $717 billion to its military--single-payer healthcare advocates have generally focused on how such a system would save trillions of dollars in overall healthcare spending, including for U.S. families, 26 percent of whom report struggling to pay medical expenses.
As The Intercept's Ryan Grim and Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, tried to make clear to Tapper:
The study cited in Tapper's segment and in a Common Dreams report last month was completed by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which has received millions of dollars in funding from the right-wing Koch Brothers.
Bruenig, a policy analyst who has been detailing the study for readers, has noted that its author, Charles Blahous, focused largely on the $32.6 trillion he found Medicare for All would cost over the next decade and buried "the money-saving finding in the report's tables."
But Blahous, and Tapper in his assessment, failed to mention the more than $3.4 trillion the U.S. currently spends on healthcare per year, a number that suggests that the country will pay at least $34 trillion to keep the current for-profit health insurance industry running for another decade--about $2 trillion more than Blahous's projection for Sanders' Medicare for All plan.
"That's right," wrote Bruenig in a piece titled "Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers on Medicare-for-All" earlier this week, "the same estimate with the scary $32.6 trillion figure they were promoting to all the journalists in the country also said that the U.S. could insure 30 million more Americans, virtually eliminate out-of-pocket expenses, and cover dental, vision, and hearing care for everyone all while spending $2 trillion less over the next 10 years."
As Tapper mentioned, CNN spoke with Blahous, who denied Sanders' and Ocasio-Cortez's conclusions about single-payer's savings.
One social media user wrote, "Matt Bruenig so thoroughly exposed the Koch brothers' report as benefiting consumers that the authors of the study (who want to discredit the people citing it positively) are trying to squeeze good PR out of fact-checking and again by misrepresenting THEIR OWN report."
Despite numerous critics correcting Tapper's conclusion, the "State of the Union" anchor would not budge.
Tapper is just the most recent corporate news anchor to show hostility toward Medicare for All advocates while relying on shaky reasoning. Earlier this month, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo pointedly asked Ocasio-Cortez how the country would cope with the "sticker shock" of Medicare for All, appearing surprised when she responded, "When it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war, we seem to be able to invent that money very easily."
Following Tapper's segment, Bruenig shared his concern that conservatives are likely not the greatest threat to the possibility of providing healthcare to all Americans.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper added his name to a growing list of journalists in the corporate media who set out to debunk progressives' calls for Medicare for All on Friday with a "Friday Fact Check" segment, promptly misrepresenting statements by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and New York Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well as the conclusions of a Koch Brothers-funded study.
In his segment, produced in partnership with FactCheck.org, Tapper played two clips of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez stating, respectively, that "Medicare for all would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period" and that it is "actually much cheaper than the current system."
Tapper responded as though the two progressives had asserted that the system would be cheaper for the U.S. government--a claim Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez did not make--and ignored a conclusion of cost-savings that was buried in the study.
Watch:
Billy Gendell, a Sanders staffer, was among the critics who pushed back against Tapper's attempt to fact check.
Rather than arguing that Medicare for All would save money for the U.S. government--which was able to afford a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans last year and passed a National Defense Authorization Act this week allocating more than $717 billion to its military--single-payer healthcare advocates have generally focused on how such a system would save trillions of dollars in overall healthcare spending, including for U.S. families, 26 percent of whom report struggling to pay medical expenses.
As The Intercept's Ryan Grim and Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, tried to make clear to Tapper:
The study cited in Tapper's segment and in a Common Dreams report last month was completed by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which has received millions of dollars in funding from the right-wing Koch Brothers.
Bruenig, a policy analyst who has been detailing the study for readers, has noted that its author, Charles Blahous, focused largely on the $32.6 trillion he found Medicare for All would cost over the next decade and buried "the money-saving finding in the report's tables."
But Blahous, and Tapper in his assessment, failed to mention the more than $3.4 trillion the U.S. currently spends on healthcare per year, a number that suggests that the country will pay at least $34 trillion to keep the current for-profit health insurance industry running for another decade--about $2 trillion more than Blahous's projection for Sanders' Medicare for All plan.
"That's right," wrote Bruenig in a piece titled "Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers on Medicare-for-All" earlier this week, "the same estimate with the scary $32.6 trillion figure they were promoting to all the journalists in the country also said that the U.S. could insure 30 million more Americans, virtually eliminate out-of-pocket expenses, and cover dental, vision, and hearing care for everyone all while spending $2 trillion less over the next 10 years."
As Tapper mentioned, CNN spoke with Blahous, who denied Sanders' and Ocasio-Cortez's conclusions about single-payer's savings.
One social media user wrote, "Matt Bruenig so thoroughly exposed the Koch brothers' report as benefiting consumers that the authors of the study (who want to discredit the people citing it positively) are trying to squeeze good PR out of fact-checking and again by misrepresenting THEIR OWN report."
Despite numerous critics correcting Tapper's conclusion, the "State of the Union" anchor would not budge.
Tapper is just the most recent corporate news anchor to show hostility toward Medicare for All advocates while relying on shaky reasoning. Earlier this month, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo pointedly asked Ocasio-Cortez how the country would cope with the "sticker shock" of Medicare for All, appearing surprised when she responded, "When it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war, we seem to be able to invent that money very easily."
Following Tapper's segment, Bruenig shared his concern that conservatives are likely not the greatest threat to the possibility of providing healthcare to all Americans.