How is Tax Payer going to pay for Bernie's plans?

This was posted the other day in this sub by another user:

This has already been debunked by two health care researchers at havard medical school with inaccurate assumptions and estimates.

See here:

[Thorpe] incorrectly assumes administrative savings of only 4.7 percent of expenditures, based on projections of administrative savings under Vermont's proposed reform... the Vermont reform did not contemplate a fully single-payer system. It would have allowed large employers to continue offering private coverage

And here:

Thorpe assumes huge increases in the utilization of care, increases far beyond those that were seen when national health insurance was implemented in Canada, and much larger than is possible given the supply of doctors and hospital beds.

And here:

Thorpe assumes that the program would be a huge bonanza for state governments, projecting that the federal government would relieve them of 10 percent of their current spending for Medicaid and CHIP -- equivalent to about $20 billion annually.No one has suggested that a single-payer reform would or should do this

And here:

Thorpe's analysis also ignores the large savings that would accrue to state and local governments -- and hence taxpayers -- because they would be relieved of the costs of private coverage for public employees.

And here:

Thorpe's analysis also apparently ignores the huge tax subsidies that currently support private insurance, which are listed as "Tax Expenditures" in the federal government's official budget documents.

And here:

Thorpe assumes zero cost savings under single-payer on prescription drugs and devices.Nations with single-payer systems have in every case used their clout as a huge purchaser to lower drug prices by about 50 percent. In fact, the U.S. Defense Department and VA system have also been able to realize such savings.

And here is the nail in the coffin to this argument

In the past, Thorpe estimated that single-payer reform would lower health spending while covering all of the uninsured and upgrading coverage for the tens of millions who are currently underinsured. The facts on which those conclusions were based have not change

In the past Thorpe advocated for single payer would save costs. But now that it Clinton is in trouble (Used to work for clinton), he writes a highly inaccurate articles

So if you are believing Thorpe's argument simply because he is a health care researcher, than you should also look at when he argued that single payer healthcare was the best solution and would save money in the past. And you should question what has made him change his mind recently.

[Edited] - Updated with correct link

/r/SandersForPresident Thread