In his latest, Jonathan Cohn praises single payer in other countries for producing “terrific results — providing everybody with comprehensive insurance for far less money than the U.S. currently pays” – and then pulls a Donald Trump, basically saying “but it’s just not for us”.
While his piece manages to revisit almost every single payer lie you Rapid Responders have already squelched, we find his reiteration of the claim that single payer is bad for the working poor to be particularly egregious.
Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein piece Cherry-picking Statistics to Bash Sanders’ Medicare-for-All Plan debunked this claim, pointing out that only 3% of poor or near-poor Medicaid recipients would be at risk of financial loss (while gaining much better coverage).
Woolhandler and Himmelstein note that the plan could be easily tweaked to avoid affecting this small group. Even Cohn suggest that Sanders would probably do so. Why then, does he focus on the estimated 1.2 million Americans for whom the plan might be less than optimal, rather than the effects on the other 317 million Americans who gain comprehensive coverage and freedom from fear of medical debt?
Cohn is very active and responsive on Twitter. Tweet him in response to his article here.
You can also like Ben’s comment on the piece here (Ben’s is the first comment when you follow this link to the article), or leave your own.