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.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT