AUSTIN- Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) was among seven democrats who participated in a fiery debate last week in Las Vegas. The Senator was attacked by Mayor Buttigieg for citing a study that has been criticized for misleading voters. Critics say the study grossly undervalues the cost of Medicare-For-All.

Economists at TBV News read the report and discovered a number of errors. This article explains what the errors are and why Medicare-For-All will not decrease healthcare costs.

The study reads as an economic forecast but one thing is missing, an economist.

Senator Sanders cited the study because it serves as an economic justification for implementing his policy. The single biggest criticism of Medicare-For-All is the enormous price-tag that comes with it. The policy seeks to complete eliminate private insurance and replace it with government run coverage. Many Americans across the political divide believe the price of Medicare-For-All is untenable which makes it Sander’s biggest obstacle to the White House.

The five authors of the study are Professor Galvani, Alyssa Parpia, Eric Foster, Burton Singer, and Meagan Fitzpatrick. Between them they have three PhD’s in medicine, a degree in Epidemiology, and another doctor. The lead author, Alison Galvani, is the director of Yale University’s Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis. She worked for Bernie Sander’s Senate office. In fact, the study was published in The Lancet which is a medical journal.

The study makes a number of predictions concerning future drug prices, government revenues, and tax consequences. It makes conclusions requiring extensive expertise of the Laffer curve, consumer behavior, and supply-side economics.

Bernie Sanders at a rally. He is running on a promise to provide Medicare-For-All and eliminate all private insurance plans.

The study requires major assumptions about consumer behavior that contradict the justification for the policy and the numbers.

Senator Sanders often claims that 87 million Americans do not have health insurance. The true number is closer to 28 million or 8.5% of Americans. Remember, President Obama expanded government coverage under Obamacare which resulted in 91.5% of Americans covered. The fact remains that millions of Americans still do not have insurance with the highest rates in Texas (17.7%), Oklahoma (14.2%), and Georgia (13.7%). The natural result is that millions of Americans choose to not seek medical treatment when treatment may be necessary.

Under Medicare-For-All, everyone in the United States is covered. All it takes to receive healthcare coverage is the need for treatment. As coverage increases, demand for treatment also increases. The health care system will face a demand shock as these 28 million Americans seek medical and the government pays the bill. As demand increases, prices increase. The cost of health care will increase as a result of the demand shock and the government will pay the bill.

The study inexplicably ignores the increased demand which Bernie Sander’s promises will happen. Greater accessibility of health care is the fundamental purpose of Medicare-For-All which is why it is incomprehensible to assume that demand for health care will remain the same.

Health care providers largely oppose Medicare-For-All.

If Medicare-For-All has any impact at all, then hospitals will have to hire more doctors to treat the millions of new patients. Already, there is a shortage of doctors which is expected to continue past 2032. A shortage means there are more medical facilities looking for doctors than doctors available for hire. This situation requires institutions to increase salaries to attract new doctors. The increased salary cost is typically passed on to patients. Medicare-For-All will only increase the demand for doctors which enflames the existing shortage. The study fails to consider this factor.

Economic predictions are very difficult and require assumptions. For an economic prediction to carry legitimacy, these assumptions must have a rationale explanation and rooted in fact. The author cannot ignore convenient realties and resolved all assumptions in favor of a predetermined hypothesis. It appears that is what occurred in this study.

In an interview, Sanders appeared unconvinced by the study; unsure of the true price of the policy proposal.

Sanders was asked about the price-tag of his proposals in an interviewed this week with Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes. This interview was conducted after the Yale study was released. Here is the transcript:

Cooper: Do you know how all — how much though? I mean, do you have a price tag for — for all of this?

Sanders: We do. I mean, you know, and — and– the price tag is — it will be substantially less than letting the current system go. I think it’s about $30 trillion.

Cooper: That’s just for “Medicare for All,” you’re talking about?

Sanders: That’s just “Medicare for All,” yes.

Cooper: Do you have — a price tag for all of these things?

Sanders: No, I don’t. We try to — no, you mentioned making public colleges and universities tuition free and canceling all student debt, that’s correct. That’s what I want to do. We pay for that through a modest tax on Wall Street speculation.

Cooper: But you say you don’t know what the total price is, but you know how it’s gonna be paid for. How do you know it’s gonna be paid for if you don’t know how much the price is?

Sanders: Well, I can’t — you know, I can’t rattle off to you every nickel and every dime. But we have accounted for — you — you talked about “Medicare for All.” We have options out there that will pay for it.

It seems that even Bernie Sanders is not convinced by the study which claims that Medicare-For-All is cheaper than the existing system.