This week Hillary Clinton’s campaign launched a barrage of assaults on Bernie Sanders’ single-payer healthcare plan, claiming that the plan would be extremely expensive and would “dismantle Medicare and private insurance” as well as Obamacare and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Many of these statements were made directly from Hillary Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea.
Her attacks have already come under close scrutiny, with many experts calling them “nonsense” and “dishonest.”
Sanders claims that he would be able to enact his plan, “Medicare for All”, without raising taxes on the middle class. Sanders’ plan would call for Medicare to “cover every man, woman and child as a single-payer national health care program” which he claims would “result in better care for more people at less cost.”
So what is the truth about Sanders’ plan? Would it really save American family’s money every year?
According to the leading political fact-checker, it would.
Politifact conducted an analysis this week of the plan to find out exactly how much it would cost or save the average American family. According to their analysis, the average family would save between $505 and $1,823 a year.
They also state that the wealthiest Americans would be paying for the bulk of the new healthcare plan, at $117 billion a year. The other 95% of the population would be paying $126 billion, coming from new payroll taxes. Although a new tax would be imposed, there would be no more costs associated with healthcare premiums, deductibles, or copays.
Politifact notes that their calculated numbers are lower than what the Sanders’ campaign estimates savings to be (between $3,855 and $5,175), but regardless American families would be paying less than they are paying under the Affordable Care Act.
Many questions are still up in the air. Some experts state that Sanders is “overestimating the potential reductions” in healthcare costs that he plans to use to pay for the plan. Other experts have a brighter outlook. According to Peter Hussey, a health policy analyst at the RAND corporation: “The tax rates are probably on the low side of what would be necessary, but not out of the ballpark.” Other experts say that with a few tweaks the plan could provide both coverage and a surplus of money.
COMMENTS