Do I Owe Hillary An Apology?

After posting my last article, from 2/9/16, I realized a bad error I made, which was based on some wrong assumptions on my part.
Based on these assumptions, I accused Hillary Clinton of backing up a dump truck in order to drop a load of horseshit on Bernie's healthcare plan.
I singled out a particular word from her statement that: "A respected health economist said these plans would cost a trillion dollars more a year."
I claimed that the word "more" proved her deceitfulness.
Furthermore, I used this claim as justification for my description of her as a #%$#&%$##ing piece of $%&#!

Upon further investigation, I discovered that Ms Clinton was apparently, correct. As a matter of fact, she may have understated it.
Professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Jerry Friedman, who was responding to a hit piece on Sanders by the Wall Street Journal, put the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single-payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. (that's 1.5 trillion more per year)

Do I think I should apologize to Ms Clinton?
In the immortal word of the late Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens:



So how do I justify my refusal to apologize?
By the fact that, while her offense is not one of commission (a lie), it is a deceit by omission.
This is the same charge Friedman leveled at the conservative WSJ:
“The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single-payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.”

Bern and Hill had another debate last night where they went back and forth again about whether Bernie's plan would save the middle class money or, as Hillary actually claimed, cause many people to be worse off than they are now.
Bernie said that someone at the median income level would pay $500 more per year in taxes but save $5,000 in total costs.
Hillary claimed that "every progressive economist who has analyzed that says that the numbers don't add up."
I think I smell something and it reminds me of the time I was in a stable. I'll see what the fact checkers have to say about that later.

This does not make any sense to me because, if Bernie's plan is funded by taxes, and taxes are based on income, where the rich pay more per person (even if it's a flat tax) -- and if the total cost of the plan is less than we are currently spending -- how could this not be good for the middle class? The current system is based on private company premiums that cost individuals the same amount no matter what that person's income is.

Hillary could be engaging in double talk, like she did in the last debate, when she tried to make us think that Bernie's plan would be an unthinkable burden on the middle class. Notice she claimed that every economist said the numbers don't add up. She didn't say that they said there would be no savings at all. She merely implied it. Maybe they'll only save $3,000 a year.

Then, when she said that many people would be worse off, she didn't say "middle class people." She merely implied it with her impassioned warning that "this isn't about math, this is about people's lives."
Oh my goodness.
Maybe she's just talking about the wealthy (who would be paying more in taxes).
Thanks to Bernie and his socialism, these poor rich folks would be unable to afford one more redundant luxury.
Maybe that's the human tragedy she's referring to.

The other mistake I made that needs correcting is my estimate of the total cost savings -- to the country -- of Bernie's plan. My original estimate was based on the incorrect assumption that the total cost of his plan was 1.4 trillion. Like Hillary said, that is additional to what the government currently spends.

So here are my revised numbers. In 2014 total healthcare expenditures was $3 trillion. Government spending -- Medicare $618.7 billion plus Medicaid $495.8 billion equals $1.114 trillion plus Bernie's $1.4 trillion equals $2.514 trillion. Subtract from $3.0 trillion and, hey that's almost $500 billion less per year, or as the economist Friedman said, "nearly $5 trillion over ten years". And because my calculator wasn't working, I literally did that on the back of an envelope.

Oh, one more thing. Hillary said something else that was demonstrably false. "Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me, a woman, running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment."
Apparently, at least 362 other persons characterize you in exactly the same way as Bernie does, your gender notwithstanding.

From fivethirtyeight.com:
"Clinton leads 362-8 among superdelegates, who are Democratic elected officials and other party insiders allowed to support whichever candidate they like.
Superdelegates were created in part to give Democratic party elites the opportunity to put their finger on the scale and prevent nominations like those of George McGovern in 1972 or Jimmy Carter in 1976, which displeased party insiders."

So my charge against Hillary still stands.
She's still a #%$#&%$##ing piece of $%&#!