 So Bernie Sanders appeared on CNN and I think you already know how this segment is going to go The subject of Medicare for all came up the CNN host Concerned trolled and fear mongered about some aspects of Medicare for all Bernie even had to respond and You know, this is why I get so frustrated with these types of segments If you are a news host your one job is to educate people You're not, you know Certificating about what you think will happen under Medicare for all your job is to do the research put in the time to learn about it And then educate your viewers not fear monger based off of a misunderstanding of Medicare for all But that's not the real world here. So, you know, we instead get a segment like this Medicare for all There's a new poll out that I'm sure you've seen just yesterday an NPR Marist poll It just asked Americans a simple question. Do you think Medicare for all is a good or bad idea? 41% only 41% said it's a good idea 54% said it's a bad idea 39% of independence only like it and even three in ten self-identified Democrats are skeptical Why no, I don't think why is it the best plan hold it hold it? Majority hold on. I asked the questions here when a majority of Americans aren't behind it Well, obviously you saw the poll that came out From the New York Times two days ago and with 78% of Democrats thought that Medicare for all was a good idea and 69% that independence thought it was a good idea Medicare for all depending on the wording of the of the poll does very very well and the answer Why it does well is the American people are sick and tired of a dysfunctional health care system in which over 80 million Americans are Uninsured or underinsured and we are spending almost twice as much per capita on a health care as do the people of any other country The American people are sick and tired of seeing insurance companies become rich while they can't afford the health care that they need So let's let's talk about this a little bit more and what it would mean for the for the average American You were on Fox News Sunday back in June with Chris Wallace It was a fascinating interview. This is part of it that really struck me about Whether Americans could keep their doctors their hospitals exactly as they have them now under a Medicare for all plan here you were What we are talking about despite a lot of misinformation coming from the insurance companies and the drug companies is Allowing all of the American people to continue to go to the doctor that you want to go to go to the hospital that you want to go to I really like my doctor and I'd like to keep going to her But what if she decides senator that a Medicare for all plan doesn't pay her out enough and she's going to just take private Patients that I would have to pay out of pocket to go to her and that's okay for me because I can afford to But it's not okay for most Americans could they still keep their doctor if their doctor decided these rates aren't enough That That is not the way the system is going to work The system is going to work similar to what exists in Canada and what we are going to see is an expansion of Medicare We're almost all doctors are now in Medicare to cover Every man woman and child in this country what we are talking about is a four-year transition period right now As you know eligibility for Medicare is 65 We take it down at the end of the first year to 55 next year 45 next year 35 And then we cover every man woman and child and by the way what we also do is expand Medicare coverage for seniors to include dental care hearing aids and eyeglasses, which are not currently That matters, but I'm just asking you the fact of the matter is that not all doctors take that Because they don't all like the rates that they're paid So can you 100% guarantee to all Americans that their existing doctor would see them under this plan? And they would not have to pay out-of-pocket a private rate But as you well know right now All Americans cannot go to the doctor that they want and I hear you with their own insurance program broken And it needs to be fixed some way But you said well earlier this summer that people could essentially keep their doctors in their hospitals And I'm just wondering is that 100% true for every American well On the Medicare for all as I said on that show every American will be able to go to the doctor They want because doctors will be in the Medicare for all single-payer program as they are right now in the Medicare program Look the time is overdue. It seems to me To end a dysfunctional system Which enriches the drug companies and the insurance companies and do what every other major country on earth does Guarantee health care to all people freedom of choice with regard to the doctor in the hospital and at the end of the day We will save the average American considerable sums of money on the amount of he or she has to spend on health care so of course she starts the segment by citing one poll that shows Medicare for all isn't as popular as as progressives are saying it is Interesting so rather than looking at aggregate polling data, which shows that Medicare for all is in fact popular You cherry pick one poll that proves your point Seriously, I wonder why she did that. It's almost like corporate media has a pro corporate bias or something like that So this is what I really wanted to talk about with regard to this segment the host is just completely misinformed About Medicare for all and I get it like this is relatively complex when you start really digging in some of these details are A little bit confusing So I would expect John from Ohio to not really know about the fundamentals of Medicare for all and what it would look like in practice But I do expect a CNN host to know about this and the question she asked Demonstrated that she has no idea. So let me let me read back to you what she said I really like my doctor and I'd like to keep going to her But what if she decides? Senator that a Medicare for all plan just doesn't pay her out enough and she's going to just take private patients. I Would have to pay out of pocket to go to her and that's okay for me because I can afford to but it's not okay for most Americans Now what I don't like is that she kind of cloaked this question in What is ostensibly a concern for the average person who can't afford to pay out of pocket? That's bullshit because if you truly care about average Americans Then you should be backing Medicare for all vociferously and passionately and not spreading misinformation about it based on your uninformed Opinion so Bernie Sanders said that is not the way the system is gonna work and he's correct Like your doctor cannot say well, you know what Medicare for all isn't paying out enough. So I'm just gonna practice Privately, I mean sure your doctor can technically do that However, the thing about Medicare for all is that it bans duplicative coverage Meaning a private insurance company Cannot offer what is covered under Medicare for all and Medicare for all covers pretty much everything So if your doctor wanted to hypothetically practice privately She would basically go out of business if she says I am not going to accept Medicare I will only accept private insurance because under a Medicare for all system where everything is covered and Duplicative care is banned. Well, then there won't be private insurance Basically people would have to go to her only if they were willing to subvert Medicare and pay out of pocket for literally everything Which wouldn't make sense because who would want to do that? So she has no choice. She'd have to accept Medicare Otherwise, she wouldn't be able to be a doctor and it is absolutely essential that we do get rid of private insurance So we don't set up a two-tiered healthcare system like the one that the CNN host is kind of alluding to So, I mean your doctor isn't going to want to do this unless she wants to go out of business Do you understand like if you if you're a doctor like you're going to have no choice You will have to accept Medicare for all Otherwise, good luck finding people who's just gonna pay like a thousand dollars for a particular procedure that they need Because again, that's not covered under private insurance. So the question was bad Bernie Sanders was right to say I don't think you understand how it works Or he said that's not the way the system is gonna work with that being said Bernie Sanders Did not do a good job at explaining this and I think it was because the question was so bad that he just thought Oh, well, I have to explain the transition period No, Bernie She she really needs to be educated about what it would look like under Medicare for all and he did not do a Good job at laying this out and that's disappointing because Bernie Sanders usually He knows His shit about Medicare for all and he's usually great, but he wasn't on his game here I've got to admit He wasn't on his game and that pains me to say because I love Bernie Sanders obviously But you know, I think that you've got to start looking at this particular smear with regard to Medicare for all because it's come up before Michael Bennett, for example, who's another presidential candidate who's against Medicare for all He's also been fear mongering about this aspect of Medicare for all. He says look if you pass Medicare for all Hospitals are going to go out of business Because you know, Medicare just doesn't pay out enough In comparison with private health insurance companies, which is why we need a multi-payer system as opposed to a single payer system Now is there going to be a shortage of hospitals under a Medicare for all system? I don't know. Why don't you talk to a canadian and see if they have a problem getting into hospitals Talk to a canadian. They're gonna say, um No, you guys are still buying this propaganda That is being pedaled by insurance companies really and one thing that these people who are making this argument leave out Is that moving to a single payer system is going to drastically simplify our healthcare system? It's going to reduce administrative costs overall Which will then allow some of these hospitals to absorb lower payouts because they're not going to need A bunch of lawyers and clerks for all this paperwork and furthermore There's no longer going to be unpaid medical bills Because if the government is going to pick up the check, then it's always going to be paid Like for example, if you have a surgery that costs $50,000 and your insurance is only paying for half of that Then the hospital is going to be owed $25,000 now under our current system I mean that hospital is going to struggle to get that money Maybe you're gonna have to get on a payment plan under Medicare for all it's paid for So the issue isn't really going to be as big of a problem as people are making it But a lot of people are basing this off of that mercatus center study where charles blahouse Found unfortunately for him that Medicare for all would actually save the american people two trillion dollars Now in addition to that finding which he kind of tried to bury He also claimed that if we do Medicare for all that would result in Hospitals being paid 40% less than they're currently being paid Under our system where private health insurance companies are paying out Presumably a hundred percent But the problem is that that study Is biased it was funded by the Koch brothers and it was useful to you know to show how even your own libertarian funded study Doesn't prove that Medicare for all is as bad as you think it is but it's still biased So he says 40 cut, but what is it going to be an actuality? Well, according to the people's policy project the cuts will be 11 and according to the urban institute Which is a centrist think tank no fan of medicare for all that predicts that there will only be a 13 cut in Payouts to hospitals in other words nowhere near the 40 cut That charles blahouse was trying to fearmonger about So do you think that these hospitals will be able to absorb 11 to 13 cut in payouts after saving money on administrative costs And um getting all the medical bills paid for by the government Yeah, I think so But let's go to the specifics because jeff stein of the washington post did a great job at explaining What this will look like in practice? He reports matt brunig of the people's policy project notes one key selling point of a single-payer system Is it spares physicians the reams of paperwork? They have to do under the current system for private insurance companies if america's physicians could reduce their administrative costs To canadian levels he said health care spending would fall by well over 11 Canada has a single-payer health system The overhead costs here are substantially low because you don't have to hire administrative clerks and billing experts to chase after money Said daniel martin a toronto women's college hospital physician who supports sanders legislation What matters to people is their net income not their reimbursement rates Then there are the doctors and physicians whose reimbursements would go up under single-payer Richard bruno a doctor in east baltimore who primarily sees low-income medicare patients Said low reimbursement rates make it difficult for his clinic to purchase the equipment he needs like replacement microscopes We could do so much with higher levels of medicaid reimbursements said bruno 38 We'd be able to explore much better models for providing care But to other experts even an 11 cut in provider rates Could present serious challenges for private hospitals and physician practices operating on tight margins A number of prestigious hospitals such as new york university The stanford university medical center and the ronald reagan ucla medical center are especially reliant on patients with private health care And would likely see average cuts bigger than 11 percent According to larry levitt a health care expert at the keiser family foundation So there's a lot there just within those couple of paragraphs But to put it simply If we pay out less if we pay out 11 percent less Okay, 11 percent less than we are paying out now to all hospitals under medicare for all Well, still there will be a savings under medicare for all greater than 11 percent meaning they'll actually get more money in most Instances but not all instances to be fair as this article stated There are certain hospitals who currently rely disproportionately on private patients who would unfortunately Have to tighten their belts. But let's just for a minute catastrophize and think of the worst case scenario Let's say that that cnn host goes to the stanford university medical center and her doctor Uh, it works there now Let's say that it becomes so bad that the payouts become such an issue that they're forced to close Shop and then that cnn hosts doctor goes on to work at a different facility Then what? Well under a medicare for all system There are no networks and your coverage is universal meaning You would be able to still see your doctor at whatever facility or hospital She lands at So even under the worst case scenario It's still much much better than what we currently have and it's not even debatable at all And if you still think well, look, I just don't think that there should be any cuts to hospitals Period. Okay. That's fine But you just need to admit and be upfront about the fact that you care more About the profits of hospitals than you do about people actually receiving the care that they need Just admit it Because there's not going to be this disaster scenario where there's this shortage of hospitals As you know people like Michael Bennett and this cnn hosts probably want you to believe Because single payer systems they exist in other countries and that hasn't happened There's a reason why you know once you go single payer or some type of nationalized universal healthcare system You don't go back. No country has ever reverted back to a private system after going to a public system And really if these hospitals want to complain Um, then if I were Bernie, I would say, okay Well, if you don't like that you're going to be paying out paid out less under Medicare for all How about this? We'll just nationalize you because currently it's the case that these Facilities will be able to operate privately under Medicare for all because the government is not nationalizing Hospitals and taking over hospitals, you know, it's just being the single payer and paying the medical bills of everyone But if you want to fuck around and start complaining We can talk about nationalization We can talk about a national health system Which is what great britain has where most hospitals are just publicly owned and operated We can start having that conversation if certain greedy hospitals want to start buying off politicians like Joe Biden and Michael Bennett Which they have But I mean, this is this is a very simple question Do you believe that people who don't have insurance or healthcare should die if they don't have insurance or healthcare? If the answer is no Then you support Medicare for all It's very simple You can draw a straight line from Medicare for all to the total elimination of medical bankruptcies and deaths Due to a lack of healthcare So if you support Ending deaths due to a lack of health insurance Then um, you have to support Medicare for all. Otherwise, you're full of shit Now you can come up with some alternative Medicare for America Medicare for all who wants it But know that you're full of shit We know that you're trying to utilize the popularity of Medicare for all by using the word Medicare in your shitty program Which is just a multi payer system But that's not going to solve the problem if you want health care To be about health care exclusively you eliminate that profit motive Period So I shouldn't have to be explaining this a cnn host should automatically know about the details because If you're going to plan on pushing back against bernie sanders and challenging him on this Which you should I mean no candidate is above criticism Then you at least have to know the details and I get that this is very complex And you're dealing with a bunch of different issues, but you've got to know this stuff Otherwise, you don't get to challenge him on this You don't get to say well bernie your plan will do this when it won't do that in actuality You could have read the washington post study that I cited You could have taken five minutes out of your day to educate yourself before interviewing bernie sanders here But you didn't do that and I'm not going to pick on just this one host because everyone in mainstream media is doing that It's not because they're genuinely concerned about Medicare for all They're not fear mongering out of a general fear or a genuine fear more specifically They're doing what cnn's health industry corporate advertisers want pushing propaganda And spreading misinformation at the behest of the industry that benefits from defeating medicare for all It's really that simple. Occam's razor Mike is a total loser. So don't hit the subscribe button. Okay And whatever you do folks do not hit the notification bell either Mike treats me so unfairly