Yikes! I guess I've been in denial for some time now, but last night it became clear to me that we are likely going to have to endure a second Trump term.
I don't see how any of these candidates win BOTH the primary and the general election. The ones who can beat Trump have no chance to win the nomination. The ones who can win the nomination aren't going to beat Trump. It's a very sad state of affairs.
427
@Roger Exactly--you are spot on. I can hardly watch these debates because the outcome is so agonizingly clear.
55
This is my fear as well. The election and Senate need to be won in states such as Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin etc. In a general election, Warren or Sanders very well might lose all those states to Trump while cleaning up in California (real helpful....)
65
@Roger The primary system is fundamentally mismatched with national elections. Primaries drive Democrats leftward, but a national election is all about the middle.
The Left despises Biden as an out-of-touch centrist with half a century of gaffes and an attitude towards women that's closer to Trump than millennials.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren leaves the middle cold with her far flung proposals and her refusal to acknowledge she'll raise taxes to offset the loss of deductibles.
We saw what happened when we ran a moderate in 2016. Now it's time to see the same result (or possibly worse) if we run a progressive.
It saddens me that progressives can't just acknowledge that their views might hold sway in the party but never have a chance on a national scale. It's selfish, short-sighted. It will put at least two more conservatives on the Supreme Court. All in the name of feeling like they've voted their conscience...
90
I saw something else in watching Senator Warren. Her eyes betrayed a level of stress under pressure that, while understandable, was not the stuff of a Commander-in -Chief. I question whether the person flailing back at Mayor Buttigieg would be up to the stress of a challenge to American forces in the South China Sea
105
@Ron
Oh please, talk about a sexist comment. She addressed the attacks she received with aplomb.
Compared to any of the men on the stage she was amazing.
217
@RJ Agreed 100%.
67
@Ron Another lame excuse for why a woman just isn’t good enough. It’s something “in her eyes”. She seems too “stressed”. I think that Warren would be a great Commander-in-Chief because she would consult all of the experts, weight her options and then make an intelligent, reasoned decision.
214
I dont care who was the winner, just give me someone other then Trump.
11
I've been with Warren all the way, but her refusal to admit that universal health care will mean higher taxes for the middle class is exasperating and disappointing. Is she just another politician after all?
C'mon, Liz, tell it like it is or move over for Bernie.
13
Newspaper and TV opinion makers and some reporters are just lazy. They know how much healthcare costs today, around 30-35 Trillion over 10 years but does not cover everybody in America.
The Warren/Sanders plan would cost around the same but it will all be borne by the Federal Government and it will cover all Americans and will come with one cost paid by us to the Government in the form of a tax. Much like the rest of the advanced countries with some exceptions.
Why are they looking for a gotcha moment on Warren? because they can then focus on one item - the feared "tax" ignoring the real benefits of knowing all Amercians will be covered and there won't be any exclusions, co pays, and other fees. A sad situation.
26
Zero minority support. That is what Warren has.Zero minority support. ZMS. Nonje. nada
So, are the black and brown people just supposed to go along with whomever Progressive White People pick?
6
Buttigieg should return to Indiana, to improve his relationship with downtrodden minorities in that State, and help craft creative ways to discontinue the flow of mass murder weaponry from Indiana to criminals in Illinois. That would help to fill out his paper thin resume.
9
She sounds like a 3rd grade teacher scolding her students.
14
Why doesn't Bruni just come out and support Buttigieg? Mayor Pete is a clever chap, but he needs more experience, and a much much broader appeal to the non-white electorate.
And if he keeps this up, he may do great damage. We do not need another wet behind the ears president like the last two.
1
Two comments here. It's been repeated ad nauseum that she should detail her tax plan to pay for MFA. I think that's a sucker's bet because all that will be reported is 'Warren will raise middle-class taxes' and that would become RNCs rallying cry. The truth is far too nuanced to discuss in this forum and the reporters were obviously only looking for a soundbite for the news cycle. She was smart to dodge it. Her record on providing details when the time comes is solid. This wasn't the time or place. Second, Mr Bruni says avoiding those tax details is good politics but bad leadership. True enough but we are in a truly political season and she's up there with 11 others. She has shown leadership on many other issues. Stay political until she's elected.
A last thought is that regardless who's nominated, the DNC needs to come up with a Trump avatar to practice responding to his childish idiotic debate comments about Pocohontas etc. before the final race begins. For example, When Mr Trump was stalking Ms Clinton during that debate, she wasn't ready and didn't come up with the obvious response, to turn around and say 'Look, I have a new follower! Thanks for the endorsement!.' and he would've slunk back into the dark hole he emerged from on the golden escalator.
13
@David Stevens ...
Well, is reporting exactly what Warren's tax plans are not worthy of being reported?
That's an odd position to take, sir.
3
I’m no genius, but I understand when Warren responds to questions about the cost of “Medicare for All” that middle-class people will see a reduction in cost, not taxes. Bernie explains it better, but Warren is sufficiently clear. Having lost a husband and a job in the last few years, and having watched a daughter deal with job changes that interrupted her medical coverage, I can say that employer-provided health insurance is only good as long as your employer continues to provide it. And even then, the cost sharing can break the bank. Who are these people who are happy with their health insurance anyway? Some of the moderates have become accustomed to their government-provided insurance and have no concept what the rest of us face.
Each of the candidates brought something important to the discussion. I wish we could move beyond the contest to collaborative government. What I saw on the debate stage gives me hope.
16
Elizabeth Warren is the modern day female equivalent of Huey P. Long.
4
Let me explain to you what Warren's plan is. She is planning to redefine who is rich and who is not. The news agencies will brainwash you that no one needs more than 50,000 per year and after that you are rich and if you do not give the extra up then you are greedy and not moral. Warren will eliminate the middle class as you know it. After all, people can be equal only in misery.
5
@DL Yes, she defined rich as $50,000,000+. Seem reasonable to me!
16
Warren was sheepish and evasive. Not her night...
7
Yawn - another idealistic performance by the front running ideologues like Warren and Sanders. That Biden was unfit to run for President was evident in his utter lack of coherence. He finds it tough to string a logic of thought across 2 or 3 sentences. This guy will be a year and half older in 2021 January and really not the best fit (health-wise) to run the WH. The rest were milquetoast at best. All DJT needs to do is pipe down and let this play out, so he can get another 4 year lease at the WH starting 2021. Honestly, I can't see anyone besting him. And before you liberals pounce on this, give these stats a thought -
1. Lowest unemployment, 2. Stock market still relatively high, 3. Job market for qualified applicants seems to be still very promising 4. Interest rates low and 5. No active military conflict that the US is fighting presently/ All said and done people are well-off for the most part. Elections are generally won or lost on kitchen table issues - which really is what its all about. If you think that DJT will lose because of Ukraine or Russia, then well, you're an avid reader of the NYT.
5
The sexism in the comments from many men is telling.
11
'Taxes' are for everyone. 'Costs' are only for some. The American society is very individualistic. Even if the 'costs to society' will be less, most people will not care to pay for the sick if they are themselves healthy.
I am also concluding that most people who want 'Medicare for All' don't know much about Medicare. They haven't tried to get a medication authorized. They haven't dealt with the donut hole. Heck, they haven't even tasted GoLytely -- the only colon purgative approved by Medicare for a colonoscopy.
Let's be clear -- if 'Medicare for All' were to become a reality in some fantasy world, people would blame everything wrong with healthcare and their own health on the government. Just like they blamed Obamacare for absolutely everything not to their liking.
Taking away options, even if they are bad, is just plain stupid.
4
The reason warren isn’t eager to get into the mud over details on the Medicare for All plan is simple:
Americans have been brainwashed for forty years by the GOP that taxes=bad. Government=bad. Just let capitalism freely do its magic and we’ll all be rich!
Well, guess what: that was an enormous lie!
But still, the conservative media and the GOP are still hoping the brainwashing will work. So they keep trying to focus on taxes, taxes, taxes. Ooooh. Evil Democrats! Government! Taxes! Godless Communism!
Read my lips: NO MORE REPUBLICANS.
9
I'm not voting for nibblers. Guess that makes me a Warren Democrat.
3
I was lukewarm toward Warren before, but she lost me last night. It wasn't during the debate but during the interview with the analyst panel afterward. For 20 minutes, they tried to feed her a good answer for her M4A funding, and her refusal to take it went from being evasive to flat-out lying in my view.
Gotta find a new horse to back now!
7
Mayor Pete came off like a little Yippie dog, nit picking other candidates with ridiculous criticism. dude should be the next drop out. he adds nothing to the conversation
5
Dems, the media, Holywood, and the entire anti fa complex better hope they succeed in the impeachment coup against Trump. Because they won’t beat him in an election. A group of Never weres, never gonna bes, and has beens. This is the party of Jefferson, Jackson, FDR, etc.? Please. Sad. Warren should go back to teaching school. Students can’t talk back. 😉
2
OK OK enough of the blow by blow descriptions where the emphasis is placed on how one candidate bested another but how and where the candidates' policy positions were made clearer as the result of the three hour "debate." Come on NYT, not to single-out Frank Bruni but you can do better than this article and many other descriptions of the debate to help us make better candidate decisions.
Jerry
1
Political power brings to my mind Gail Wynand's (The Fountainhead) fateful insight: "They jerked the wires and you moved. You were a ruler of men. You held a leash. A leash
is only a rope with a noose at both ends." Medicare For All sounds like a bunch of nooses to me. Maybe even worse, the Republicans make sure there is only a noose at the other end. There must, somewhere, be a better definition of governance.
Warren was the big loser last night. Will Bruni admit it when the new polls confirm it?
4
Note to Elizabeth Warren: Make a visual aid for the cost-savings/tax problem. I suggest a simple arithmetic format (a grade-school subtraction problem). You might use a piece of cardboard. Or use an image projection attachment on a cell phone. (Keep the cardboard as a backup if you opt for high-tech. Ross Perot did ok in the debates with his cardboard visual aid.)
Example:
1st line: plus sign "+ all taxes (rich, corp's, UMC)". [UMC = upper middle class]
2nd line: minus sign "- premiums, co-pays, out-of-p". [out-of-pocket = deductibles, etc]
3rd line: minus sign "- Ins. Co. imposed costs". [on medical care suppliers]
4th line: a solid line "———". [pretend dashes are solid]
5th line: "Net Savings (Refund)"
You can include labeled real number estimates on an image projection and/or your website (maybe the cardboard). You will have to "focus group" the cardboard vs projection, numbers vs labels to see what works best.
But keep the simple grade-school arithmetic format! That should force the media to discuss all the variables at the same time especially the NET SAVINGS for the average person. This should make the 'cheap shots' about tax increases by your opponents look cheaper. Just pull out the cardboard again and ask: "What is it that you don't understand about simple arithmetic?!"
And don't leave out the word 'net' on the bottom line label.
(See "The ‘Public Option’ on Health Care Is a Poison Pill" By David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, The Nation, October 7, 2019.)
5
Fascinating to think that Mr. Bruni seems to be so enthralled with Mayor Pete that he doesn't hold back in trying his best to discredit Mrs. Warren. Is it that Mr. Bruni is biased towards one of the boys, as another writer suggested, while trying to trash the front runner who just might have the best chance to beat Trump next year.
Or maybe he doesn't want Trump to be beaten because surely his favorite, Mayor Pete, doesn't have a chance in hades to be nominated. I reiterate that Mr. Bruni should check out city-data on the web where he will find the horrendous details of Mayor Pete's dismal city crime numbers, 25% of the population living in poverty especially blacks and hispanics, and high unemployment.
Come down from your bias Mr. Bruni, and recognize that Democrats need to win next year big time, that Mrs. Warren apparently has the best chance to do so as Biden is flailing wildly, Sander with his heart attack, and Pete not having the statistics in South Bend to deserve the enormous task of correcting the debacle created by Trump.
3
Yay, Warren!
3
To everyone who is raging that Warren needs to come clean and say "taxes”. Just so you can run around screaming, "TAXES", "TAXES, ''TAXES'; 'did you hear her she said TAXES”. Get over your bad self. You all sound like Republicans. If you care to listen, she is speaking of a plan that reduces the overall cost of medical costs, both treatment and medication. To get this coverage will not require insurance payment or co-pays. It will be fully covered under the single payer, universal plan. Taxes will need to be raised. The majority of that burned will fall on the ultra rich and corporations, and yes, ultimately all of us. When she says you cost will go down, think of it as a typical family of 4 paying $5000 more a year in taxes to get what would cost $12000 a year now for far superior medical coverage. Anyone with any skill at math or thinking straight could figure out this plan works. Also, roll in that you are covered for catastrophic illness, that we all know isn’t the case with current private plans. Which we can think of as “the road to financial ruin”. Well, no thanks! Sanders and Warren have the courage to seek a better way, as the rest of the industrialized world has. Check out the French plan, Magnifique!
Then add to the fact that none of the naysayers have anything to say about their plans, because they have no idea what they are or what they are talking out.
Bravo, Bernie and Liz, keep up the good work!
8
What Warren is unwilling to recognize is that no one in Washington wanted anything to do with Warren during the CPFB push as she was impossible to work with...Even to the point that where she wasn't even considered to become the head of it.
Biden was right...He was the one that corraled and whipped the votes to get Warren's dream to pass.
4
The Dem presidential nominee process is deeply flawed. A small group of people decide to run--they self-select themselves. It worked for Obama, so now many more throw their hat into the ring.
That the Democratic voter base can select a good candidate from a series of televised debates is preposterous.
These debates just give the viewer just the briefest glimpse of the candidates, giving them only a superficial view of who the candidates are and what their positions are.
It encourages the candidates to attack one another and the front runner gets attacked the most. The media questioners have opportunities to preen and prance on the big stage to ask their "gotcha" questions, showing off to their colleagues and maybe destroying candidate. The "winner" of the debate/food fight emerges severely damaged and broken from the process, the party is divided, and Republicans have been given ammunition to use in the general election.
Trump will eat the nominee alive. Unethical behavior? He will deny, deflect, and distract. He will portray himself as the savior of the country. His trillion-dollar tax cut for the wealthy will be described as an economic stimulus and a boon for the working-class; he will accuse the Dem nominee as being ineffectual, weak, wacky, unethical (possibly criminal), and corrupt, another tax & spend lib. The Fox/Breitbart disinformation/scandal creation machine will turn on full blast.
Which Dem is there that can withstand this?
1
I like Pete, but he has a blind spot on healthcare. Republicans have done everything possible to dismantle the ACA (Obamacare) and they will do the same to any future healthcare initiatives that leave private health insurance in business. It's foolish to think Republicans won't lie their way back into power eventually. If you pass Medicare for All, and dismantle the private health insurance industry, it will be impossible to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Obama taught us (accidentally) a very valuable lesson: there's no such thing as going too far. If we get the power back - the White House plus control of both Houses of Congress - we have to strangle Republicans ability to harm healthcare in the future - in very much the same way they pass laws making it illegal in red states for a city to pass their own minimum wage laws. Stop playing nice, Democrats. This isn't a tickling contest. Wake up, Pete.
4
It was not odd of Biden to take credit for the CFPB. It would not have happened if not for him. In fact, none of Obama's legislative agenda would have passed without Joe Biden.
Remember back a bit to all the articles about Obama the loner ... the guy who had no friends on Capitol Hill because he had neither the institutional knowledge nor the respect.
Joe Biden was the man who whipped votes for every major Obama accomplishment. He has been unfairly denied the credit because he was a dutifully behind-the-scenes VP.
6
It's very frustrating to read a number of pundits analysis of Buttigieg performance. He is so obviously the most levelheaded, thoughtful and articulate of the candidates. His positions are well thought out and incredibly reasonable. I know many are concerned about his age. I'm more concerned that some of the positions that Bernie and Warren are (Medicare for all, college loan forgiveness for all etc.) pushing are playing right into the Republican hands. If we can elect a bozo like Trump, we can certainly elect a 37 year old mayor from South Bend. Who, by the way, will be almost 40 when he is inaugurated.
3
We will have enough fireworks once the presidential debates begin. The last thing we need is Democratic hopefuls sniping at each other to the immense pleasure of Trump. CNN once again baited candidates to provide more sound and fury at the expense of substance. The next debate should have one focus: Each candidate must demonstrate why he/she can do better than Trump. We've already observed their sniping ability.
Why didn't Senator Warren say her health care plan would raise taxes for the middle while reducing their outlay for care and insurance?
Because, clearly Mr. Bruni and those others in the debate raising the question, that simple phrase would immediately become the repubs favorite hit ad. "Elizabeth Warren admits her plan will raise your taxes!!!!.
And, if you look at her proposal you will see that the increase in taxes for the medical care plan will be offset by the reduction in out of pocket expenses in the current system. A point the repubs will totally ignore.
Let us not ask the Democratic challengers to give the repub smoke and fog machine any free ammunition.
2
Warren is not electable. She will never be president of the US. Get over it. Go back to the drawing board. Grow up. A Democrat must be able to capture the Middle, Swing, Independent, Right-Democrats, and Left-Republicans. That leaves one, and only one, viable DNC candidate: Tulsi Gabbard.
2
I suppose Mr. Bruni missed Warren's exchange with Andrew Yang, in which she insisted that automation was not the primary driver of lost manufacturing jobs... she was dead wrong, as corroborrated by multiple fact checkers. Yang was 100% correct.
4
It is disingenuous for pundits to pretend not to understand that Warren's "evasiveness" is merely her necessary strategy to deny Republicans a "Warren says she will raise taxes" soundbite for the general election. Fellow Democrats who attack her on this are just showing that they can't think of something to say that isn't a Republican talking point.
5
I think you summed it up perfectly. Warren is "scared to treat voters as grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner". Aren't you scared? I don't think most Americans are grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner. We elected Trump!! That's proof that we cannot recognize a blatantly obvious con man. Americans need to eat their medicine hidden in peanut butter. We can't be trusted to do the smart thing, just because it's good for us.
3
I prefer her, and Yang or Pete as VP ... but Frank is right - her refusal bordered on perverse.
2
May I predict something, as several others have? First, stop worrying about Trump, going up against Trump and beating him to the finish line. He definitely won't make the debates. Warren will eviscerate him. By January he will resign or lose everything he ever schemed for.
Trump is losing it. The signs are increasing exponentially. He is desperate now. After this week he will mostly be desperate to exit protecting his ego, his twitter account, his and his combined family's financial holdings and future prospects. And to not go to jail.
Republican loyalists are bailing now. Their only hope is to end it quickly and find a moderate replacement nominee. They will say he has mental illness and ask for thoughts and prayers.
The writing is on the wall. He will be fired first by Republicans.
Then by the Fox hosters.
3
It’s disturbing her refusal to say whether her Medicare for all will raise taxes. How many more times will she answer a “yes” or “no” question with a long no answer? She seemed like an SNL parody of herself.
1
I do not like that she doesn't answer questions directly - simple questions - and instead rewords them and answers her own question instead. Politicians do this more and less successfully but there's something about the way she does it that is irritating and arrogant.
3
What Biden was saying is that between Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, Joe Biden was the far more helpful and influential member of the Obama Administration. Remember that Warren did not even get appointed as the director of the CFPB even though she had the idea, because she was far too controversial - even then, ten years ago!!! So here's this person with a lot of far-out ideas, only one of which ever got passed, and not because she had any leverage on Capitol Hill at all, but because Obama, Biden, and other people who knew how to work Congress got it done.
It was rude and obnoxious of Warren not to even acknowledge Biden's role in the Obama administration, working with Congress to get votes for her idea. If this is the kind of politician she is, she will never win a presidential election. The Democrats would be really foolish to nominate her. She turns off too many people, just like Hillary Clinton did. If the Democrats want to repeat 2016, nominate Warren. What a shame that would be.
1
Why can't Elizabeth Warren just say, "The answer is obvious, you dummy, of course my health plan includes a tax hike, but the decrease in cost of treatment will do more than offset the hike, so your net medical costs will be lower."
She's my pick right now, but her continuing refusal to publicly say the obvious may turn off voters whose intelligence she insults.
1
Frank, I was surprised that you didn't address the most important outcome (in my opinion) of the debate: that Joe Biden, in the controlled and tranquil environment, seemed "dazed and confused". Using your imagination, picture Joe Biden against Trump with all his bluster and bellowing making fun of Biden. Biden was the only candidate on the stage who would lose to Trump. Just saying.
JDM
1
Frank,
Why are you and the pundits so obsessed with tax side of medicare for all?
Isn't total cost to the middle class what we SHOULD be focusing on? You just play into the people who don't want change by playing this game of trying to get her to admit that taxes will go up. Of course she doesn't want to go down that route. It's both deceiving (total cost - the bottom line is what matters) and she would be giving Trump talking points.
You would do your readers a much service if you would help them understand the overall picture so they don't wind up voting against their interests because you pander to their fear of higher taxes.
1
I would love to say the words, President Elizabeth Warren. If she pivots back closer to the center in the general she wins.
3
She HAS to modify her Medicare for All proposal for reasons that have nothing to do with substance.
Out here in the affluent burbs, packed with the women whose mobilization was so important in turning the house in 2018, most people are insured.
They may owe this insurance to an unjust, inefficient system, but to say that Medicare for All is DOA for them is an understatement.
Is it selfish of them? Probably.
Should we care about what the "haves" have and don't want to lose?
I think we must.
Even suggesting the end of private insurance is one big deal breaker for many fence-sitters who, while I wish were able to look beyond their narrow self-interest, would see this as the ultimate intrusion by government.
We may not like it, but we better understand it if we really want to end the vile nightmare that is the Trump presidency.
3
The more correct question of Elizabeth Warren, is not "how are you going to pay for Medicare for All", it is, since people in other countries with universal government sponsored healthcare enjoy healthcare costs at one-fourth to one-half the cost that Americans pay for it, "how to you recommend that people spend their healthcare cost savings?" Education expenses, home improvements, occasional vacation with the family, new car or truck?
4
In 2016, after Clinton's loss, I thought a white politician would never receive the Democrat nomination again in this identity consumed era -- it seemed clear that a great deal of the drop in turnout for Clinton, who was in almost every way a political baton exchange from Barack Obama, was motivated by a lack of motivation from those voters Obama had engaged. But nominations and elections are not won in theory, as we all know. So here we stand in 2019 with a four person race coalescing and no candidate of color to be found.
This is perilous for Democrats, whether they recognize it or not. Biden loses the young black vote the same as Clinton. Warren loses the center. Sanders will by most accounts simply lose the nomination again and Buttigieg seems to offend some vocal educated white voters at the same time he attracts others.
The "path to victory" is perhaps rightly disregarded as punditry nonsense not to be trusted in the wake of Hillary's supposed slam dunk victory, but we are in a real way looking at further fractures in the Democratic party that may cement another 4 years of Trump.
It is not unfair to call attention back to Buttigieg's point about the shiny objects Democrats want and that some candidates more than others want to promise, never once being forced to acknowledge that there is zero chance Democrats will enter 2020 with the majorities necessary to accomplish such change. We need to get our footing, not go back, but not overreach. That's Buttigieg.
I understand the legitimate concern for how any of these candidates’ new plans will be funded. I’m curious, though, was this same question being posed for any of Trump’s so-called “beautiful” plans in the last election cycle? As I recall, he never explained his plans, nor did he discuss funding them. Yet, he “won” the election. Do Republicans, in general, not care about these details? Aren’t they supposed to be more fiscally conservative? Also, seems like Democrats and Independents should be ready to vote for anyone other than Trump, so why quibble over the details? Higher taxes for everyone, and perhaps, most importantly, the rich, seems to be an acceptable trade off for removing the malignant narcissist in the Oval Office.
2
@Angel
Only Democrats have to explain their plans and then defend them when they supposedly cannot be done.
Just like only Democrats have to pay for their plans. When Republicans wanted a tax break, did the media keep talking about the deficit? Nope. Did they simply parrot the talking points and allow the Republicans to claim whatever they want. Of course.
Only when Democrats are in power and try to enact any program that helps middle class and poor Americans will the media suddenly decide that "deficits matter" again. Just like "we need to see detailed plans of everything" is never ever asked of Republicans. Instead it's "go ahead and say whatever lies you want and we'll happily report whatever you claim is true and then we will report that Democrats deny your attacks (and we will never ever point out that the Republicans spout lies and the Democrats spout facts). And then our hard work as so-called journalists is done."
9
Her reluctance to acknowledge the inevitable tax increase was entirely justified.
Nothing about that debate format allowed for a serious discussion of total costs. Almost as soon as she or Bernie made earnest efforts to explain net costs to consumers--inclusive of taxes/insurance premiums/copays, etc--Anderson Cooper was cutting them off.
The entirely cogent and plausible argument I think she'd like to make is that with Medicare for All, insurance premiums, copays, and the like, are slashed or altogether disappear. Medicare for All achieves cost savings by eliminating the inefficient, redundant administrative work currently carried out by multiple insurers; and it gives the government the ability to negotiate on price. There's the net cost savings.
So yes, taxes increase; but if the net cost to the customer is the less, then so what?
1
Everybody is trying to do a "Gotcha" on Warren by getting her to say she will raise taxes to pay for healthcare. Then they will use that soundbite against her. She's smart enough to avoid that trap.
Here's what the other candidates and the moderators fail to mention. We are already paying a huge amount for healthcare - to insurance companies and others in the private sector side of healthcare. Warren is correct to focus on costs going down - which is the rest of the argument Bernie is making.
When he talks about taxes going up - he also adds the COSTS WILL GO DOWN for people when it's all added up! That's the important point the press keeps trying to brush aside.
2
It is really so very hard to even imagine Warren being elected president and if elected being an effective president, because of what is clearly a temperament not appropriate for the presidency. Warren just seems to be so highly strung, so much on the edge, giving the impression that she is on the brink of a nervous breakdown. It is no wonder that Trump is going to such great lengths to get dirt on Biden from foreign sources, so that Trump can run against Warren
and beat her handily in the 2020 general election. One thing Trump is right about: Warren would be far easier for Trump to defeat Warren than to defeat Biden.
3
@David This. Her temperament. Her voice. That she makes a lot of people feel like they're jumping out of their skin. This was what I thought way back in the beginning - and that she would never be appealing to men on a broad basis because of this - and it hasn't changed. I can squint my eyes and focus on her interesting ideas and I did for awhile but I don't see her beating Trump.
If she runs against someone else ... maybe.
1
Unfortunately, Warren lost credibility when she repeatedly refused to answer the question about taxes for Medicare for All. We don't need someone who can't be forthright on such a major issue. Worse, it evokes the GOP’s deceptive tactics of the last few decades.
Her ineptitude was amplified when contrasted to Sanders’ direct answer to the same question that the additional tax would be less than what people pay now for deductibles, copayments, and unreimbersed costs, none of which would be charged under Medicare for All.
2
Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 on a promise to reform US health care insurance. He won, but concerted opposition by Republicans, Libertarians, and the health care and pharmaceutical industries plus disunity among Democrats killed any hope for reform. Medicare-for-All is just as politically untenable. We’ve seen that discussion about Medicare-for-All among Democrats tends to be centered on emotion rather than rational discourse over the political and programmatic obstacles that Medicare-for-All would face. Senator Warren doesn’t even admit that a middle-class tax increase would be needed. Senator Sanders at least admits that much, though he argued that this would be offset by the elimination of health insurance premiums, coinsurance, and copays.
The insurance industry will fight hard against Medicare-for-All. How will the Democrats respond to ads that proclaim that families with employer-based health insurance will lose it? If the health care insurance and GOP ads are even half as effective as the infamous “Harry and Louise” ad of 1993-94, then then support for Medicare-for-All will vanish. Worse yet, such ads before the 2020 election could doom the electoral prospects of either Warren or Sanders. Medicare-for-All supporters should be willing to compromise with moderate Democrats who prefer adding a public option to Obamacare. Otherwise, the nation may be forced to endure an additional four years of the corrupt, incompetent, and dangerous Trump administration.
3
A lot of people here are pleased, but IMO perhaps a bit short-sighted. The winner of last night's debate was Donald Trump.
You do get, right, that for a number of months he's made it clear that he wants to run against Warren. Easy to see why. She is not only to the left of the general public, she's even to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic party.
And she sometimes struggled a bit last night when she was attacked by others - though the attacks were polite, in fact some almost timid. Understandable, as the candidates are trying to walk a fine line between differentiating themselves from the front runners while not causing damage bad enough to hurt the primary winner in the general election. Trump will have no such timidity when he attacks.
So what happened? Biden was up there needing to defend his son's antics (no, they were not illegal, but certainly were distasteful - the optics are terrible and Biden knows it.) He spent at least some of the night back on his heels, and wasn't very memorable when he did speak. He is widely perceived to be fading. Warren is clearly the ascendant one.
Trump took risks to hurt Biden - in fact, he's getting impeached for it. A big plus for him ... he'll get Warren instead of Biden, an impeachment will electrify his base and hurt Democrats in purple districts, and the Senate will never remove him from office.
All in all, the debate almost seemed designed by Trump's re-election campaign.
3
I would love to know whom every potential candidate's preference for his/her running mate would be so that Democrats could pick and choose the dynamic duo they feel would be the best way to defeat Trump/Pence. This 1-2 punch should be announced and occur sooner rather than later because today's political world is so far removed from what it was as recently as four years ago. In other words, it's time for a co-presidency to defeat a non-presidency.
2
Whomever the Democrats nominate defeating Trump is going to be difficult. They will be up against a cult-like figure whose supporters live in an alternative reality crafted by right wing media and who are prone to believing conspiracy theories Trump also clearly will have Russia working on his side and will be focused on digging up dirt on his opponent whomever it is. And calling his opponent crooked will probably be central to his campaign. The Democrats are faced with populism running amok on the right. Can Warren overcome that? Can any Democrat? I believe the founders of this country feared populism. A president was not elected directly but by those elected for the electoral college. Once party nominees were chosen by the voters rather than the party professionals there was risk of a demagogue winning the presidency. And it happened. Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama had to face this type of opposition. It remains to be be seen if our democratic system is capable of being saved in this situation by a Democratic candidate.
2
Warren cannot carry the election with free healthcare, free college and high taxes for all. Trump will have a field day.
How about a Buttigieg / Booker ticket:
Both progressively fresh, smart, and filled with health care, climate change, foreign policy initiatives, and a strategic path for real role reformation of the American domestic and global leadership.
If we listen to all of America, Red, Blue, and Purple we all can begin to heal.
2
Warren's performance left me rather depressed. Already under attack as "Pocohantas," her obvious evasiveness did her no good and contrasted poorly with Bernie Sanders' straightforward and capable explanation of the issues.
There were other problems as well. One is that she just promises too much, and I say that as someone who voted for Bernie Sanders in the last election. My mental calculator just can't figure out how to pay for it all.
Another is that she is so far to the left that I fear she'll McGovernize us. I mean, a fair shake for workers is fine -- that's what we need to offer to win. But putting workers on the board of directors? That would make Lenin proud.
Bernie Sanders has a knack for knowing how far to push to the left, and where to stop. She seems to lack it. And as inconceivable as it seems, I fear she could lose to Donald Trump in the next election.
6
Cory Booker is less "the candidate of love" than the candidate who does not want to answer any questions about the wealth tax. He got away without saying anything on the subject while coming off a possible vice presidential candidate. I would still love to know his thoughts on the wealth tax.
1
I quit paying attention to the debates years ago. Just window dressing as far as I'm concerned. When they were managed by the league of women voters they were at least respectable but now they are just an extension of the 24/7 news cycle, the social network, and empty punditry. I will pay no attention to the debates in making my decision about who to support as the nominee.
7
Booker was about as engaging as a loaf of bread.
Klobuchar and Yang did the best. The rest are just hot air.
3
Senator Warren may have risen in polls and donations, but I did not see a Democratic presidential candidate on the debate stage Tuesday evening. The field of Democrats is starting to feel a bit like the 2016 election, no appealing choices. The worst part of the Obama presidency is that it appears to be an impossible 'act' to follow.
5
“I am deeply grateful,” she responded, “to President Obama.” It was a dexterous and devastating way of observing how readily Biden claims the accomplishments of an administration in which he played second fiddle."
OK, that's your take. It wasn't mine. We'll see how the polls look over the next month. I think Warren hurt herself there, looking petty. Not as petty as Casto, or calculating as Harris, when they cut Biden -- but they weren't front-runners.
Overall, I don't think Warren did as well as pundits and Warren supporters think she did. We'll all see in the weeks ahead, though.
4
I was for Warren when she had 1% of the vote in January. And I’m sticking with her. It might be helpful if the candidates supplied the next round of questions, not the tv announcers. There was nothing this time on trade, China, antitrust, the Fed, immigration, infrastructure, or specific green energy programs. Guns, violence, abortion, and Russian spies make for good tv. But we’re entitled to know what the candidates have in mind about the big issues they actually can do something about.
5
The most exciting quality about Elizabeth Warren is that she is able to convince people there is a chance the political/economic system that is rigged against Joe Average, in favor of the wealthy, can be changed. The
former professor in bankruptcy law knows how corruption and rot spreads, and what kind of disinfectant is needed to fix it.
And her pitch to not settle for minor incremental change, as posited by Buttigieg and Klobuchar, but to overhaul the whole system, is starting to resonate with people. Could she be the next FDR?
Wish her well.
9
'Bending the cost curve' and 'Medicare for all' are equally vague prospects, why they leave voters perplexed and deserving clarity in this debate. Anyone passingly familiar with todays' Medicare knows it has premiums, co-pays, uses private insurance for parts B & D as well as private hospitals and practitioners. Medicare is not single payer nor the government run VA system. I wish Senator Warren would start pivoting on this, acknowledging and teaching along the way, that the goal of 100% of citizens having health insurance is paramount , that the public option that was lost in the ACA fight is the quickest way to get there. No one with private health insurance that is part and parcel of their job compensation should think for a second that their benefits will disappear with the election of a Democratic President. I cannot see a way to sell to voters who work in the private health insurance industry or who have private health insurance or union health benefits, that in order to reach the free lancers, gig workers or people who's companies have fewer than 50 employees etc. they will be sacrificed. This scenario is reminiscent of the old' everyone stays after school until the culprit who hid the teachers chalk confesses'. Senator Warren - change your message and have a plan, please.
5
“The latter group of candidates traffic in measured remedies that are more obviously attainable, prioritizing imperfect, incremental change over grandly transformative proposals that face hurdles galore and very long odds.”
That’s written from a place of security.
Ask people who are sick, poor, homeless under or unemployed what a pipe dream is. Survival shouldn’t be a dream nor should the richest country in the world reduce a significant percent of its population to having only a pipe dream’s chance for survival.
6
A country this large and diverse makes progress in an evolutionary way and not typically in a revolutionary way. Of course with our current descent (devolution?) we will be tempted to try and make some giant leaps, but this approach will not go over well with many. People are rightfully nervous about change, especially major change. Such an effort could cause a loss of opportunity to again move forward.
Gaining support of the most people for the most important issues is crucial and this does not seem like something that Ms. Warren in interested in doing. She has all the answers and unfortunately, that is not helpful is she wants to win the presidency.
3
@Todd
I think you are spot on here. I really dislike people that talk about dramatic changes (in any direction - Trump's or Warren's.) Don't want to hear about a "revolution". For a couple different reasons.
First, America is positively huge - in terms of geography, population, and diversity of thought and ideology. Anyone who think you can turn a supertanker like you can steer a speedboat is someone likely to simply capsize the boat. Doesn't matter if the sudden turn is well-intentioned or not.
Second - the biggest point - is history. If it has taught us anything, it is that you cannot "plan" a revolution, you can only unleash one. And once those forces are unleashed, they almost invariably quickly spin out of the control of those who started them (who, weirdly enough, do not infrequently find themselves devoured by the very revolution they started.)
Talking about bold, dramatic change is one thing when you're talking about people numbering in the thousands, or tens of thousands - but we are a nation of over 330 million, with the largest economy and military on the planet (in fact, arguably, in history.)
The impatience of youth has to be tempered by the thoughtful wisdom of age. So I find it bizarre that two of the oldest folks on that stage seem intent on stoking fires that they ought to know would soon rage out of their control.
6
Warren needs to give a few inspirational speeches where she doesn't talk about "plans" or take on the rich and powerful or mention you-know-who even once. Just some soaring rhetoric, from the heart, about what it means to be American and the America she envisions us becoming. I know she has it in her. Let it out, Elizabeth. Inspire us.
9
Warren needs to come up with a better response when she's asked about raising taxes on the middle class as part of her plan to fund Medicare for all. It's imperative.
Why? Because she's going to get absolutely hammered with that question if she makes it far enough to take on Trump, and obfuscation at that moment isn't going to cut it.
7
If the NY primary were today, I’d vote for Ms. Warren. But I don’t understand the waffling and defensiveness when she is asked this question. Especially since she has been asked this question more than once before and each time has come out looking worse for it.
“Yes, most people will see their payroll tax, the contribution to Medicare, increase. However, those people will have no other expenses related to health care: No other premium payments, no co-pays, nothing. That means that for nearly everyone, their costs are going to be lower. And there will be no risk of bankruptcy or any other form of financial ruin due to an accident or health condition. The total costs for our country as a whole will go down dramatically because no one will be uninsured. That also means hospitals and other medical providers will have their financial risk greatly reduced. This is a win-win-win for EVERYONE except most healthcare insurance providers who, at the moment, extract profits from us all in exchange for absolutely nothing of value. Insurers might still have a niche similar to that of current providers of Medicare supplement insurance. But insurance coverage and medical coverage will no longer be synonymous, if you’re a person and you’re here you will get the care you need.”
6
Warren has a plan for everything. Except for how to get any of her plans through the Republican Senate.
9
@GMooG Nobody has a plan for Mitch McConnell, except to help defeat him in KY. I plan to give his opponent a few bucks to that end. But if he wins, maybe Democrats could mention to him that he and his wife have some conflicts of interest worth investigating.
2
Frank, I think we keep watching different debates. I thought Warren's performance last night was terrible. Constantly dodging a simple yes-or-no question that Sanders had the courage to answer was an awful look, grasping at bits of stump speeches and semantic straws to not simply come out and say what we all know. Then, when discussing the complexity of yet another plan, pausing to say "Look, I understand it's hard," felt to me as if she were saying none of the rest of us are smart enough to grasp her ideas. Throw in her looks of shock when other candidates questioned her and the only conclusion I can come to is that she did very poorly.
Certainly she did nothing last night to convince me any of her plans can survive the passage from theory to reality, or make me think she would emerge the perceived winner in a debate with Trump. She's immeasurably smarter than he is, and her policy positions are certainly better than whatever his might be, but he'll play it as the confident jock versus the bespectacled nerd, rolling his eyes and smirking at the camera, interrupting her constantly. Given how fellow Democrats seemed to throw her off last night, I just don't see her coming through it.
9
@Aiya
Agreed.
Did you or anyone else notice her head tremors and voice quivers get worse as the debates go on?
Seems she might have Essential Tremors Syndrome.
The kind Katherine Hepburn had.
4
@Dobbys sock Wow! Another TV diagnosis. Perhaps Warren just felt under siege from people on her side of politics who "went after her". I don't have ETS, but I can tell you nerves start pinging when you are set upon from all quarters by people who are supposed to be on your side. Further, your "diagnosis" is quite contrary to Bruni's assessment of Warren: "And she stayed cool and confident under fire, sounding more grateful for the spotlight than fearful of the microscope. It was, for the most part, a fine performance."
"And yet she persisted..." I bought my daughters t-shirts with that slogan, and I'm delighted to see they are going to get a lot of use out of them.
1
There is no doubt in my mind that Elizabeth Warren should be the Democratic candidate. She should, however, explain how our current complex health care system will be converted into a government controlled system in 4 years. And she should rethink her wealth tax proposal which several economists have pointed out would be very difficult to administer & less effective than a progressive income tax like that of the post WWII years. She has to be seen to reconsider her proposals when they are challenged.
And having 12 candidates on stage when very few of them have any real chance of being the candidate dilutes the value of the program.
And finally how can a debate not touch on subject like climate change, nuclear weapon treaties, US-Iran relation, just to begin the important subjects not covered.
s
3
I was disappointed in Warren for not being able to answer a simple question - How to pay for her plan. Her plan does not seem to have a plan to pay for itself.
I can think of three simple ways to pay for Medicare 4 All and I'm disappointed it never occurred to her.
1) End the war in Afghanistan like Biden/Obama promised to do about 10 years ago. .
2) Legalize marijuana and take the taxes to pay for healthcare.
3) Mexico is going to pay for it.
4
I don't get the big deal about Warren. If a Republican gets into office down the road, can't they just dismantle everything she promises just like Trump did with Obamacare? Can someone so extreme left get any of this legislation passed? Just because she said it's what she wants doesn't mean we'll get even half of it.
4
The worst of Warren for me was my realization that she would have many of the same problems Hillary did in fending off Trump. Trump may be disgusting and undeserving but he knows feelings-politics and that feelings trump everything else. I think he woke up today licking his chops at the prospect of Warren. She badly needs coaching that will bring out her gut and tie it to her heart and give Trump the public dressing down that he deserves. I am for her but I want her to win.
115
@Stephen C. Rose I had that exact same thought; wishing she could get coached on relaxing and letting her heart shine through because she has my head and I want to give her my heart.
7
@Stephen C. Rose ? She just needs to answer yes/no questions.
3
@Stephen C. Rose Well, yes. For all of Hilary's smarts, she did not know how to fight. She was heavy, dull, and not quick-witted, except in a clumsy way.
Warren? Well, that's another story. She radiates humanity and is quick and smart. And funny, in a wise/smart way. And not afraid to fight.
14
The amount of Anti-Warren vitriol in the comments section of NYTimes and WAPO doesn't feel real to me... I think the rich and powerful have been threatened and the troll farms have been activated.
9
alas, not a leader. there is no there there. at least not on the world stage.
and she does have certain credibility issues in her "narrative." so does Biden.
no amount of outwork, out-organize, outlast makes up for it. no gravitas
no doubt a decent -- not great --law prof + happy to have her in the Senate -- that's where she best fits - domestic policy debates.
5
Once again, the article is not nearly as annoying as the headline. For the record, there is no "worst of Warren" in the article itself. It would be helpful if we could move away from clickbait headlines, especially ones that serve as headwinds against a female frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Friendly fire is not on, guys.
5
Isn’t it interesting how so many males here sound off with the same attitude toward Senator Warren as they did Secretary Clinton just a few years ago.
145
@Kimberly Muller I assume you're suggesting sexism is to blame, but I would contend that real sexism consists in saying the woman should be preferred despite obvious negatives, of which Warren has her share, many of which have been described in these comments.
12
@Kimberly Muller I was for Secretary Clinton in 2016 with enthusiasm and I think it's cheap to insinuate at this early stage that what's informing disapproval of Warren and her policies would be motivated by implicit sexism. Hillary Clinton was many things, but she lost the race for a multitude of reasons, some of her making and many not, that all come before any form of sexism. Clinton was also a center left candidate and Warren is not. I do not support Warren for that very reason. She is making the classic error. Going as far to the left as possible to capture the most liberal engaged voters and leaving herself zero room to maneuver back to the center coherently. Never mind that Warren has attempted to exploit identity politics for personal gain long before the broader public knew her name -- when she was still a Republican publishing books scolding the poor. It would be unfair to claim, in a country to elected Trump, that sexism does not still permeate our society. But it is similarly disingenuous to claim that having issues with Warren begins with sexism.
4
@Kimberly Muller
Isn't it just as interesting that so many commenters feel the need to dispute legitimate criticism of Warren with charges of sexism?
10
The title noting the "Best of Warren" and "the Worst of Warren" in referencing Dickens referencing the French Revolution, I am reminded of Voltaire's famous remark that the Perfect is the enemy of the Good. Warren's "gold standard" of Medicare for All combatting the devastating effects of medical costs on bankruptcy is perhaps more properly addressed in the details, not the overall structure, of healthcare reform. In the post-debate interviews, Buttigieg made reference to a number of ways the more limited proposal of adding the Public Option to the ACA could in fact work towards the same level of bankruptcy relief. I am sure all the candidates are aware that success or failure of these initiatives is the details, not the overall picture. The format of these debates unfortunately highlights the marketing more than the substance, the "sizzle" instead of the "steak."
4
If Warren wins the nomination I will enthusiastically support her, but I fear she is too far left for the American public in swing states.
Four more years of Trump will end what's left of our democracy.
4
Health costs fall into three categories:
tax — insurance paid to the government
premiums — insurance paid to private companies
health services — paid directly to doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, ...
Talk of increase in "taxes" is misleading and disingenuous.
"Medicare for all" moves all costs to the "tax" category, while reducing "premiums" to zero. And dramatically reducing costs for "health services" — reducing the total.
Then, the super rich pay more, reducing the burden on the poor and middle class.
7
Please stop saying that Warren was "too savvy" to give Trump a sound bite as the reason she refuses to answer a simple yes or no question on middle class taxes. Bernie Sanders has been truthful about the tax implications of single payer for a long long time, but he hasn't been pilloried in the press and his campaign is doing just fine. So why can't Warren do the same? Just own the truth. To pay for a $30 trillion dollar universal healthcare system taxes will go UP for most Americans - the middle class, upper middle class, wealth and uber-wealthy. Then explain, in detail, how overall costs will come down to offset those increases in taxes. It's not that hard. Yet Warren refuses to lean into the truth. It will come back to haunt her.
6
Really? He hasn't been pilloried in the press? He very much has been, look at everyone claiming he doesn't tell us where the money will come from to pay for his (insert adjective) plans. Warren has learned the necessity of the hedge.
2
I heard her say middle class taxes would not be raised. However, what she didn’t say was how to meet the cost. What she did say, and perhaps should have harped on, is that people with private insurance today incur additional costs (both expected and unexpected) that are oftentimes catastrophic to their economic wellbeing i.e. private health insurance doesn’t really work how it’s ideally meant to. Finally, another datapoint she could have highlighted is that the administrative costs associated with private insurance are significant and this is in large part why our per capital healthcare costs on a relative scale are as high as they are - these costs would dramatically reduce under Medicare for all.
@Scottilla
But he doesn't lie.
His authenticity and honesty remain intact.
To hedge, dissemble, be disingenuous, duplicitous, weasel, lawyerese whatever you want to call it...it looks, sounds and is a lie.
Even the simplest red rubes know certain pol's lie and don't tell the "whole" truth.
Guess Warren can wear that moniker proudly.
She's certainly trying it on often enough.
Guess who'll play in Peoria better, the honest pol, or the hedging one.
1
Good piece. But why is it so hard to give Klobuchar her due though? Toward the end or your piece, you praise Pete and kind of dismiss the rest, but Klobuchar just doesn't get a nod at all. Seems that the media has an easy time dismissing a white 'competent' woman like Klobuchar, in the same way the country ultimately dismissed a white woman named Hillary who was SO competent for the job. The misogyny should be called out.
4
“The latter group of candidates (Buttigieg and Klobuchar) traffic in measured remedies that are more obviously attainable...In their estimation — in mine, too — that’s probably the safer agenda with which to do battle against Trump, whose ouster eclipses all other goals. It’s also the best hope for national healing.”
Mr. Bruni, in one breath you’re doing battle against Trump to ouster him and in the next breath you’re going to seek national healing? National healing is going to require the NYT, CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, Breitbart, MSNBC, National Review, Vanity Fair (?!?), etc. to lay down their arms and call a cease fire. But it’s not going to happen. It’s a war being fought, not with guns, but with spoken words and keyboards. The media on all sides has the electorate all worked up. Do you really think things will settle down with Trump’s ouster? That’s plain silly. This war will rage on for a very, very long time.
8
Frank,
I am very aware of your preference in this election.
You surely have that right.
But, do not start using your weekly piece here to attack or undermine Sen warren. Just keep praising that mayor of small town in IN, which is less than a third of B'klyn.
3
The key differences between the moderates and progressives is the perception of how distorted, out of whack, biased the institutional system (rules of games) in the US has become, and the magnitude of the needed change. The moderates do not perceive the neo-liberal direction of the Democratic Party from the late days of Carter through the Obama years as a problem, hence only small, cosmetic corrections are needed. The progressives see a completely distorted system that is leading us down and requires urgent major correction. They understand that 40 years of distortions cannot be corrected over-night and that not all the details have been worked out, but at least we have the great picture, direction, clear goal to aim at as we move forward. And that - the hope of reaching that goal, is a powerful message. Pity that the moderates cannot sign up for the vision.
7
As an observer from across the Atlantic, picking a revolutionary rather than an evolutionary seems madness, especially a "socialist" revolutionary. First history tells us that revolutions rarely/never end well. Second, all the prior data show that the US is very very unlikely to elect a "socialist". Third President Trump is doing his best to turn every non-devotee against him. The combined non-devotee votes are a majority.
So the obvious thing is to select a sensible pragmatic evolutionary who will win. Not a "socialist" revolutionary who might/maybe/ possibly win. Defeating President Trump is the top priority. Not sexy but successful.
5
My personal suspicion is that Warren has realized how much a pledge to eliminate private health insurance could cost her (no other country with universal healthcare has felt the need to do so, and it would also require the American people to put a tremendous amount of trust into the federal government--trust that, frankly, isn't there). To say as much would risk sending progressives over to Bernie, however, and she can't afford that.
And for all the grief that Tulsi Gabbard gets for her alleged isolationism, I am beginning to wonder if Warren's own beliefs on foreign policy are similar to hers. After the withdrawal from Syria, Warren's response was strangely timid, and her answers on foreign policy prior to then were similarly vague. But as we're seeing with Gabbard, establishment Democrats do not take kindly to anything that could be construed as "Trumpian."
Warren is walking a tightrope right now between two different factions within her party. It will be interesting to see if she's able to maintain this balance.
1
In the jabs at Warren's vagueness about paying for medicare for all, you failed to mention Biden pointing out that there is a potential 'donut hole' in her plan, where middle class families making 75-100K will pay more in increased taxes than the decrease in their healthcare costs, so their costs may actually go up. At that point he was drowned out somewhat in some cross-talk, but nobody else picked up on that thread.
That said, medicare for all really is the only way forward. It's the plan we already have that deals effectively with spiraling costs which is what the real underlying problem is, by instituting common sense price controls.
Yes, most people's employer sponsored healthcare plans really are horrible (mine included), though most people don't realize that until they actually need them, but 'outlawing' private insurance is a court defeat waiting to happen as well as a political loser.
Go back to the ACA rules that mandate the better minimum coverages that insurers are required to provide, and offer a public option. As people finally figure out that the public option really does give them better coverage for a lower cost, private insurance will shrink to a niche market for the wealthy. Exactly how it is in most of the European countries that Sanders and Warren like to point to as examples of what we should be doing.
1
I’m sorry, but it’s NOT the only way forwards, and you’re also way wrong about European countries.
1
Are we Americans actually so naive where it is too much to tell us that even though our taxes will go up, in the long run we will be paying less with Medicare For All?
Elizabeth Warren, should be hammering away at the truth here.
If America thinks that Trump is better than paying less in the long run for health insurance, and is better than having a true "stable genius" in the Oval Office, then so be it.
We reap what we sow...
3
Debates are not “supposed” to be about winning and losing - though that’s what they’ve been since, at the latest, Kennedy/Nixon.
A dozen people cannot debate - it becomes Pile on the Frontrunner(s) and do the work of the opposing party a year before the ballots are cast.
MTV attention spans make debate prep get in your stump-speech in 5 minutes - your best shot at the highest-ranked candidate your supporters DON’T like and the “differentiation” - attack the leading candidate closest to you. Same destructive-to-truth problem caused by the House “5-minute rule”.
When Lincoln and Douglas could debate for HOURS and the electorate read every word published in 8-12-column broadsheet pages, each larger than two “standard broadsheet” pages today - no photos, just text - the public was informed, and a better candidate might be chosen.
But the Times, which has lots of room for art - like the pointless waste of everything above the fold of INSIDE sections - doesn’t have room to print the debate transcript any more, we’re back to the pure winners/losers/best zinger/worst gaffe coverage.
Remember - it was bad makeup and simple appearance that “cost” Nixon the 1960 debate. Surveys at the time showed radio listeners gave more points to the deep-voiced Californian, while TV viewers rated the sharped dressed good-looking guy above the jowly 5 o’clock shadowed guy with flaking pancake.
Content mattered not a whit to either group - it was who had the better radio voice vs who looked good.
How about a president who is honest, efficient, transparent, holds themselves accountable and is stable?
We don't think any candidate who represents the above qualities would catch the attention of voters in this current media environment.
How about a candidate who inspires?
The NYTs constantly harps on "fierce" as a positive quality. Name one person who wants a "fierce" personality as a friend, family member, co-worker. (Fierce works in staged cage fights and imaginary superhero flicks.)
You want fierce, y
Warren/Mayor Pete 2020... Easy Peasy
Mayor Pete is pretty center right. Even to the right of Clinton and Obama. Why would Warren pick him? Do you analyze candidates for content or just form?
3
@Blunt If Warren gets the nomination she is absolutely picking Pete. It's a done deal. She needs him.
1
Frank, Much of your column today makes sense.But I don't share your assessment of Buttigieg's performance. I thought his answers or rejoinders on Syria were straight out of the same old defenses of Viet Nam and other wars. I thought he was snarky and dismissive of O'Rourke. I am beginning to think he is a little too enthralled with his own wonderfulness, and that there is less there than meets the eye. If he were really up on things, he would know that there have been successful voluntary buy-backs of military style weapons. Australia is one example. He has some promise, but he needs a lot more experience (mayor of South Bend doesn't cut it for me), and he needs to show that he can win an election for something more significant than he has already.
2
Biden was steady. I grew weary of Warren's "I have a plan for that" on every question., policy or position. I would have liked to hear her say " I have a broad framework of a plan that consists of several ideas including a, b. and c. but we need to discuss the impact and I need to listen to your concerns about proceeding". For me, Joe has the best shot right now...it's all about practical experience. Not dreamy expensive ideas.
1
.They all griped about paying for Medicare. Since NOT ONE OF THEM mentioned that we pay the highest medical costs in the world for mediocre results, and they
also failed to say anything about reforming our medical system to come into line with the rest of the world, I'll assume that they are taking money from Big Pharma, the Medical Insurance Industry, and Doctors groups. Just as corrupt as their opposition.
1
Voting for Bernie Sanders. He had a phenomenal performance last night, and really excited that he got the AOC endorsement. Going with the original OG that can beat Trump is the best way forward. #Bernie2020 #WomenforBernie
2
Bruni shows ignorance of how our government works with his support for Warren's petty response to Biden:
'“I am deeply grateful,” she responded, “to President Obama.” It was a dexterous and devastating way of observing how readily Biden claims the accomplishments of an administration in which he played second fiddle.'
Bruni, this is how our government works:
The Vice President is the President of the Senate. Not only did Biden preside over the proceedings, but his extensive contacts and influence were instrumental in getting Warren's legislation passed.
Warren was the big loser last night.
Watch the new polls -
4
I believe the Warren folks who believe she has the smarts and so on are all well intentioned and maybe they're right but this party needs to get real. There is simply no way that this woman, should she even get the nomination, will win the election. She is too petulant and too whiny and most importantly too far left for the ordinary American voter. These are just facts.
Now if she were more moderate and more dignified and dressed for the position in a smart suit instead of the sloppy sweater over t-shirt look, if she carried herself with class and dignity like a Michelle Obama and the other woman candidates, I think people would take her more seriously. Its hard to take her seriously when she's dressed like she's on her way to the Y for Bingo everyday.
Every time I see her with the sweater and the loopy shirt I keep thinking at any moment she's going to pull out a roll of yarn and a couple of needles.
But the constant constipated look and jumping up and down routine gets old fast. Sorry, but she hasn't got a prayer.
Then you look at Joe Biden with the class and dignity and lifetime of genuine experience, the polished, professional look and demeanor. And he's a moderate and that alone will appeal to the vast majority of voters.
I am 100% convinced that he is the only candidate in this race that a broad spectrum of Americans voters and swing voters will take seriously and the only candidate in this race that can beat Trump.
3
Biden often stumbled over his words and looked really old. Sorry to say it.
3
I have a question for Mr. Bruni - If Warren were a male candidate, would you describe his (her) language as being "truculent"? Aggressively self-assertive is the quality of all successful male presidential candidates I have ever listened to. Are their languages all truculent or is just Senator Warren's truculent?
138
@Jean Kolodner
Bernie's certainly been described as truculent -- or its gendered equivalent, "gruff."
8
Jean Kolodner, the word truculent means eager to fight or aggressive (albeit with a negative connotation), and is used more for males (in my experience) than females.
Elizabeth Warren herself expressed several times her eagerness to fight and her aggressiveness. Using truculent to describe her may give that tendency a negative connotation, but there's certainly nothing sexist about it.
13
@Jean Kolodner That is being generous. She has trouble answering simple yes or no questions.
2
Elizabeth Warren in her worst is going to run rings around Donald Trump on his best days.
The reasons why - Elizabeth Warren has an idea. In fact she has tons of ideas.
Trump has...well, you know.
3
Poor Mr. Bruni insists on evaluating what's feasible and practical from the failed, downward-spiraling perspective of status quo mainstream thinking. Repeating unthinkingly the canard that taxes will go up with Medicare for all without a doubt, while forgetting to mention that payroll contributions for employer based health care will disappear, along with co-pays and bankruptcies. That we can't afford free tuition and child care etc., even though a wealth tax could easily pay for all of it, let alone a long overdue increase in income taxes for high earners and corporations. The reality is we're swimming in money yet Repubs and centrist Democrats keep repeating austerity mentality talking points intended to stifle real debate and consideration of alternatives. Giving credibility to ideas like purity tests, when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that incremental change - meaning more of the same - will only lead us to our doom slightly less quickly than the Trump/Repub death march we're slogging through. Bruni unwittingly joins in the undermining of Warren and Sanders because they are the only candidates who truly represent a threat to change the status quo in any significant way.
1
Enough with the free college tuition already. I and millions of other college graduates paid back their own student loans. Make tuition free and students will treat it like a free tee shirt or anything else that’s handed to you. If you want to fund “education”, I’d be all for government funding to train people in the skilled trades.
4
The main beneficiaries of Miss Warren‘s proposals are the ones least likely to vote for her. They will again vote for Donald Trump. Income redistribution is of little interest to people who have jobs — that is the lesson of the last 150 years of history. As long as unemployment remains low, the Elizabeth Warren’s of this world will never beat a Donald Trump.
1
Elizabeth Warren won't say how much her Medicare For All plan would cost because the cost is likely to be astronomical. In the real world two states (MA and VT) have tried a similar system and experienced serious financial stress or failure. Any national rollout for a single payer system in the US at this time would be foolish. We are not Canada.
Which leaves ObamaCare. People have to remember that ObamaCare never got a fair chance because the Republicans did everything they could to bring it down. The red states refused to set up statewide marketplaces and actually turned down federal money for Medicaid. The Republicans preferred to let people suffer and criticize ObamaCare rather than enact ObamaCare as it was supposed to be done.
In the next to last debate there was discussion about how to handle catastrophic medical costs that can wipe out a family's finances. Only one candidate linked catastrophic cost coverage with a public option in ObamaCare. He seemed to be the only candidate who had figured it out. That was Joe Biden.
2
Warren had the appearance of being evasive on MfA tax increases. This is not a good look for her. She needs to fix it ASAP.
5
Warren's smartest and safest move would be to go ahead and cut a deal with Biden to be his V.P. -- say, right after she wins Iowa and New Hampshire but before Super Tuesday? That way she could avoid the risk of losing as a woman and/or uber-progressive (and re-electing Trump) and would also be in a much stronger position in 2024 to run when Biden bows out after one term.
1
@Kent
Why on earth would she do that? She is rising, he is falling. He has nothing to offer her but more gaffes, out-of-touch remarks (like black people needing to play records for their kids), and a never-ending series of corruption scandals from the Senator from MBNA.
So a Warren/Buttigieg ticket for 2020?
Her fire, his calm and questioning, and an ideal way to set him up to take over as Prez in 2028.
Or 2024, if required.
81
A little white, no? And hard to see her radicalism and his centrism gelling. Warren/Booker for me (ideally Warren/Abrams but I realise that might be too ambitious...).
9
@Barry Langford
Well a Warren-Buttigieg ticket includes a gay person and a female, so that would be refreshing. Do we really need to check off additional boxes?
13
@James Eaton - I like that combination.
2
The American obsession with taxes is sick.
4
Bottom line, Mr. Bruni. This time you will have to vote for somebody with a plan.
1
@Marcoxa What’s her plan for reducing the debt?
Mr Bruni,
An excerpt from your newsletter of today.
"Amy Klobuchar hasn’t gotten much love in this presidential race. Her poll numbers are consistently miserable. Debate analysts don’t single out her performances.But by God were her final remarks last night terrific. She was asked, as were the other Democratic candidates onstage, to talk about a surprising friendship, and she didn’t just poignantly describe her relationship with John McCain, the Republican senator who died last year. She also reflected on the importance of respect and the vanishing civility in American life.
“What unites us is so much bigger than what divides us,” she said. “And we have to remember that our job is to not just change policy, but to change the tone in our politics, to look up from our phones, to look at each other, to start talking to each other.”
-----
Sometimes I wonder if you live in the same country as your readers. Mr. McCain played a large part in giving the far right & racists/misogynists/unethical evangelicals a platform in his choice of Sarah Palin as his 2008 VP choice. The country has never recovered from it, it has sunken even lower.
"There’s much worry, which I share, that we don’t have the right Democratic candidate,..."
I get it, you are a Clinton centrist, which doesn't mean much for a country in desperate need of structural reform. Your job as a pundit is to report on what the electorate is saying & not to be a cheer leader for the corporate centrists. How disappointing.
6
If the Dems wanted to the win the election, they would have found a better candidate among the millions of adults that live in the US. That being said, Tulsi is your best shot at beating Trump. I'm not sure why nobody else who reads this paper doesn't see it. She would make it very close.
4
@Mike B
Yes, our media are almost totally focused on the flash, the pizzazz that "taxes will go up" with single-payer, without finding any room or common sense in the next sentence that families' total expenditures--costs--will go down.
It is as if the primary function of media is to betray our real needs for sensible discourse.
I've witnessed this "taxes up"--with no mention of total costs down--reporting and editorializing at least a dozen times this year.
It is a great betrayal of our human common cause to turn around our ever increasing inequality, improve our discourse, and improve our lives.
4
It's not the candidates but the TV studio bachelorette contest that makes it hard to sit through.
CNN wanted drama. It's good TV. But voters need to choose a candidate to beat Donald Trump.
Anyone think this format is helpful to voters?
I was especially to read the one-paragraph of Buttigieg's performance, which represents a 180-degree turn from his Sunday column. This is what comes from considering what the candidate says and what his policies are, rather than peripheral non-issues like his age or experience in the political mud pit.
2
Warren wants private health insurance to go away eventually because it is a scam, a damaged product, and a public health disaster. It’s great if you’re healthy enough to have a job, and your employer pays your health insurance premium, instead of paying you more, and takes a tax deduction for your premium, until you get sick, can’t work, lose your job, and go broke, just because you got cancer.
How many people does this happen to in Canada?
ZERO, ZERO !!
Warren could explain better how to pay for it. Taxing the ones who can pay for it. Eliminating the private health insurance industry payments, which amount to over 30% of our healthcare spending, controlling or collectively negotiating drug prices, etc. Canada and many other countries have per capita healthcare costs 50% less, have better health outcomes, and cover everyone, and don’t limit you to certain providers as the insurance industry does in the US.
Amy Klobuchar, & Pet Buttigieg, both are for keeping our for-profit health insurance system, but of course both take campaign finance money from the healthcare industry which lobbies to keep our current dysfunctional, unaffordable healthcare financing system in place for enormous profits on the backs of Americans.
11
@Time - Space Why do Canadians come here to see specialists?
Up until two weeks ago I was an RN in Seattle for thirty years, and I didn’t run into a lot of Canadians coming across the border for specialized care. This is just silly, healthcare is good in Canada, as it is in the US if you can afford it.
2
@Jackson
Because we have CT scanners invented in Britain, Ultrasound technology invented in Japan, heart transplants first performed in South Africa, tissue typing invented in Belgium, blood transfusions discovered in Austria, Laproscopic surgery first performed in Germany, Radiation Therapy invented in Germany, X-rays discovered in Germany, insulin discovered in Canada, Titanium invented in Russia, etc. Canadians must like coming here to wait in line, because most Americans can’t get in to see there regular doctor often and are shuffled off to ER or urgent care.
Canadians cherish their healthcare system and would never give it up for our dysfunctional healthcare system. The U.S. is 43rd in the world in infant mortality, and many other lousy healthcare statistics compared to all other advanced countries in the world with national healthcare financial systems. U.S. ranks #1 in healthcare inequality in the world.
2
Hating wealth and rich people (translate: class warfare) isn't going to win any points with Warren or the American people.
2
@Tamar , it isn't about hating rich people. It's about bringing progressive taxation back, like we had in the 60s, and having corporations and the very wealthy pay a fair share relative to their wealth...which the country badly needs. So, if it makes Jeff Bezos over time worth a mere 50 billion as opposed to 150 billion, is that really hating rich people? BTW, a billion dollars is 20 million per week all year long.
2
Just come out and say it clearly, Frank: Warren is NOT electable, full stop. Sanders is one pastrami sandwich away from another heart attack and Buttigieg, the best candidate by far, is probably one election cycle away from being the nominee. Biden, damaged though he is, is the best shot of doing what MUST be done, and that' ridding the country of the stench of the Trump administration. Not a perfect candidate, but a good man and I can get behind him with a clean conscience.
9
There were good ideas sprinkled throughout by almost everyone. Kamela is right about the illegality of Trump using Twitter to threaten witnesses. Pete is right about an opt in for the Medicare transition. Warren is right about taxing the ultra-wealthy. Yang is right about - generally - trickle up rather than down. If the Dems can take all the good ideas and create a single platform that is also practical (medicare for all is completely impractical without the taxes (premiums) to pay for it, as is expecting machine gun owners to fork them over for cash), then they own the election.
1
People want to know from Sen. Warren how Medicare for ALL would be funded:
The best site to review several bills sponsored by Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, scores of other legislatures and over 20,000 American physicians and surgeons is to log onto:
PNHP.org (Physicians for National Healthcare Program)
7
To your point about health-care costs, "why not be explicit about the arithmetic and own it? ... Warren has campaigned as a truth teller but came across, in this instance, as a classically evasive Washington operator, scared to treat voters as grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner."
The simple reason is Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media. When someone says "your taxes will go up but the increase will be more than offset elsewhere," the right wing truncates the sentence after "up," knowing its audience will be none the wiser.
3
The Warren campaign rightly calculates that her saying "I will raise taxes" will be the debate's viral quoted line, the only headline in the morning, and a talking point thereafter for all her opponents. She wasn't being dishonest or evasive not to utter those words; she was playing the media universe as it must be played.
6
@Tom Feigelson
So instead, the morning headline is that she was unable to give a clear answer to the question: Will Medicare for All require tax increases? The answer is yes, and everyone knows that.
The real question is, will we pay less for healthcare than we do now? The answer to that question is also yes. Without premiums deducted from our paychecks, thousands of dollars in deductibles, and co-pays, we in the working class will pay a lot less. Simple arithmetic.
Senator Sanders has no problem presenting the facts of the case honestly, and without calculations of how the hostile MSM will distort his words, which they will do whatever he says. His unflinching honesty and trustworthiness is only one of the many reasons that I support him.
Bernie 2020
People need to understand something, and understand it good.
Warren's tax plan would lead to the destruction of tens of trillions of dollars of wealth. Trying to tax a billionaire based on the value of the shares of the company he started will result in a precipitous crash in the value of those shares. That will result in all of our 401k's and pensions being wiped out.
As people's wealth evaporates, so will their spending and investing. The result will be the loss of tens of millions of jobs.
The tax revenue she claims to need to pay for all those free handouts cannot possibly be obtained from only the people she wants to tax. Assets and income are not static. Tax it, and the base will shrink. Many billionaires are already in the process of giving away their wealth, removing from the clutches of tax. It takes many thousands of 401k-homeowner millionaires to make up for the loss of one Bill Gates.
Warren's plan is economic suicide. Are voters really that jealous of billionaires that they would destroy the value of their own moderate wealth to kick the legs out from under theirs? Do voters realize that they will all be worth less, get paid less, and a quarter of them will lose their jobs?
The Great Depression was caused by the government errors of the fed tightening the money supply and Congress passing Smoot-Hawley. Those were mistakes. Warren's coming disaster is intentional.
4
@Son of the American Revolution
It sounds like the old "moral hazard" argument for bailing out the banks circa 2009. Bill Gates got rich not by selling lots of software to one billionaire, but one software bundle to lots and lots and lots of people. It's a numbers game, this capitalism is. So is taxation to run a government.
1
Utter specious nonsense.
Taxing wealth doesn’t destroy it. Not in theory, not in practice, not in reality.
Your recitation of fiscal & monetary policy leading to the Great Depression is basically right, as far as it goes. Trouble is, it doesn’t support your premise.
1
I think the media collapse a much more nuanced difference between candidates like Buttigieg and Klobuchar with Warren and Sanders into a false dichotomy of progressive and centrist at our peril.
So called centrists have cogent and detailed plans on foreign policy and climate change that are smart and progressive; Warren hardly brought up either she is so hyper-focused on her domestic agenda. We need a candidate engaged both domestically and internationally, and Buttigieg and Klobuchar fit that bill. Klobuchar has proven she can beat Trump where his base is strongest, has a stellar Senate legislative record, and was fantastic against Kavanaugh. Her climate change plan is excellent and doable, and more workable than the Green New Deal.
Buttigieg is thoughtful and gracious in some of the same ways as Obama, would be game changing with foreign policy and restoring America's leadership in diplomacy, and has some workable ideas about getting meaningful, progressive policy on issues like gun control done. I'm sick of people deriding him as overly intellectual just because he is an educated critical thinker.
We can't just wave a wand and tell Americans that corporate capitalism has to go away, and put our resources in the hands of a gerry-mandered government ruled a vile Republican Senate and a partisan Supreme Court.
A younger progressive who leads with practical ideas and a proven track record is nothing to reject out of hand like so many are doing with Buttigieg and Klobuchar!
3
If Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Biden's best pitch is to make incremental changes to get us back to the Obama status quo, then bring on Warren! That status quo gave us explosive wealth inequality, merely cosmetic actions on global warming, inaction on mass shootings, a bailout for Wall Street but not Main Street, the highest pre-Trump level of migrant deportations, the theft of the Supreme Court position from Merrick Garland, and the alienation of "the deplorables" that gave us Trump. The country has moved far past the small bore incrementalism that the centrist candidates offer. It is folly to say that these tepid, moderate Republican Dems are our last, best hope for moving the country forward. Warren understands the magnitude of the challenges facing the country post-Trump, and offers substantive proposals for effecting change. She isn't just thinking of 2020, but has the breadth of vision to look forward to the systemic changes needed to keep the US in business. None of the other candidates show this broad perspective. The piling on her by other candidates about middle class taxes having to increase to pay for Medicare for All was just an attempt to deflate her attempt to focus on broad systemic issues, and generate scary one line campaign ads about "a vote for Warren is a vote for higher taxes. " She was right to resist being dragged into a yes/no answer on taxes; she knows that this must be part of a larger discussion of equity and taxation.
5
Any fair, reasonable person after watching the debate couldn’t help but agree that any one of them would be better than Trump. They’re smart, they’re serious about important issues and they have integrity. I agree with Bruni that the candidates should adopt at least on the campaign trail an incremental agenda. The objective is not to scare people with big change if only because they listen far more to what you say than watch what you do. And the candidates Warren and Bernie would do well to remember what happened to the Democratic Congress after passage of Obamacare. It ushered in Republican control that has been devastating to the country. Although I don’t favor Biden, I think he gets that.
1
It is a bit silly to consider explaining a complicated Medicare plan in detail during a 30 to 60 second time period. This inane "debate" format has more in common with "Speed Dating" than it does with a serious platform for comparing and contrasting often quite complicated subjects.
So, according to many comments, Warren "woulda-coulda-shoulda" done something else. If Elizabeth is to be considered competent to run this Country on a World Stage, how about
we let Warren decide how her campaign might best be run.
So far, she has taken over the lead in a very short period of time.
We all have 12 full months before we vote for *anybody.
We need not commence the hyperventilating *this far in advance.
5
@Nominae
A Presidential candidate offers programs which will attract votes. Medicare for All attracts skepticism and reluctance to accept that it will do as promised. This fact does not bother Warren nor Sanders but it does most of the other candidates.
4
So, Warren should abandon a policy platform based on her principles and intellect that has helped garner her the largest political gains in the primary? In order to do what? Sound more like a centrist? How is that a winning strategy?
1
@Casual Observer
I fully agree ..... but it is not possible to properly address such matters in the frame of 30 to 60 second Q & A. Perhaps those interested in a more
in depth understanding may want to access the websites at the various Candidates' URLs.
A serious answer is *going to take more than 30 to 60 seconds, or the "plan" cannot be worth anything at all.
Warren knows what she is doing. She is depriving her detractors of warped and inadequate "sound bytes" that cannot *fail to be distorted regarding the actual question.
Quote me the *entire lexicon of Shakespeare, Ms. Warren ..... you have 60 seconds ?
It's about time people started pressing on Warren to explain where all the money to pay for all her extensive programs will come from. Airy references to taxing the rich and corporations just don't cut it. I'm as far from a Tea Party type as one can be (well, almost as far), but whenever I hear a politician say, "I have a plan for that," I clutch my wallet in fear.
4
Class envy is all I hear from Warren. A far left progressive is not going to beat Trump. Klobuchar and Mayor Pete might have a chance vs Trump by appealing to moderate independents like myself. Boy, I hope so.
4
I've never felt more discouraged about Democratic prospects for defeating Trump next year. To me right now the only hope is that women and minorities vote in record numbers to pay Trump back for every boorish racist and misogynistic dog whistle. Hopefully that will be enough. I just don't see a big enough personality among the Democratic candidates.
58
@GK
Given the choice between economic disaster of Warren or Sanders and the insolent personality and economic success of Trump, anyone who cares about his own well being will vote for Trump.
6
@GK More personality than Trump? The man who changes his views depending on the phones he receives?
15
@GK
Let's not confuse "big personalities" with either the worth of this or that candidate OR his/her chance of being elected.
I hope I never see - up close or in far away DC - a personality as "large" as DJT possesses.
For my money, the egos on display last night - at least half of them - are way larger-than-average. I'd argue that 2 or 3 of them are large - even for a politician!
I'm with you about these being scary times, and they are a lot scarier when you consider that more white women voted for Trump in 2016 than did for Hillary!
The combination of "deplorables" and ignoramuses voting against their own self-interest ... and millions of people too lazy to go from, "Yeah, Hillary would probably be better" to taking the trouble to vote one day in Nov. 2016 is why we're where we are, and it's not at all clear to me that Nov. 2020 will be much different.
I'm old enough to have heard MANY times arguments about "Should we 'settle' for 'better than the Republican' who's running?"
I thought Hillary was a deplorable choice, but I *did* vote for her. I'm sure I'll be in the ABT - Anyone but Trump - camp next year, but it would be great if the NYT first "pick" was not one basically off topic.
Mr. Bruni's piece - not his first and the NYT being what it was and is, not likely his last - questioning whether EW is "too extreme" is altogether reasonable!
I'm now unsure of the answer, but why comment if you don't weigh in on that?!
5
I think Elizabeth Warren's policies are right. Medicare For All. Wealth tax. Etc.
However, I don't think she should be the candidate because I don't think her approach unites America. America is more divided than it ever has been and we need to elect a candidate who will bring Americans together.
I fear that even if Elizabeth Warren wins 51% of the electoral college votes, America will continue to be polarized. We need a moderate.
@Jeff You mean Bernie Sanders' policies.
1
When Mayor Pete speaks, he makes sense, without the political nonsense that some of the other candidates try to get away with.
I'm kinda weary of those who claim he's too young to be president. The Democrats seem to like the promise of generational change -- JFK (43), Jimmy Carter (52), Bill Clinton (46), Barack Obama (47).
So, let's go for it! A millennial in the White House!
It'll be 2054 before Mayor Pete is Donald Trump's age ... there's too much to address to wait ... climate change, education, jobs, healthcare, generational equity.
Young people ARE the future...so let's give hi a chance.
How could a young President Pete be worse than Donald Trump?
9
CNN on my TV and my computer blacked out after one hour. Was it a violent thunderstorm somewhere caused by Climate Change? I'm guessing that it was, though political saboteurs like to speculate.
We should be thrilled with the depth of Warren's knowledge of what is wrong and what CAN be fixed.
I wonder about the American electorate. Education in Civics classes in school have been abandoned. Since Ronald Reagan we have been fed propaganda about "government is the problem" and freedom to be me, me as the perfect goals.
Look where we are now? a country literally being destroyed by religious fanatics, unqualified people in positions of great power, those who don't care about inequality, immorality, greed, the rule of law,international obligations. Government can be a real problem with unqualified leaders. But it doesn't have to be, voters.
One candidate wins, hands down, on the basis of brains, experience, integrity, articulateness, warm personality observed when she talks at Town Halls.
What's wrong with us? To refuse to see that a Democratic government exists to see that all its people enjoy freedom from fear, want, religion, on and on? Don't tell me that we're to weak to support bold change led by the most intelligent candidates. Elizabeth Warren can publish her facts about what and how we can return to normalcy and fairness - no time in a debate.
Wake up! Be grateful for an Elizabeth Warren.
1
I spent five of my formative childhood years in very rural Oklahoma. Warren is from Oklahoma and I can't understand why she thinks that her state of birth, and most of the rest of America, would conceivably sign-on to her close to radical proposals.
Doesn't she know that four times in the last 80 years Democrats have proposed some form of national health care/insurance (FDR/Truman/Clinton/Obama) and each time they lost the majority in the House of Representatives in the next election? That's pretty clear evidence that health care is a non-winner.
Then there is free college for all. This is one of the worst ideas proposed by Democrats in roughly the last 900 years. Access to college, reducing the costs of college and helping to ensure that everyone who attends any college gets a first rate education, these should be the goals. "Free college" would, in effect, put the federal govt. in charge of every state institution without equal responsibility for outcomes.
Forgiving student loans? I have to say this: millions would take this as un-American, I know they didn't protest too much when the banks and car companies were bailed out, but forgiving loans freely taken out by individuals is, yes, "different".
5
Warren is a person of considerable accomplishment with a strong personal story behind her and a worthy contender for the presidency. She would likely make an effective president but her proposals would have to fade away.
I grew up in Southern California in the sixties, the University of California, and state colleges were close to free. That was not such a bad time, sir.
5
@Hunt Searls
You make my point for me.
Lower tuition, not free tuition for all, should be the goal. The first thing we need to do is find out why tuition has gone up so much faster than the cost of living. Then we need to see if that trend could somehow be reversed or at least stopped. I could consider support for 50% or even more of tuition costs but it would have to be a formula with a baseline. For example, the cost of tuition at any given school in 2010 could be the baseline, then increases could not be more than a certain percentage over the baseline. (If you just say 50%, the colleges would raise tuition so that they have much more revenue with the increases paid for by the govt.)
There many more objections to free tuition, not the least of which is that it would make "elite" education all that more exclusive. On the positive side, it would convinced some bright, productive students that they did not need to go to an elite school since they could go to a state school at low cost.
1
With each op-ed favoring Biden or Buttigieg and expressing desire for "incremental" and "obviously" achievable change (regardless of whether or not it would be trival rather than meaningful), it becomes more and more evident BRUNI IDEOLOGICALLY IS A CONSERVATIVE.
Bruni is one of the pundits who continue to incorrectly insist Elizabeth Warren is a "progressive" similar to Bernie Sanders. Why?
It seems he continues to subtly express his anti-Warren sentiments because, like so many other white males in the U.S., Bruni fears assertive articulate fair-minded women. His closing tip-of-the-hat to Sanders magnifies Bruni's biases for all to see.
2
Not sure why taxes for healthcare is such a proble. The GOP figured out how to do it.
1
PEOPLE: we are the richest country in the world! We can afford it. "It" being all the progressive things Liz and Bernie want to do: universal healthcare, childcare, "free" college, climate change action, affordable housing, infrastructure rebuilding. Only the rich people tell us we can't afford it. Understandably,they want to keep all the money. Biden just wants business as usual, you know, like his kid becoming a millionaire because he has access to the levers of power (Dad). Biden is an improvement over Trump but he is not going to solve the nation's problems.
4
If Warren ends up as the nominee, her message and plan for health care will lose the election -- by itself. You cannot send a message that people will lose their individual health insurance, but be taken care of by the "government," meaning Medicare for all. I agree with her and Bernie concerning the unconscionably bad health care system we have, and that it should be a priority to fix, but to forward such a plan is ignorant of American history and its guiding individualistic mythos, however based that may be in fantasy and not reality. The insurance industry is also a large and legtimate part of the economy, and cannot just be cast aside because it is greedy. Reform and strengthen the ACA, add the public option, extend Medicaid, and put some teeth into regulations on how insurance companies operate.
10
One thing is clear from the debate: If the Republicans want to keep their low capital gains taxes, then they'd better find a Republican candidate other than Trump, because when the Democrats "beat Trump like a drum" they will impose the big capital gains tax. And they won't undo the damage Trump has already done by eliminating the State and Local Tax deductions.
1
In my experience, tax rates can remain progressive in countries that have 'Medicare for All' type national health coverage.
Having experienced both the terror of being uninsurable in the US pre Obamacare with a $30k broken ankle, and living now in NZ where a broken leg, broken thumb and hip replacement and physical therapy have all cost nothing - yet tax rates here are 0% for those under $14k, then 10% for up to ~$50K, then ~17% for middle income range, and 30% percent for those making over $70k a year.
3
@Susan Kraemer Have you compared the population of NZ and the USA? (not to mention the millions of illegals streaming in )
1
Regarding all the complaints that Warren does not detail how to pay for expanded health care, there is an obvious answer.
The United States military establishment is a huge overblown waste of money. Half the federal budget goes to pay for past, present and future wars. Most of the other industrialized nations manage to keep their militaries supplied on 10% of their national budgets. That explains how other nations are able to provide their people with universal health care, affordable education and care for the young, old and vulnerable.
We simply need to cut the military budget and focus on taking care of the people.
3
Elizabeth Warren's appeal is to hard-left New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Hollywood White, elitist, technocratic liberals. Blacks and other 'persons of color' are largely centrist Biden supporters. The sudden media-fueled ascendency of Ms. Warren tells them that their concerns are not central to this election, that they should get to the back of the bus, this election is not about them. On election day Democrats should not be surprised if they show what they think of that by staying home.
2
Warren couldn't handle a soft-ball question from Anderson Cooper on taxes.
How will she be able to ever fend off Trump?
4
The Democrats have no likely great candidates. The ones with the exciting reforms have not bothered to sell those reforms and don't even see their limitations as political promises. At this point, only Trump's egregious incompetence gives them any whisper of hope for success against him. That may not be sufficient.
Impressive in many ways. BUT she is the embodiment of making the perfect be the enemy of the good/practical. She will lose trying to take away the insurance of 100mm plus Americans. Her "I know best"is insulting and extreme. Democrats should beware.
5
The debate last night very clearly showed the fault lines in the Democratic Party. Choose Warren and Sanders and you will effectively divide the Democratic party and alienate independents. There is no way the moderate and conservative majority would vote for Ms. Warren. Most of us in the moderate Anti-Trump alliance just want the current president gone. We do NOT want to sign up for socialism.
4
And Trump wins another Democratic debate. So sad...
33
@Haig Pointer What an interesting yet meaningless remark. Trump couldn't win his way out of a wet paper bag but for several million people who are blind or uncaring about character.
21
@Haig Pointer, right because Trump does not debate with content and logic; he debates with sound bites that are either dog whistles for his bloc or bloated brags about himself, which seems to be what a good portion of Americans prefer.
13
@Fred Agree about it being meaningless, but not the least bit interesting.
3
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Ms. Warren, shift away from Medicare for all, which would force millions upon millions of Americans to give up health insurance that they like. Insisting on it, despite what the polls say, could cost us the election.
3
I'm extremely nervous about Warren as the nominee. She comes across as very supercilious and self-righteous. It is not enough to keep saying that Democrats need to have big dreams and fight for them. The U.S. system of Government is not designed for radical change and this is intentional. Nobody can get exactly what they want and the system is such that people are "optimally unhappy." She never offers even a hint about how she can get her plans passed through Congress beyond advocating abolishing the filibuster in the Senate. This is fine when Democrats have the majority, but what happens when the Republicans get the majority and reverse everything that Democrats pass? We've learned the catastrophic consequences of abolishing the judicial filibuster. Progressives are playing with fire by pushing for Warren and Sanders. The only thing that matters is winning in PA, WI and MI. Every head-to-head poll vis-a-vis Trump that I've seen shows only Biden beating Trump comfortably in these states. The margins are much lower for Warren and Sanders. If Warren loses to Trump, progressives can kiss goodbye to all that they want for an entire generation.
4
@Ajay Aiyer Biden can't even remember Obama's name at this point. Did you watch the debate? It's embarrassing. He is not all there. If he ever was all there. His ship has sailed.
1
I'm a fan of Warren and if she wins I won't only vote for her but will also volunteer for her. That said, I thought her snark directed at Biden was not impressive, in fact her low point from my perspective. I looked back at the text of the debate:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/15/october-democratic-debate-transcript/. They had been debating health care and Warren was essentially dismissing the ACA in favor of Medicare for All. In arguing against Biden's 'improve ACA' position, she said bold ideas can be passed and cited the CFPB. Biden was defending himself and pointing out he helped get votes for that bill. (He never claimed that he passed the bill, just that he helped, i.e. was on her side.) She proceeded to thank Obama. That is snide and unproductive in my opinion.
4
@Jim Mc I thought that was cringeworthy. Why not simply thank Biden for his help? It wouldn't just engender good will it's the right thing to do. She was also ignoring him as a human being right next to her. I've noticed that she's practiced at ignoring what she doesn't want to be there and even has a particular expression when she's doing it. Teachers and mothers have perfected this training technique.
1
The Democrats have been captured and are being held hostage by their own extreme left. They could easily win in 2020 by just moving a bit to the center, but their extreme left is so vocal, insistent and motivated that they just can't do it. Why? They know they're too far left for most Americans, that their appeal does not extend beyond their committed core supporters; that Biden, their up-till-now leading candidate appealed to the center, that most Blacks, their largest and most important single constituency, are mainly centrists (and Biden supporters)--but look at the liberal media commentariat now falling all over themselves, stampeding to get onto the Warren bandwagon even though it's well known that she's an aggressively center-alienating, card-carrying, extreme left-statist-technocrat. Why don't Democrats want to win?
5
Frank, you understand why Warren will not say "middle class taxes will go up"? Because it will become a campaign ad for the Republicans. And saying why also will be used as an ad against her. She is no dope.
4
News flash: The world invented the wheel and its efficient and cost effective. Senators Warren and Sanders have recommended that the US join the world and adopt the wheel as it has been proven to be efficient and less expensive. The moderators, commentators, Republicans and 'moderate' Democrats have attacked Warren and Sanders claiming that the wheel is a radical proposal and it would never work plus cost too much even though countries who adopted the wheel have costs 50% less than our non wheel system. Still, many experts claim that Warren and Sanders are both leftist radicals for proposing that we adopt the wheel as a mode of transportation. Buttigieg and Klobuchar both attacked Warren by stating that Warren needs to get real. The wheel just won't work here in America. "It's just not practical. We can add another seat on our horses and build on that." Sanders and Warren each continue to stick by their proposal. "The wheel has been invented. It's been proven to work and we believe it can work here."
6
The other candidates who said she was punitive towards billionaires and that her healthcare plan was unrealistic sure did sound like Republicans to me. They are the "GOP Light" that people often complain about the Democratic Party having become. I sincerely hope none of them win the primary.
2
She is sincere. She is smart.
But she is a walking ad for the Republicans if she can't articulate how to pay for her plan of Medicare for everyone.
6
The more I listen to these debates, the more I move Saunders, Warren, Harris, and Biden to the rear of my personal faves. I am tired of seeing them always placed front and center. Of the remaining, I believe that Booker, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar have the guts and moral wherewithal to stand up to Trump and turn his thwarts back onto himself. I feel these three have the moral gravitas to go the distance. Booker stands by and practices what he preaches, as do Klobuchar and Buttigieg. Buttigieg in particular has the gravitas of having served in a the armed forces (and consequently a war) in a time when it was a choice, not a requirement of citizenry. How can Trump compete with that?
1
Warren's ideas are not so far-fetched and unattainable. It would just take the House, the Senate and the Executive in Democratic power during her 1st term. I think it is a mistake for candidates to label her as extreme. One could argue Klobuchar's baby steps approach is extreme in in conservative approach. And a conservative approach can be risky and dangerous. America has never succeeded with hedging on ideas. The way forward is to reach for the stars, not reach for a safe cloud passing at the right time. The cloud never comes, the time never comes and we wallow in mediocrity, and 2nd rate policy.
4
@PE You mean Bernie Sanders' ideas.
I'm surprised that Amy Klobuchar hasn't been given more consideration by voters and pundits. She seems to me to be the Angela Merkel that America needs - tough, quiet, amusing, pragmatic. There needs to be a period - a long, two-term period - where America's political extremes are quietened and when things can get done, like infrastructure spending, foreign policy de-Russianized and put back on an "American Values" track, and so on. She would do that.
7
Just because something is framed as a yes-or-no question doesn’t mean a simplistic answer is appropriate. The question was framed that way specifically to generate a sound bite rather than an intelligent discussion. Good for Warren for not playing that game, and shame on reporters and pundits (and Mayor Pete) for pretending it’s anything more.
7
Warren is highly intelligent, highly principled, a hard thinking advocate for fair dealing and generosity for those who need assistance. She also gets lost in the details and overlooks the overall context because of it. She is by nature an advocate. She is averse to seeing both sides of issues and to compromising to achieve less than what she feels is best. It makes her less than able to be an effective President. A leader is not someone who achieves what the leader wants but what those who are being led want. The President has an obligation to serve both supporters and opponents of what the President would like to see accomplished.
3
I am not so sure, the President tends to push through the agenda of their parties. It is just impossible to satisfy all, considering how diverge interests are. The President who pleases everybody is utopia.
1
None of the Democrats talk about the huge federal deficit which continues to increase under the so-called party of fiscal responsibility. These so called progressive plans being put forth will increase the deficit, as any attempt to raise taxes for anyone will be defeated. The healthcare for all plans are what the Republicans and Trump will be using as talking points. Democrats putting their head in the sand over the deficit, continues the Republican road to financial ruin that we are on now.
1
@Pat , well, let's start by clawing back that last two trillion gift to the rich in the pub's tax cuts. That will be a nice start. Let's consider what medical care is costing now as it bankrupts us, and put that up for the public option or MCA. Then we might consider whether the Walton kids really should have a quarter of a trillion dollars just for them. It's time the national wealth was not given to the top one percent, and that's no lie. It's killing us. Really.
7
@Pat
The Republicans always suffered from the delusion that economic expansion can be infinite even though they did not want their portion to be diminished so that others would not want. The Democrats suffered from the same delusion about economic expansion which could fund eliminating want.
This group of Democrats just offers hugely expensive program and program to address big needs while ignoring from where the means will come. We need universal and affordable health care, to stop global warming due to man made carbon gases, to assure good incomes as the means of producing wealth includes fewer people than there are, and to control serious public safety issues from drug addiction to gun violence. The candidates offer solutions for which costs are unlimited. Solutions which are practically beyond achieving.
1
"She kept saying that 'costs will go down' for middle-class families, the translation of which is that taxes might well go up but that those families would be economically ahead of the game in the end. If that’s the case, why not be explicit about the arithmetic and own it?"
Surely Mr. Bruni already knows the obvious answer to this question. If Warren says "Your taxes will go up but you will be ahead because you won't have medical insurance and costs to pay for", then ads clipped to just "Your taxes will go up" will play on an endless loop in Republican ads. It's been obvious to me since the then little-known Jimmy Carter refused to state a clear position on abortion (and went on to win the Democratic nomination and then the presidency) that the winner in a U.S. election was the candidate who knew how to say as little as possible about any position that might attract opposition.
3
The biggest winners of this and each prior debate are those not yet officially running. After reviewing the candidates and their proposed policys, It is my sincere hope that someone of the ilk of Michael Bloomberg enters the race immediately. Bloomberg and Michelle Obama (VP) would be a very strong ticket.
4
@NYer I would vote right away.
I really don't understand why Senators Sanders and Warren (2 front runners) quote so many high-level stats and in a way that makes only a college-educated person understand. Is it really that important to say "76 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured", or "if you take 2 cents for every 50 million dollars and then for every next million"? Who the heck really appreciates such professorial dispensation of knowledge? Don't they know most of audience would simply hear that and go "wow, he/she is smart" or *just as likely* "wow, he/she is not like me"?
Seriously, what's ultimately the point of using fractions, equations/formulas and saying things like "the data shows (or) doesn't show" or repeatedly saying "I've a plan/policy". Didn't 10 years of Obama (2006-2016) and nearly 3 decades of Bill Clinton not teach them the importance of using simple yet powerful terms and phrases that are endearing to the wide listening electorate (and unlikely to make one sound aloof)??
My hats off to Pete and Tulsi (and to some extent Klobuchar and Steyer) for keeping it simple and trying to make a critically important visceral connection with the audience. Plenty of people vote primarily with their brain but plenty don't--the so-called "vote by gut" folks. Risk of losing the latter is much much higher I think.
1
@American , there are people like you, and then there are people who insist on hearing that "educated" detail. You can't please them all, as the quantity and variety of complaints in these comments shows. All the pouting and temperature-taking-- I guess many think we're consumers to be pleased and placated, and not citizens with responsibilities of our own.
4
“If all Democrats can promise is that after Donald Trump it will be business as usual, then we will lose.” Warren. 10/15/19. Mark it.
I think she’s right on the money for two reasons.
1- Her responsibility as a presidential candidate is to inspire. And she knows you can’t do this though limited thinking and appealing to the center. Uh, why do you think Bernie caught on fire in 2016? Progressivism and dreaming big creates energy and that’s what we need in 2020 to pull out a win.
2- She knows how difficult it will be execute her plans and therefore is shooting big. Because then there’s room to mediate some of these ideas in Congress. But if you aim for medial legislation there is no middle room to give. We don’t have time for that. The middle class is hurting from rising healthcare costs, student loan debt and another recession on the horizon.
This political moment requires a boldness. Not just in ideology, but in harnessing emotion. Liz and Bernie really feel this I think, and that’s why her saying this was so important last night.
3
Warren best rethink her whole "medicare for all" strategy. Her rigidity on this subject is scary, her lack of candor on how to pay for it is disturbing, and her unwillingness to face what can be done in congress is delusional. Buttigieg's points would be worth her attention, as would Biden's experience passing the ACA.
5
Flexibility of Obama and Biden gave us ACA, that majority didn't like, and that failed to bring cost of healthcare and make the healthcare affordable. Why should anybody repeat same mistake?
2
Why can't anyone say it? "I will raise your taxes AND SAVE YOU MONEY! I mean, golly gee, we have examples all over the world of systems that work better.
Now, if you want the American Dream, you should move to Finland - one of those "socialist" countries.
The truth is the American swamp is built on lies - the lies of Reagan's Tax-Cut Revolution and the voodoo economics that has trashed the middle class. The lies of antigovernmentalism, foreign enemies (no the greatest enemies are homegrown), and lies mold our national religion into fascist republicanism.
America is the most war-mongering, most jail-stuffing, most unequal of advanced nations. How liberal is that?
7
@Tracy Rupp Because they can’t prove that anyone will be saved money. Remember how Obamacare was supposed to lower health care costs?
3
@Jackson , you don't know what those costs would have been without the ACA. And millions have had coverage who would have gone without. I think it was a very good deal. We need better, though. The status quo was hellish, and returning to it will kill many. So rethink the easy "answers." We can't go back to the bad old days and call it better. We won't.
2
They, of course, could point out to the country that have such system and compare the cost.
1
While I won't try and argue with the commenters here, I will invite you to click on this link:
https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-canadas-medical-wait-times-are-unacceptable
If Senator Warren wants to tell me that, overall, costs will go down, I'll point to the last time a democrat president told me my healthcare would go down. (see Obamacare promises).
4
Are Canadians about to switch their system to America-like? How high healthcare is rank in the list of concerns of Canadian voters?
1
Frank,
You should know better. Increasing your taxes and decreasing your costs more than the increase in your taxes is a win for you. Assuming you are middle class. If you are not still or applies to someone that is.
Tax increase = t
Cost decrease = c
If c > t what would you say? Are you or that middle class person better of than before. You didn’t study physics at Harvard or in UNC but still you can understand the simple story here. Why don’t you just translate it for your readers? Is it because you really want Buttigieg or Klobuchar win now that it is becoming obvious even to centrists like you that Biden is a goner?
The nonsense is that even though Warren kept saying exactly the above she sounded like she was dodging the question of middle class tax increase.
Bernie is smarter and has been around much longer. He just said it like I did above.
3
What does it matter who 'won' a debate (which really isn't)? It's Oct., '19. We've got a year to go. Remember Dr. Howard Dean? Probably not. But 15 years ago he was all that and a bag of chips. Hot! Then, not. And not much since then. It's Oct. of '19. And this is a ridiculous way to pick a nominee. Ludicrous. There must be a better way.
3
Yeah, well, republicans were known to attack the inception of Medicare as socialism and send their propaganda that it would destroy our country. Reagan actually came out later and said he was wrong. Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan’s hero, berated Medicare every chance she got but then used a fake name to receive it along with social security. She discovered when she became ill, it was a life saver.
Medicare for all would be a life saver for Americans just like Ayn Rand discovered. Think of how inexpensive our drugs would be if we had the power of the entire population to negotiate our drug prices. Americans wouldn’t die because they couldn’t afford their diabetic insulin or heart medications anymore with Medicare for all. And all it takes to go bankrupt in America is with a medical emergency like being diagnosed with cancer ... millions of Americans have experienced this ... too many.
If we don’t pay any premiums or co-pays which are increasing astronomically ( which keeps people from getting preventive and necessary treatment ) because of costly ,out pocket co-pays then we can afford Medicare for all. How many times are Americans in debt to the tune of thousands because your doctor or hospital is out of network ... with Medicare for all everything is in network! Remember, the more the insurance companies deny the more they make, they get rich off of your cancer and financial stress.
Medicare for all ... we already do it for seniors !
1
@Patty No, Federal retirees are not on Medicare. If it’s so great, why is that?
@Patty. The spouse just enrolled for Medicare. Between the basic program and the supplement it may cost more than our existing insurance. (Still have work related coverage). Medicare is not free! Also remember that Medicare isn’t particularly stable, fiscally speaking so adding a bunch of new participants will be tough and I suspect that reimbursement will drop. Think more like Medicaid for all. Providers can’t make it on Medicare reimbursements so then what
1
Medicare is more stable than private insurances. The private companies just mask their instability by constant increase of premiums, decreasing coverage, and increasing deductibles.
2
Warren is an opportunist and a myopic policy wonk, who does not hold a candle to the real genius who created the idea od Medicare for All, Bernie Sanders. Opportunist Warren decided to step in after she saw Bernie nearly win the nomination in 2016. By the way she was not wearing her new progressive credentials that election, she backed Hillary against Bernie. There is one word for her. Opportunist. Also an opportunist to claim to be an American Native at Harvard.
5
@fragilewing 100% THANK YOU for speaking the truth.
Right back at you Frank. I haven't been name checked this often since Warren Beatty was dating Madonna and I'm definitely looking forward to my President Warren coffee cup...
2
So let's boil it down: Warren (front-runner in the race for Big Media eyeballs) is unable to actually tell voters how her "plans" will be accomplished. Too much bamboozle. Biden is the walking dead; he'll be done after Iowa (he's written it off already); New Hampshire will put the stake through his heart. That leaves Bernie--too old, too many stents. And then the rest--they'll chop up a narrow extremist base, just as did the Republican wnna-be's in 2016. And who will come charging through the gap?
Hillary! She's already running a demure little "front-porch" campaign. Her last shot is to pray for a divided convention that releases delegates after the first ballot. Then the long knives will come out--think any of the "leading" candidates will be able to cut a deal? Nah; the true believers will fight like crabs in a basket. It'll be time for the old pros to settle things down; they'll have the perfect fusion candidate (who, after all, really "won" the last election)--and she's, well..a she. Perfecto!
1
Is there one Fortune 500 CEO who supports Elizabeth Warren?
It's a question.
Just give me a name.
2
@P&L Do you suppose that Fortune 500 CEOs might be in the minority in our land? I think they are. And we are pretty tired of being under their thumbs already. The wealth class is devouring us. So why would they support our champion? It makes no sense. They are greed on the hoof, and it's time for them to step back for a change.
4
@P&L I don't really care what corporations want, WE THE PEOPLE matter. That's pretty much the whole point of this election.
1
Only Joe Biden can beat Trump. Trump knows very well that is the reason he started the Ukraine investigations.
1
@Zabala Zoron Please get your “facts” straight. The investigation was started by the Ukraine before the phone call.
@Zabala Zoron I love Joe Biden but he can hardly string a single sentence together and frankly seems senile.
She’s got my vote.
3
In the how-we'll-pay-for-everyone's-healthcare discussion, why isn't anyone mentioning the existing money that suddenly would be "freed up" by switching to a single-payer system: Employers' contributions to employer-sponsored insurance plans? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs2.t04.htm), employers currently pony up about two-thirds of premium costs overall (and slightly more for government workers). For fully ONE-HALF of all Americans (i.e., those now covered by employer plans; https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/resources/small-business/how-many-americans-get-health-insurance-from-their-employer).
That's a HUGE chunk of change, and it's money that would suddenly become "redundant" under government-run single-payer (e.g., Medicare For All). So what happens to that money? Are the candidates' "plans" to simply leave it as a windfall to corporate America, compliments of Uncle Sam? And hope that nobody notices? If not, why isn't anybody talking about this? Follow the money, people!
1
Another Faux Debate. This is nothing more than a hyped up photo op! To put forth opinions about simple, fiat-like solutions about extremely complex problems is to make the election dumbed-down to meaningless utterances. These "debates" have nothing to do whatsoever in deciding who will be the best leader/president. He/she cannot (unless I guess your initials are DJT) just dictate a "plan" without knowing it has to be openly and rigorously debated , passed by two houses of Congress, and pass Constitutional muster. And by the way, an effective leader has to have trustworthy advisors on a myriad of issues and must at least thoughtfully listen to them. This format only addresses who had the best quips, and in no way is a legitimate debate. I would hope that (probably a waste of brain cells) that the media stops pandering to the theatre this really is; it does sell tickets though. God help the foolish voters we have become.
2
So, why does she have to start every statement with "So" ?
4
@RossPhx A very clipped "so." She has a couple of other words, too. "Look" is one and I'm blanking on the other one but I think it's "Here it is" or something. All meant to draw our wandering attention.
I marvel that so many embrace her schoolteacher vibe and think that the rest of the country will.
1
We know, Frank. You want Harris. You really, really like her. And you don't like Warren. We know. You might go on to something new, because we are sure entirely that you will not say anything on this topic that is not that everyone is bad and unacceptable. Except Harris. I don't know why; she is not at all the most honest, skilled, or intelligent candidate. I'm not asking why, anyway. Just saying enough is enough, eh?
2
I'm not surprised Warren's eyes show stress. So does everyone else's eyes.
2
“She kept saying..."costs will go down".... If that’s the case, why not be explicit about the arithmetic and own it?"
Because its feeding into a Republican talking point, and you, writer, are helping them. Because the Right is panting for a soundbite of Warren saying " Yes, middle class taxes will rise, but..." and then cut everything after the comma and blast that on non-stop repeat across the country over every medium of communication known to man. There will be Carrier Pigeons taught to mimic her voice squawking "Middle Class Taxes Will Rise, chirp, cheep" in Times Square. Warren is wise to deny them this soundbite, and you, writer, are doing her injustice by not pointing out her obvious and well-justified reasons for doing so.
3
"Let me be perfectly clear, the way I see it" is Warrens go to line. Warren must have struggled with math. Just by taking 2% after dollars exceeding 50 million from the richest of people in this country does not add up. You could completely freeze 100% of the assets from the top 1% and it still would not be enough money to pay for a fraction of the garbage she is promising. I hope people here can see and understand that she (along with most politicians) will say anything they want to get elected knowing the House and/or the Senate wont pass this stuff and then the falsified promise is void. Don't fall for it, all you're going to do is cause a 4 year stalemate in congress if you cast a vote for this nonsense.
4
We're in danger of losing democracy. Many people don't give it great regard.
It's the only thing that gave us freedom, and it's not efficienct accordint to Xi and Putin.
We in danger of losing freedom.
It's not the most efficient system. But it's the most fair and the most forgiving.
It's the system most aligned with the lessons of Jesus.
Xi and Putin only understand power and they kill people.
Imagine if Warren did say that taxes will go up, this entire article would be, "look at the horrible Warren revealing her true intent to raise everyone's taxes." Frank, we know what she's saying, the only people she's "lying" to are reporters who want a quote to then use as a sword in articles and campaign ads against her.
2
Warren's argument that savings from a medicare for all policy will pay for the program without a middle class tax hike is the same kind of argument that Republicans make when they say that lower taxes will pay for themselves. In both cases, a dodge.
3
It seems to me that in any largescale governmental project wherein private expenditures are being zeroed out and replaced with public expenditures, asking whether taxes will go up is the wrong question. The right question, and the one Warren kept answering, is whether net costs would go up to the consumer.
For example, in many past programs that reduced taxes, consumer costs were sometimes increased in terms of licenses, fees, and out of pocket expenses; or, the equivalent: the quality or quantity of what was obtained by the consumer decreased and cost stayed the same.
The ACA delivered what was in many was a considerably higher product than that of most private insurance plans: kids covered to age 26, no cost preventative care, no refusal due to pre-existing conditions, etc. So, if costs—of taxes or other—went up a bit, the increased benefit may have balanced it out.
So perhaps it will cost Warren that she doesn't want answer the tax-going-up question, but it shouldn't, because it's a bad and loaded question, one which misrepresents economic reality.
2
The ACA backers were explicit about paying for it, actually. And Warren doesn’t want to discuss taxes because she doesn’t want to fess up to what the studies say about costs, any more than she wants to lay out a plan for betting that sucker through any conceivable Congresss—let alone past the 180 million on private health care and the half million or so insurance folks she proposes to fire.
1
The problem with health care programs is they are always to be analyzed on the long-term.
If we start with long term PREVENTIVE care programs, the initial cost will be higher initially.(talking equal expense programs - any time insurance has to make s profit, rather than break even, it will cost more; as will poorly managed programs)
And programs that allow people to live longer may cost just a bit more, but most altruistic people will say money well spent.
But the real effects of a national single-payer health care program of any kind must be measured over decades.
What does wellness care - expensive for the first 30 years, mean over 60?
If delivered properly, it should show an overall reduction in costs over a generation.
Voters don’t like thinking about the effects in Year Two let alone in Year 60.
Warren still has extremely few endorsements from elected Democratic officials, and her entire track record indicates she is unlikely to win many endorsements in the future.
3
My 14 year old watching the debates pointed out that Warren and Sanders sounded like they wanted to stir up a proletariat revolution. I think they came on too much like they know whats best for all of us. Yes we need to address healthcare and the inequalities of money, but we also need to ensure that people have a semblance of choice. Like the public and private school systems. The democrats cannot steal away that small pleasure of weighing options that ordinary people have, even if choice is accompanied by pain.
As for taxing billionaires, not being one, and having no idea what that much power and money brings to the table, I can wonder about one thing, why would they base themselves in this country? Lets look at Scandinavian countries to understand whether such extreme socialism promotes innovation or destroys motivation. And then I read about France, it is a hot bed of unrest, entitlement and incredibly lazy workers. I sure hope everyone understands that our ideal, even if Lady Liberty was a gift from there, should not be a mirror image of France. Warren and Sanders are brilliant people, much better than Biden, but by golly their socialism reeks scarily of communism. So after Trump it might still be the death of democracy?
3
"If there’s nothing to hide from, why hide from it? Warren has campaigned as a truth teller but came across, in this instance, as a classically evasive Washington operator, scared to treat voters as grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner."
As we learned 3 years ago, about 50% of voters have shown themselves 100% incapable of "processing information in a sophisticated manner." Probably largely because of prior biases and Fox, but also thanks to plenty of "mainstream" media outlets like NYT who can't be trusted to present the costs and benefits of policies like Medicare For All in anything like an accurate manner, and will headline HIGHER TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS while burying the bits about overall costs being lower.
In the only round of debates I could stomach watching, the entertainers playing journalists kept asking these "how will you pay for it" questions that somehow don't get asked of Republicans despite decades of Democrats coming closer to balanced budgets than Republicans ever do. How often are GOP pols challenged - on a debate stage, in the NYT, or elsewhere - on claims that tax cuts pay for themselves, despite a lack of historical evidence for the claim?
Warren, clearly, has decided to try to frame the narrative on her own terms and not provide the ammunition for others to misrepresent her. It might be the right strategy, as shown by this opinion piece, which actually repeats her framing, even while it criticizes her for being evasive.
I halfway wish—very halfway—that Warren would come clean on the tax question.
That is not to wish for an answer it in words that can be excised in a sound bite to be replayed by Fox and meme'd by the political professionals in Kiev. Rather, she might include a disclaimer with her answer: "I will not create a sound byte, so here is the full answer in a format you cannot twist."
It's been obvious to me that's been her game plan from the state. So far it's working, but maybe not forever if Frank and the rest of the media keep trying to pin down a sound bite.
We also have to remember that many voting Americans consider substandard or absent health coverage to be a norm that will never change. All they would hear is "More taxes!". At that point, even Presidential gunshots on Fifth Ave would not change their vote.
I don't know if it was a poll-tested tactic, but she started every sentence with the Millenial "So....." Very irritating to to many over age 40 who have to listen to it from the younger generation. She also has the habit of flailing her arms like so many contemporary professors who feel obliged to entertain their students. This is aside from her policy positions, which sound good in college towns but will not fly with much of the actual electorate.
9
Better than “like....”
1
Sen Warren will not fall into the 'yes, I'll raise taxes' trap. That is the wrong question. The correct question is about cost. The middle class will have reduced cost, most likely, since med-for-all will not require monthly medical premiums. However, taxes will go up to pay for it, but the middle class may end up paying less for healthcare in total costs. Medical care is not a simple yes-or-no question. She is wise not to give the GOP that soundbite.
Other countries have single payer; we will eventually. Sen Warren is right to push us in that direction.
2
As long as the American heath industry is a shell game of hidden charges, inflated bills, price gouging pharmaceutical companies and care availability deserts the discussion over how / who will pay bogs down in argumentative nonsense like this. The ACA for all that it improved access to insurance did little to address the elephant in the room. The pachyderm of greed and how it affects cost & coverage while restricting care and access is generally left out of the conversation. Until that is addressed then none of these schemes will work. The costs must be addressed "honestly" in order for any kind of insurance to be cost effective. We already pay to much for inadequate outcomes. Don't talk about taxing the real (not the wealthy 20% pretending to be) middle class until the investor classes fingers are removed from the cookie jar. They've stolen enough.
1
Everybody's taxes will go up under Warren't plan. That is why she will lose.
6
I largely agree with Mr. Bruni's assessment. Warren was impressive, but that still does not make her the best candidate. I am put off by her failure to explain how she would move toward Medicare for All, which seems to be cowardice or political manipulation. With regards to the "wealth tax" idea, we have that in California (more or less) and every time the stock market crashes, our state budget also crashes, resulting in cuts to education, the poor, and the elderly. Yes, the wealthy need to pay more taxes, but all of us need to contribute to the solutions.
How will the Senator do in the key swing states?
In places like Florida and Ohio?
And how will the moderate/independent voters view her?
You might as well hand the election to Trump on a silver platter!
4
I have Medicare with a Medicare Advantage plan partially paid for by my retirement association. Last year I had 2 hospitalizations and countless procedures and appointments as a result. For the last hospitalization the bill was $26K. Medicare paid about $2500 and the advantage plan paid about $4500. My share of the cost was zero. Those without good insurance would have been billed the entire $26K. One thing Medicare for All will do is rein in excessive costs. Salaried professionals could be paid on a monthly-or other--basis. The intense itemization of medical bills adds up things including the $10 aspirin. Under M for A such items would be considered the cost of running the facility and many such items could be purchased in bulk by a bidding process.
. . .Just a few thoughts. Perhaps even hospital food could become healthy and reasonable. At my hospital you can order a hamburger with French fries and eggs with bacon or sausage.
2
There seems to be a tendency of all democrats to give up their negotiation stands before the negotiation - preemptive compromise. Obama gave up single payer and the public option, when he had a strong position in terms of votes to stress bipartisanship in 2009. Now centrist democrats state they want to tweak Obamacare. The centrists should state what they want. Is this universal healthcare? - which we all know is a coordinated, comprehensive change over time to single payer, government financed system including free education for health care workers, and the end to profit hospitals. They must assure that rural healthcare will be subsidized by urban markets and that all boats will rise together. No more preemptive compromise, pass a bill in the house, and campaign on changing the Senate to give power to the people. After all this 3.4 trillion dollar per year is the same cost of healthcare used in the 2009 debates. Not bad for 10 years of Obamacare, Stress the savings Obamacare brought, and the equality and saving brought on if we truly seek a coordinated single payer system.
Frankly I am quite amazed that Biden is still polling well! I only keep hearing the same tired statements from him meanwhile Warren and Sanders and also Yang and O'Rourke have fresh sometimes radically fresh ideas. I would love to see a Warren ticket with any of the other 3 above.
For all my democratic friends. Please, face reality. This isn't Sesame Street and this isn't the Land of Oz. Warren and Sanders are not electable outside of NY and LA. If you haven't worked on a campaign in New Hampshire, Florida or South Carolina like I have then its time to take a road trip and discover what the rest of America thinks.
4
Warren? the terms demagogic and opportunistic come to mind.
Her unwillingness to give Biden any credit was the genuine Warren.
DNA testing and claiming advantage because she allegedly is an indigenous person.
5
"Buttigieg made clear that what he offers, at the tender age of 37, is a truly fresh perspective. "
Buttigieg's perspective is not fresh, albeit fashionable. He is a McKinsey consultant who believes in data, and in only data, and that citizens can be reduced to points of data and feedback from that data.
Hence, Buttigieg has difficulties dealing with the non-quantitative, i.e., the historic, qualitative difference in the African-American community in South Bend, Indiana.
Buttigieg makes them feel like a number without a color, and they instinctively know something is wrong.
1
It's Bernie or Elizabeth, whether you like it or not. Biden is too much of a get along to go along, back slapping, good old boy. His attempting to take credit for Warren's consumer protection law was ludicrous and condescending. Trump will steamroller him with sleaze and lies, and Joe will be left sputtering in the dust, as per this past week. Buttigieg could be a terrific Secretary of State under a Democratic president, but that's all for now. Cory Booker's head is in the clouds. Harris seems to have completely lost her way. Sad, because I still think she would destroy trump on the debating stage (he'd probably refuse to debate her, anyway). Hopefully the new Democratic president will play to her strengths and appoint her attorney general. Steyer should drop out and give his money to the eventual nominee. As for the others: meh.
1
Ok, I mostly skimmed this column. It mostly looks like Bruni is trying to mask his misogyny by lauding Warren, but I watched the debate and it's ridiculous that this woman is a front runner. By now she should be able to articulate her argument for Medicare For All in a debate format and present a roadmap of how we get there. That she was taken aback when she was called to task was stunning. I was surprised she was so ill prepared.
4
@AM Your comment about Frank's "misogyny" tells a lot about your own view of the world, and basically eliminates any rational discussion of your views. You are a false judge of other people and their lifestyle.
4
The U.S. ranks 43rd in life expectancy and number 1 in health costs.
3
Warren was the front runner in last night's debate. The elephant in the room was " Medicare for all ". She is a politician and as expected was stuck on the vague that middle class would not have to pay higher taxes, unlike the straight shooter, Bernie Sanders. She was evasive about the How. But as a politician she could turn around and add the opt-out or personal choice option. That would clearly bring out the adversaries on that stage and the American people to her side. She IS a Washington insider but her record unlike her brethren clearly keeps fighting for the little guy. And of course, she can change her mind about " Medicare for all " with a Buttigeig rider instead. Because she IS a politician.
"If that’s the case, why not be explicit about the arithmetic and own it? If there’s nothing to hide from, why hide from it?"
Because upon hearing that some tax somewhere will go up, the news reporters stop listening, run for their press room connections and write the story that they've trapped a candidate into saying that she will increase taxes, gloom and doom headlines with the reporter's byline in prominent display.
That's why, because Warren is dealing with mental infants and she has to keep them under control, feeding them only enough so they don't starve in the meantime and keep coming back for more.
11
Those candidates and the media who attack Elizabeth Warren's Medicare for All proposal are showing that they have internalized the far right propaganda instead of the truth.
Here is a question:
We all pay Medicare taxes. And seniors get Medicare which right wing propaganda espousers Pete Buttigeig and Amy Klobuchar well know. Are they OPPOSED to Medicare because it is a tax?
Buttigeig and Klobuchar are promoting the same idea as Republicans -- that if we eliminate the Medicare tax and let senior citizens buy health insurance on the free market, people will be happy. Their "taxes will be less". Ridiculous.
Buttigeig and Klobuchar's plan -- where private health insurance companies pick and choose the healthiest and richest Americans and make a huge profit while Medicare pays for the sickest -- is a huge giveaway to insurance companies. We will ALL be paying more in taxes for that.
And the less than truthful Biuttigeig and Klobuchar keep insisting that having the public pay for health insurance for the sickest Americans while private insurance companies profit handsomely from insuring only the healthiest Americans is "saving money in taxes".
Can we stop that farce already? Buttigeig and Klobuchar are no better then the right wing Republicans insisting that Medicare is a "tax" that costs people money and seniors would be better off "saving" that tax and buying their own premiums. They are wrong, and we don't need any Democrats spouting right wing tropes.
6
At some point the left must choose: someone to heal the country (with business back to usual), or someone to undo 40 years of damage done by the right (and be able to successfully push back on the still truculent down-and-dirty Republican obstruction)?
Either way, the candidates are still going down the same rabbit hole that risks letting Republicans steel the spotlight: what is our future?
It is about vision. Policy details do not matter, regardless of what moderators, candidates, and some voters say.
Presidents get elected on one thing: what kind of vision do they offer and do they possess the leadership to get us there.
4
"Healing the country"does not mean implementing Democratic Party promises. At least half of the populace thinks that those very propsals are anathema, which is how we got Donald Trump.
3
Each candidate is taking a gambit of sorts. Warren and Sanders are betting that the American people are ready for genuine changes after 4 years (or hopefully less) of Trump and the corruption, willful disregard of truth, greed and evil that he represents in the American political system and psyche. If they should begin attacking each other- they will most assuredly neutralize each other.
Biden is sticking to incrementalist change- and seems sincere on one very important thing: that Trump is a pure abomination and and enabler and personification of evil. He is dead right and effective at drawing a sharp contrast between himself and Trump.
Buttigieg and Klobuchar represent the calculating middle- and Buttigieg's attack on O'Rourke on the confiscation and banning of assault weapons was disgusting and even beyond calculating. Neither to me demonstrate great sincerity and both would undermine their rivals to secure advantage.
2
Warren is playing chess to others' checkers. Frank you suggest that Warren should treat American voters like grown-up's, but you forget that:
A) half the country voted for Trump
B) "tax" has always been a dirty word in American politics and especially among the GOP
C) most Americans DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE 'T' WORD. even if they may agree with the plan
6
You forget that a lot of those voters who voted for Trump also voted for Obama. Twice.
2
And for all the commenters who are parsing Senator Warren's deflection on the potential costs, I wish she had answered "when I have more than 45 seconds in which to tackle complicated policy, I will gladly lay out how this works. Invite me on your shows and I will show you how my math works."
3
Elizabeth Warren was asked like 10 times in the CNN post-debate spin room if she would raise taxes to pay for Medicare for All. The questions were rephrased to her several times with a specific focus on taxes, and she kept repeating the MS story and that she would lower "costs" for the middle class.
5
@Matthew Hurts And I will repeat that in the allotted 45 seconds it is impossible to lay out the complexities of cost vs. tax. If your taxes go up by $100, and your health care costs go down $200, you are ahead. And given that, had the words "taxes will go up" come out of her mouth, it's all we would hear for the next year. It would be too costly a soundbite when taken out of context.
2
@Ambroisine - I pointed out that when she had substantial time in the spin room to explain this answer, she still would not be forthright about raising taxes.
I'm sure you are aware that Sanders clearly explained that taxes will go up but other costs will go down during this same debate.
It's just that Warren wants to be tactical and doesn't want to upset moderate or conservative voters.
The main reason that Sanders is popular is because he appears honest about his beliefs.
I think the health insurance issue is that even though insurance costs would drop far more than middle class taxes would rise, the middle class does not expect their employers to pass those savings on to their employees. And, sadly, that’s probably the way it work out
Everything really is Nixon’s fault.
1
Booker won the day for me. Biden almost came across as vigorous enough to serve, Sanders too. Warren should be given a high position with authority to clean up Wall St.
Warren came across as evasive during the debate and worse in the spin room.
She seems to be afraid of telling people with employer paid health care that they're taxes will go up -- since she can't promise that the employer is going to pass his savings to the employee. She promises that she'll address this, but she avoids saying how.
It's weak.
But, she had a better night than Biden, who is clearly struggling with a disturbing tendency to misspeak. This looks like age related cognitive decline to me -- and it's a shame, since a healthy Biden has the best chance against Trump.
Bernie had a good night, but one wonders about middle America coming out in large numbers to support an elderly, scolding, socialist Jew, with a heart condition.
The rest were also-rans. I feel worst for Klobuchar, who comes across as a good middle of the road candidate, apart from a complete lack of charisma.
I'll take any of them, enthusiastically, over Trump,but there's not an Obama in the bunch.
Frank Bruni is doing what desperte opinion writers do when they have nothing substantive to criticize about a stellar Democratic candidate: they nit pick.
Elizabeth Warren refused to answer the question about taxes on the Middle Class - rightfully. The healthcare industry in America is incredibly complex and any costs by the government could be handled in many ways, only only one of which is by raising taxes on the Middle Class. Our current Medicare does not cover all healthcare costs and requires backup private health insurance, often deduted from Social Security benefits. It took me years to figure it all out and to get the right coverage - and I have never had a major illness so do't know whether my health insurance will be adeqate. But at least Medicare, with all its faults, will be there.
Elizabeth Warren was not dodging an uncomfortable truth. She just knows so much about how healthcare is actually financed and dodged (by private insurance companies) that she was trying to avoid blowing all her time on accounting trivia. Frank Bruni is not so astute - or maybe he's desperate for some valid reason to criticize her without looking petty.
I think Democrats should just say - we'll cover every American with healthcare however we manage to get it done/
Liz and Bernie were right on target - and alone among the candidates - in deeply understanding that the real evil in American healthcare as it is currently provided is the huge profits of insurance companies.
4
@BSmith So when you say healthcare, are you also including vision, dental, long term care? Apparently liberals think doctors and hospitals are willing to take pay cuts. It’s also interesting that anyone believes a bloated federal bureaucracy will deliver anything efficiently.
1
@Jackson
Social Security has the lowest administrative costs of any program.
Medicare also ahs minute administrative costs, especially as compared with heathcare delivered by private insurance! Beneficiaries pay extra for health insurance companites to hire people to reject their requests for payment under their policies.
Medicare doesn't cover everything. Medicare users have to have insurance to cover the gap between what is provided by Medicare and what is provided by a private insurance polilcy. This is very complicated and impossible to describe in the limitations of a 12 person "debate."
Good performance by Warren. Consider it the first "stress test" of her candidacy, and she passed with flying colors. More challenges will make her a stronger, smarter candidate.
It's also an opportunity to introduce the details for the types of structural changes she is proposing, and to find the right language to defuse the "socialism" rant.
While she has many policies, she's right to focus on intent and values first and foremost. Besides avoiding unnecessary soundbites, she has to show she "gets it" and is on the average American's side. Honestly, the bar is fairly low to show you care i.e. the CFPB is a simple idea to save Americans from being ripped off by financial schemes. Who can argue against that (besides the Repubs.) Actually Biden didn't as a senator for the credit card companies. In any case, there's a list of 100 things like that to make a real difference in American lives! The details can go through the sausage grinder later.
Big change is about "shoot for the moon" and you'll get much further than just starting with incrementalism as your vision. Stand from the future is what leaders do, not baby steps... not when there are so many big problems. At some moments in history, you have to take a big step. Like civil rights, LBGT rights, social security, Medicare, etc... leaders had to pull the country forward. There's a year+ until the election. Start "socializing" big ideas now, and we'll see what is possible for the next 4 to 8 years.
2
I haven't heard either Warren or Sanders explain that under "Medicare For All" healthcare costs will simply shift from being paid to private insurers and instead lower rates would go to a Medicare fund which is being characterized as a "tax". Americans are anathema to tax increases so it is critical that the candidates explain not only the true nature of the shift but also that the rates consumers will pay consider the individuals income. I would expect the wealthy to pay rates reflecting their ability to pay. Republicans will of course describe the plan as a giant tax increase on the middle class and a government takeover of your healthcare freedom. Neither of which is true.
While I think the winning proposals come from the candidates like Amy Klobuchar who would allow the existence of private insurance for those who want it I don't hear Warren or Sanders doing themselves any favors by leaving out the details that will be mischaracterized by Right.
The reason Warren said health care costs "will go down" and not "taxes will go up" is because it tells the truth while also denying Republicans election video and talking points of Warren saying "Taxes will go up."
CNN/NY Times asked this question because everyone knows that it's incendiary and leads to better viewer ratings for the debate, so they can increase their advertising revenue. Phrasing the question as "increases taxes" rather than "reduces health care costs" doesn't add anything to the conversation, but it increases the volatility of the debate, which is the point.
2
Thanks for an excellent article and I agree with most of Mr. Bruni’s points. Ms. Warren was starting to grow on me, but not after last night. I left with the sense that she really does not know how her plans are going to be paid for. Nor do I think she’s being realistic. Buttigieg impresses me. He makes more sense every time I listen to him.
2
I felt for the first time that Senator Warren's smartest person in the room attitude was grating. As Frank said, we all knew what she was hiding when she insisted that costs would be lower. But would the cost be lower for a healthy middle class individual who uses little health care but gets hit with the middle class tax increase to which she will not admit.
3
Memo to Elizabeth Warren re Medicare for All:
Make it plain that
(a) the premiums people will pay into the public system will be smaller than those they're currently paying for private insurance;
(b) the coverage will be better; and
(c) this is possible because the administrative costs will be much less and shareholders and highly paid executives will be out of the picture.
1
I support single payer healthcare, gun control, wealth redistribution etc. but suspect we will not get there easily. I wish one of the candidates would say "These are difficult issues and I have a plan. It may not be perfect. I promise (as opposed to the Trump administration) to surround myself with the best and brightest, listen to what they say, and work out the kinks to the best of my ability, for the benefit of the American people"
1
Why do we not hear the examples of dozens of other countries--also capitalist democracies-- to help explain Medicare for All? Their citizens have had guaranteed HC as centrist, accepted policy for generations that we still fight about.
Explain how they pay for it! Various systems but all are covered regardless of income or employment status.
Compare their tax rates at various income levels.
Explain how the countries without single payer, still have insurance mandates-- BUT WITH REGULATION of premium costs by elected govt, so people can afford insurance.
Explain why they're not marching in the streets in colored vests to change to a US style high profit, high cost HC system.
Use their arguments--by real people --based on their generations of experience.
Throw this at the GOP and cautious Democrats and make them answer the objections. We are the only modern country that leaves millions uninsured, while the medical industry, big insurance and pharma rake in the profits.
Then those excessive profits are put toward the elections of our polticians that collude with big business ---for their gain and our loss.
Canada is so close, just over the border---our media could send some reporters over there to ask citizens on the street how they pay for their HC for all.
Canada started it in 1967. Maybe this could help us make some progress--in 2019.
1
Joe Biden was correct when he said that he got Elizabeth Warren votes, and Elizabeth Warren was remarkably ungenerous in her thanking of President Obama. Do we need to remind everyone how poor President Obama was in working with Congress? That was why Vice President Biden was such a necessary part of his administration and was crucial to its success. I know they are rivals now, but that was plain wrong and mean-spirited on Warren's part.
6
Warren's fear of admitting that government-funded health care (i.e., Medicare) is paid for with taxes is just another example of how Republicans have completely defined the terms of political discourse in this country. Republicans have successfully trickled down their wealthy donor/constituents' revulsion to taxes and government. That revulsion is so thoroughly institutionalized and internalized across the political spectrum that even Elizabeth Warren assumes that voters will reflexively reject anything that involves taxes or "big government".
It should otherwise be a simple matter to truthfully respond to the question of funding Medicare For All with something like "Yes, your taxes will pay for it. But it will cost you less than you're currently paying a private insurer, which has to compensate its CEO, provide continually growing quarterly profits for shareholders, and maintain an army of bureaucrats to stonewall your doctors and deny you health care under the provisions of thousands of different plans. Furthermore, a single payer will have far more power to negotiate better rates for everything, including prescription drugs. That's the only way to hold down health care costs that keep growing far faster than inflation. So yes, with Medicare For All your taxes will increase. But you'll save even more money because health care will cost you much less."
2
Compared to all other wealthy democracies, Americans spend about twice as much for health care that is half as good.
226
@Doug Broome - The recent non-partisan Commonwealth global study showed that U.S. healthcare was the worst in the world overall, and most expensive overall (by a wide margin).
Our monstrosity of employer-provided healthcare was an accident of World War II, after which businesses had to compete for the remaining male survivors of the war.
Kaiser Steelworks chose to provide free healthcare, and that helped them meet their recruitment goals. And then other companies had no choice but to follow...
Other countries instead implemented taxpayer-funded single payer healthcare, which to this day is as embraced worldwide as the Second Amendment is to many Americans (hmmm, how about replacing the current universal right to carry loaded muskets with a right to universal healthcare?).
So which healthcare system is the best in the world overall according to the Commonwealth study?
NHS, the National Health Service in the UK.
They negotiate prescription drug prices the way any private business would, and the result is that on average they pay half of what we American suckers pay, and sometimes 1/4 or even 1/10, for the same medicine made in the same factory.
27
@Doug Broome
The US pays more than twice as much as any other industrialized Nation and has Health outcomes very very much worse. So our current fragmented system is not working, and is not safe for patients. Healthcare needs to be viewed as a human right, and supplied as though it were an electric utility.
Warren needs to create a simple explanation to justify her "costs will go down for middle class families ". Something like a balance sheet of savings versus costs.
NO ONE SHOULD PROFIT OFF SICK PEOPLE She should explain how in the current system, all the MANY DOLLARS (she should quote some justifiable total) paid by employees and employers to the UNNECESSARY MIDDLEMAN insurance companies will now be available to cover ACTUAL CARE.
Employers SAVINGS: NO COSTS
Employees SAVINGS: no premium/ care cost
Healthcare Providers SAVINGS: less administrative cost
PREVENTATIVE CARE SAVINGS:
When individuals go to the doctor for preventative care because it is covered, their need for expensive last ditch Healthcare will go down.
HOSPITALS SAVINGS:
For-profit hospitals will become regulated like a public utility. They will be allowed a reasonable but not extravagant profit.
Warren should list all of the many benefits for US citizens.
15
@Doug Broome
The US healthcare system is not "half as good". It is one of the best in the world. The parts that are not so good are the government-run VA system and the government-defined Medicaid/Medicare system.
To decrease costs is simple: Prohibit lawsuits against licensed providers and manufacturers. Allow interstate purchases of medical plans. Prohibit zero co-pays on everything except vaccines and preventatives. Lift the quota on immigration of qualified foreign nurses. Lift the ban on importation of drugs from other developed countries. Require ERs to turn away people who do not have medical emergencies. Require all patients who do not provide immediate payment provide fingerprints that are forwarded to DHS for cross referencing visas, border crossing cards, deportation orders, and immigrant sponsors. Repeal Obamacare in full.
Do this and costs will drop by 35%.
1
Once Warren actually admits taxes will go up under Medicare for All, the big headline and Republican talking point will be “Warren admits she will raise taxes”. But she needs to somehow show the math: higher taxes + no health care premium = lower cost for each citizen.
Not rocket science.
The pettiness and paucity of debate fill me with utter despair. The move of the USAs two major political parties towards self interest and isolationism has been staggering quick. But I never expected CNN and the New York Times moderators to collude with this ugly slide of a once great nation. Not a single question about the climate crisis! Not one question! I cannot believe how much the USA has changed...and in such a short time.
2
Last night's debate convinced me that I will not be voting for Warren.
sk
6
Nobody cares. I will pay attention when we get down to 2-3. Next story.
1
Biden: "I am still waiting to hear how you will pay for it, Elizabeth. Where are you going to find 30 trillion dollars?"
Warren: "I have fought for the middle class, and I dream Big, and I created the CPB."
3
"Warren said that she had nothing against billionaires per se and wasn’t in the demonization business. She was in the justice business. "
Hugely important point. Don't allow the thieves who just recently raped the treasury using tax increases against working people and tax cuts for the richest of the rich to obscure the true principle.
Warren is fighting FOR economic justice after the biggest financial rape of working people since the robber barons bought off the Senate and Presidency just prior to the great depression.
1
The electorate have proven themselves incapable of nuanced understanding of anything having to do with taxation. Better to never admit it.
4
Looks like soon the content of the debates won't matter.
Trump tax returns
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies
2
Warren refuses to answer one simple question: will she raise our taxes.
I'm out. At least Bernie is honest.
5
What everyone who cheers for Medicare for All forgets seems to forget is how the Republicans almost prevented a very reasonable plan called the Affordable Care Act from getting passed into law by taking every vague promise of the law and scaring voters to the point that the very voters who would benefit from the law were against it UNTIL they experienced it first hand.
Yes many people are familiar with Medicare and it worked great for my mom, BUT no one wants to be FORCED to give up what they are currently happy with (employer based coverage) for a lot of unknowns including whether Medicare will look more like Medicaid once you throw hundreds of millions of people on the program and don’t explain who specifically is going to pay for it.
I know exactly what my costs are now, but I simply don’t trust any politician who says “trust me, your costs won’t go up”. Trump told me I was getting a tax cut; instead my taxes increased when he put in the cap for state and local taxes.
The Republicans will have an easy target with Medicare for all.
1
More than 100 Million Americans currently get health insurance through their employers. That means that the employers subsidize the premiums. If employer health insurance disappears in favor of Medicare for All, the employer subsidies will disappear as well. The idea that employers will voluntarily give those subsidies to their employees or to the government is a fantasy (as Biden said to Sanders in a previous debate: "If you believe that you have more faith in capitalism than I do.") That means that the health insurance costs for those 100 Million will rise - not fall - unless employers are forced to contribute to health insurance for their employees. Can you imagine that passing Congress?
3
I totally agree. Our employer probably spends $18,000 on our health insurance. Not a single candidate has explained how that money is going to be transferred to pay for my “public option plan”.
The more they leave out the details, the more the Republicans will take advantage of every unexplained detail and exploit to create fear among the voters.
1
warren's refusal to answer is condescending. her plan assumes that a LOT of moving parts go her way: cracking down on insurance carriers and big pharma, cracking down on hospital billing, putting in her wealth tax, punishing corporations, and all immediately. without those mega-pieces, there is no answer. but even assuming all of that somehow magically comes into alignment (not likely), at the tax end of it some families will come out better (assume a family paying 1500/month with a 1500 deductible and a lot of sick kids and a lot of out of pocket, their tax probably won't jump by 24K/year, they may come out ahead). many families will come out worse (assume 2 working parents paying 100/month pretax for employer coverage with a 100 deductible, 2500 out of pocket max, flexible spending plan and coinsurance coordination, if their tax goes up by more than 2K year they will come out worse).
i understand why she doesn't want to answer. she's still an iconoclast playing teacher alone and lecturing to her dolls.
4
Ms. Warren will eventually have to say the “T” word. Otherwise, she looks evasive.
But I can certainly understand her reluctance. The Republicans will do the same thing to her as they did to Hillary Clinton with the remark about the “deplorables.” They’ll take any comment by Ms. Warren that involves taxing people for health care, slice and dice it so that there is no context at all, and proceed to convince a good part of the country that affordable, dependable health care is not possible.
And they’ll crucify her for taking a position that they’ve edited so thoroughly that it isn’t her position at all.
2
Well, I don’t think there was any way to put a positive spin on Clinton’s “deplorables” remark. Her intention was pretty clear.
1
I often feel great frustration watching these debates, and the race in general.
The truth is, not one of these candidates or any other is going to waltz into the White House and implement their plans as presented. They will need to work with and through the opposite party and a myriad of special interest groups and structural issues that currently exist.
I would prefer to hear their goals and the key steps they plan to implement them. I would like a little more discussion of how they will bring those on the other side over to their plan. Finally, and this is especially true for Warren, I would like them to prioritize their big goals. Most Presidents quickly learn that they can’t do everything they want, at least not in their first year or two. What is their number one, two and three objective?
It’s time to get real.
3
If Warren said "although middle class taxes will go up under her Medicare for all plan, overall, middle class costs will go down, guess which part the Republican attack ads will show her saying?
Say, analyze, dissect what and however you want but there will be no Cherokee president here any time soon. Unlikely at the very best, reasonably speaking.
2
Frank, I usually love your writing, but you've missed the point on the moderators grilling Warren about tax increases.
They have asked her this question, requiring a Yes or No answer, in EVERY debate. It's as if the right wing owners of these media outlets are demanding the moderators to make Warren produce a right wing talking point that will be used against her in the general election - with video from the debates.
She has already answered the question the way she wants to, with her own talking point: Costs will go down for those who aren't wealthy.
This isn't evasive or dishonest. It's politically savvy. You might remember that Warren has a lot of experience being attacked by Republicans. She knows what she's doing.
1
I will vote for anyone - including Mickey, Minnie and their friends - to bring our country back from the disaster of the current "administration." And while I'm not quite as progressive as Sanders and Warren, I lean left. But I don't think Warren can win the general. It's not her policies; it's her tone. We saw what happened last time when we had a smarter-than-you-are, lecturing candidate. We need someone who can get Independents and dissatisfied Republicans to vote for sanity.
2
Warren was good, but I wanted her to knock it out of the park. She needs to demolish certain centrist talking points. I am waiting for her to definitively take down any plan that uses insurance companies. I am waiting for her to take down the idea that individual consumers can make informed choices about health care plans when those plans are deliberately incomprehensible. She needs two succinct paragraphs that slams down Biden expand the ACA plan and Buttigieg's give em a choice plan. They are bad policy and they don't live up to the ideal of health care as a human right. It is time for big structural change.
2
What most seniors know, but Warren and Sanders cannot discuss, is that few current Medicare recipients in the US would willingly trade their access to medical care to that provided by any other single payer system in the world. Their easy access to the best doctors and hospitals in the world is truly extraordinary.This comes at great cost to the US taxpayer, and is further subsidized by higher reimbursements from private insurance.
To provide that level of medical care to every American would entail spending far more on medical care in the US than is spent today.
For these reasons, Sanders and Warren can not get into the weeds on the true cost of “Medicare for all”.
3
Trump : "Only I can fix it."
Warren : Only I have a plan to fix it."
Sorry, but that's not how our government works. We don't need more "charismatic leader" pipe dreams. Mother Jones (liberal magazine) described warren's ICE plans as "open borders". The border plan, and Medicare for All, will sink Warren under a tsunami of right wing assaults, and result in the re-election of Trump.
2
Yes, Warren can be challenging, but in the way that one is gratified when the ‘ah hah’ moment presents itself when you realize how effective the message is, and, in her case just how she can right our sinking ship. Private Plan healthcare is rapidly disappearing, in an era of the Gig Economy, and businesses that cannot any longer provide this. Middle Class tax increase? Probably, but not close to the problem engendered by ruinous medical bills. We need a balanced form of governance, and, yes a Woman Leader with clear intelligence, judgement, etc.
Warren is not electable. She will never win a national election for President. That's why Trump wants to run against her.
5
Nominating anyone but Biden is a gift to Trump and the Republicans. I, an independent centralist, held my nose and voted for Clinton in 2016. I don’t ever see myself voting for Trump, but all the current Democratic candidates, save Biden, are far too left for me. If anyone but Biden is the candidate, I’ll vote for a third party. Perhaps for my neighbor Sam, who seems to have more sense than anyone on that stage last night. And, there are millions of voters out there who feel just as I do.
1
We need to focus on the electorate. In the last congressional elections the Democrats flipped 40 seats of those only 2 were progressives. This should speak volumes to all of us. The Midwest is needed to win the presidential election and I don't believe that a candidate that is perceived as a socialist will be able to beat Trump.
3
Elizabeth Warren for President. The establishment wants to tear her down because she is precisely what we need: a non-corporatist who understands that this country is failing because it is beholden to extreme capitalism.
4
To win, Warren will need votes from people who despise Trump but who have good jobs, who like their current health coverage and their current tax rate. How many of these people are there? Hard to say, because you don't hear much from people who are satisfied with what they have.
3
I think it's a mistake to see Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg as "less liberal" (whatever that means than Elizabeth Warren. I think all want healthcare, and health insurance, for all.
It's important to remember that they are running for the job of president, not the job of wizard or dictator. A president doesn't wave a magic wand or give a command and then see a result take place. If it were simply a matter of what solution a candidate would prefer it would be easier to choose one.
Ultimately, whether it's Warren, Sanders, Biden, Gabbard, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Booker, Harris, or anyone else, all the president can do is sign, or veto, such legislation as makes it to his or her desk. Of course, the president has a big role to play in getting legislation moved along, but it's not a matter of how much the president wants this solution or that one.
Would President Warren veto a good bill that came to her desk if that bill didn't abolish private insurance? Would President Klobuchar veto a good bill that came to her desk if the bill were structured as Medicare for all?
I think we should be looking for more in a president than what the person would propose as a legislator, because the president is not a legislator. All this attention to the specifics of policy is relevant, I guess, but only in terms of what the president would actually sign if it gets through Congress.
1
Warren refuses to provide a sound byte for the endless replay on TV that says "Taxes will rise for the middle class". That should be obvious, but to make the point clear, if taxes go up and health insurance costs disappear, total costs go down for the middle class, who have insurance. And many of the poor gain health care. Therefore she says "costs go down" because it cannot be played in political advertising. Liz Warren is brilliant and stays on point better than anyone.
1
@James Neumerski Why would you think insurance costs disappear?
"“costs will go down” for middle-class families, the translation of which is that taxes might well go up but that those families would be economically ahead of the game in the end."
What is not clear about this?
It is also true.
Warren's a phony opportunist who's been secretly meeting with Hillary and whose campaign staff, that lost to the orange buffoon, now works for Warren.
The numerous watered down "mean-tested Warren plans" will never be implemented. It will be business as usual.
She's not really committed to Medicare-for-All and she'll willingly follow Obama and Hillary's militarist agenda.
Sasha Baker is Warren's policy adviser on national security and was formerly the deputy chief of staff for Obama's secretary of defense, Ash Carter - who has a record as an advocate of permanent war, and who wholeheartedly supported spending over a trillion dollars for a new generation of nuclear weapons.
Elizabeth Warren, who feigns an interest in progressivism is no different than Biden, Obama and Hillary Clinton when it comes to implementing the imperialist agenda.
Warren has failed to use her powerful position on the Senate Armed Services Committee to challenge the status quo, instead wanting to make regime change wars and imperialism "greener", while supporting Trump's $739 billion military budget (despite being a Putin puppet).
Bernie is the ONLY candidate that will be persistent and not cave.
Elizabeth Warren, as phony as Obama and as calculating as Clinton.
No, thanks.
3
And Bernie will get nothing done working with Congress. Big ideas, no follow through or implementation. How great is that?
1
@Christine Wynne
That is still an unknown.
You know by the people who work for Warren, her donors she meets with and her previous actions that she will be another Obama/Hillary disaster.
Remember what the Obama/Biden/Hillary team delivered to us?
A right-wing, unaffordable Heritage Foundation health "care" plan, 5 more new wars, more domestic spying, more drone strikes, no torture prosecutions, no bankster prosecutions instead kicking out homeowners, Bush tax cuts permanent, the largest transfer of wealth in history to the rich, an increased "defense" budget, nuclear armament escalation to the tune of a trillion plus, an attempt to kill SS and Medicare in a "grand bargain", whistleblowers prosecuted, fracking galore, drilling in the Arctic, a stolen Supreme Court seat, a broke DNC, and a loss of 1000 legislative seats.
And you want a repeat of THAT ?
1
"Maybe that’s smart politics. But it's not great leadership."
Unfortunately, it's neither.
I strongly supported Warren; now, not so much. Warren, the ultimate policy wonk, repeatedly refuses to say if she'd raise taxes to finance healthcare, or offer other ways to finance it.
Medicare for All is Sanders's plan. He's already said taxes need to be raised to finance it, but most people, especially the middle class, will actually save a lot of money, so what is Warren thinking?
Warren repeatedly refusing to answer a yes or no question raises another yes or no question: Can Warren spend the next year not answering a Yes or No question that everyone will keep asking about a central part of her platform? No.
Owning the policies you say you believe in, as Sanders has, is a big deal to voters. Warren's border plan is just terrible policy, this a good policy, but Trump and the GOP will bury Warren for refusing to answer. They'll say Sanders already conceded that taxes will be substantially raised, call Warren a big tax and spend Socialist, and a Clintonesque liar.
If Warren pretends she can avoid the question of taxes forever by saying "costs" many Americans who do care about their taxes being raised and expect a candidate to level with them will see her as untruthful. They'll regard Warren as another jaded politician playing them by calibrating positions based on what she thinks is a safe way to back a plan many like, while not addressing concerns of all who don't like it.
2
Another "debate" and a scene of Democrat self inflicted wounds.
Mr. Booker was correct, in his assessment, by tearing each other apart, whoever emerges will be so tattered and weakened, that they will limp into the nomination. It was not very pretty.
Warren must have stock in Dow, for the Teflon she was wearing. The good job she did, was evading questions and repeat the same talking points.
Biden looked like a person who wished he was not there.
Sanders was solid considering he just had a hear attack, did very well to put Warren on her toes. He certainly showed that he is in there to the end of the primaries
Booker tried to play the only sane one in the room.
Gabbard was a Republican running as a Democrat
Steyer has some good ideas, but that was it.
O'Rourke just could not get way from the El Pass massacre
Yang just made an appearance just to say he was there
Castro certainly was not the attack dog, but he was already damaged from his previous encounters.
Harris tried, but like Biden, she wished she was someplace else
Klobuchar did her best performance; and did a good job of putting Warren on her toes.
Buttigieg also very impressive his arrows shooting at Warren certainly put her on the defensive. Best performance yet.
Who did best; Sabders, Buttigieg and Klobuchar for their hard hitting against Warren. Warren showed that she is a Washington insider politician; evade, digression, obfuscate.
1
Frank Bruni writes: "Warren exits this latest debate as strong as she entered it. And those of us who watched it understand her — the calculations behind her positioning, the potential miscalculations of her monumentally expensive plans and the profound conviction she summons — better than ever before."
Warren's monumentally expensive plans could end up costing almost as much as the endless useless wars in the Middle East. Now that's expensive.
1
@Ed Madej
Are Americans' health care costs now not monumentally expensive? What people don't seem to get is that our current system, even with a functioning ACA, is expensive AND inefficient. Medicare for all, rather than funneling health care dollars into corporate profits, overlapping administrative costs, and higher premiums, co-pays, and deductibles (in part to pay for uninsured emergency room visits), would streamline the process.
Warren isn't being disingenuous when she refuses to provide Republicans a sound byte, she's being honest about costs.
1
“Sometimes I think Senator Warren is more focused on being punitive and pitting some part of the country against the other,” A true statement.
Warren said that she had nothing against billionaires per se and wasn’t in the demonization business. - not a true statement
Warren's anger, bullying and divisive rhetoric are exactly what we don't need right now. We already have that in the White House and if it comes down to Trump v Warren, I think the deciding voters will choose the devil they know.
2
"If there's nothing to hide, why hide from it?"
Seriously? Do you legitimately think that premise of taxes going up but net costs going down is going to translate to most people, or that certain half the America's population? It's clear that Warren is evading the question. It's clear that her campaign staff has told her to do so.
The constant, deliberate, poorly worded questions from CNN last night seemed like lip-service, a dumb compromise made between underdog candidates, conservative viewers, and the network's well-known political leanings.
2
NYTimes will always endorse the safe candidate over the progressive one for the sake of "electability" and all that can be achieved by a delicate political process. Second term Obama turned out to be safe but was stonewalled anyways. We need a firebrand like Warren who will go after the big goals and we need a progressive media to back her up.
2
Wow—I must have seen another debate. 12 candidates given text Messenger type replies – it’s not my idea of a good debate.
But I managed to get a few conclusions.
Medicare for All will not fly – it won’t happen. The candidate who sticks with it will lose.
Sanders will be out – his health and age will make a big difference, besides his Medicare for all plans (which- BTW – on the long run, it will happen – just, not for now).
Warren is healthy – full of great ideas – but I don’t think she is prepared for all the mess that Trump has created- nationally and particularly, internationally. Although she has a plan for everything the learning curve is to steep.
Buttigieg– his learning curve is a vertical rope saturated with W-40. Watch for this guy in a few years... needs cellaring.
All the rest are just bystanders. Except – of course – Biden. He is the male counterpart of Hillary. My fear is that the Hillary/Sanders Syndrome will repeat itself. I hope that the Democrats realize the monumental importance of the 2020 elections – set aside differences – get out of the sofa and vote – for whoever wins the candidacy.
1
Interestingly, fivethirtyeight.com does not have Ms. Warren as the front runner; they have Mr. Biden.
Of course, their track record is highly suspect.
@Harry
538, like most poll aggregators, can't properly account for hacked voting systems, or for a rogue FBI Director "re-opening" a phony investigation while voting is taking place
@Marion Grace Merriweather Trump was willing to cry foul if he had lost, too. Sounds like, no matter who wins, the other side will claim shenanigans lost the election.
fivethirtyeight.com has been remarkably prescient for a "poll aggregator since at least 2008, when it was a column in the Times. In 2016 they were the only analysts to give Trump a 33 percent chance at winning; the Times was in single digits.
Why should anyone listen to the elitist punditry who whiffed so badly in 2016
Treating Biden like you did the current occupant in 2015 may work, but it may also backfire
Biden's base is stronger than you all let on
As for Warren, the White House already "predicted" that she would be lifted to front runner status by the press, and then be smashed to bits by the press
Their "predictions" are amazingly accurate, almost like they are more like orders than speculation
Bruni is patronising Warren.he neglected to mention that her opposition are protecting the private insurance industry as if it were sacrosanct?
1
We seem to get the worst of Trump, Biden and the Republicans all the time like clockwork.
The time allotted between Warren and Steyer was ridiculous.
Each candidate should get about the same air time.
2
When she wasn't the frontrunner Warren's evasiveness about taxes was clever. Now that she is a frontrunner, it was a disappointment. Why in the world couldn't she just say that the sum of all of the costs for middle class families would go down--taxes and health care taken together? Why for that matter couldn't Sanders say the same more clearly?
Warren didn't do badly but the others did just as well. Buttigieg and Klobuchar successfully tackled any number of topics. Biden's criticisms of Warren and Sanders ("vague") were valid, once they successfully negotiated the tricky terrain between his brain and his mouth. Harris spoke well and convincingly, finally seemed to be speaking as herself. Her comment on women's reproductive rights was brilliant. Gabbard spoke well on abortion. I don't agree with her views but many if not most Americans do, I believe, based on polling. Steyer did well. Sanders was very good on foreign policy. Yang and Gabbard are looking toward Republican voters. Klobuchar's final statement regarding her friendship with McCain was deep, moving and genuine. Inslee, Bennet, and Bullock should have been here.
Warren was lying when she said the others on the stage want to protect billionaires. Gabbard's peace at any cost isolationism will appeal to Trumpies about as much as it turns off sane skeptical decent thoughtful folk. The same can be said for Yang's assertion that America and Russia are morally equivalent. O'Rourke and Booker did not do well.
2
As I understand it, Medicare for all would be paid through a payroll tax or some other individual form of tax as well as taxes on employers/corporations. So, yes your taxes would increase. However, you will eliminate the amount you are now paying to an insurance company that is run for profit for their shareholders, not for the benefit of its insurees, an amount that is much higher than the amount taken in tax to pay for Medicare coverage. No one will go bankrupt paying for the costs of a catastrophic illness.
In Ontario, universal healthcare covers everyone. I have supplementary insurance for a semi-private or private room, drugs, dental care, eye exams and glasses, and services like physio and massages. Seniors do not have to pay for prescription drugs and receive other benefits without charge once reaching that age.
The horror stories about long waits and other issues in Canadian healthcare are the fever dreams of healthcare and big pharma in the US. They fear what every other industrialized nation has - a program that covers each and every person. In my view healthcare is a human right and hospitals should be run for the good of the patients and to offer the best facilities to get that care from the doctors and staff - not a for profit industry. That is the leap that Americans will have to make.
1
@Judy
I want to copy and paste this comment as a reply to all the commenters saying Medicare for all is too expensive.
for any health care proposal, we need to see the details. When Obama care came in, costs went up. Insurance costs skyrocketed as of course did medical costs.
The problem with our health care system is we all want to live forever and expect the most innovative, effective, new, etc., treatments.
Any plan that claims to reduce overall costs has to figure out how to lower medical costs. For years, medical costs have risen at a rate higher than overall inflation. So, step 1 is figuring out how to address that. If med costs keep accelerating, so will insurance. Simple equation.
Yet I haven't heard anyone address how to reduce costs.
1
@Ralphie
Then you haven't been paying attention. Medicare for all would reduce costs by:
1. Taking the billions in private health insurers' profits, and putting that money towards actual care.
2. Negotiating lower drug prices, and hopefully eliminating all of the money spent marketing the newest and most profitable drugs.
3. Reducing emergency room visits by the uninsured and increasing much less costly preventative care and screening.
4. These savings will of course be offset somewhat by other costs, but there are also probably other efficiencies that I'm missing.
@Eric Obamacare promised efficiencies. That hasn't happened. The facts of the matter are -- health care inflation for years has increased at a rate much greater than overall inflation. Everything you say makes sense, but how do you actually make it happen.
The only possible savings isn't in med care itself, but in eliminating the inefficiencies of having health insurance infrasture(s) in government, insurance and healthcare companies, and private corporations. But that's a one time shot, and how well that will work out, who knows.
@Ralphie
You make it happen by making it happen. Of course there will issues, but big picture, we can make huge overall improvements. Both Medicare and the VA have much lower administrative costs than the current "system", and provide better service (excepting mental health with the VA). While costs continued to rise under the ACA, they rose at a significantly slower rate than before. Costs will rise because of inflation and demographics regardless, but let's try to counter that rather than making it worse.
As to healthcare, note that Warren actually has not come out with a detailed plan and probably for good reason. It may mean that she very clearly grasps that medicare for all plans being discussed are unrealistic. If she wins the nomination, then she will need to address, and will address, the issue head on, but her position will probably be a winnable (i.e., more moderate) one, not a far left one.
I would suggest that Elizabeth Warren speak about Medicare For All in terms of a transition period where we move from many private plans. Point out that insurance companies may still offer Medicare Advantage plans and contract to pay claims. We must remember that the top 1% wealth own 80% of U S wealth and do not pay their share of the annual budget. That is why the federal government finances with treasury bills, 20% of the total budget. The middle class deserve a tax cut, especially after the Republican/Trump tax cut raid on our treasury.
I disagree with you that Warren carried the progressive mantel. Senator Sanders did that, saying we need to have "the guts" to eliminate private health insurance entirely, and move to a Medicare for all system. Warren more and more is coming off as unlikeable, in my opinion.
1
If Warren comes across as "scared to treat voters as grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner" it is because voters are not grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner. If they were, they would see that Rump has done almost nothing of what he promised in his campaign and Trump's support would be half of what it is.
1
@WZ Warren showed she is playing to the lowest common denominator, and she will lose support from her current base, the more she exhibits use of cunning and calculating tactics. She lost my support last night. Bernie is getting a campaign donation this week.
2
Warren's reticence about health care taxes is probably sensible. We're still nearly 4 months from the first primary and more than a year from the election. Giving ammunition like that right now to her stage mates seems a bit short-sighted. She's have to answer it eventually anyway. But not now. She's doing too well in all the other areas. And she's educating America that their 'private' health care may not be the great deal they think it is when serious illness strikes. That is a hidden fact that only she is highlighting.
As with most pundits (and Bruni knows better), their post debate comments quickly lose sight of the limited time candidates have to respond to questions requiring nuance and data driven evidence. So we get this from Bruni:
"She kept saying, as if it were a tic or a stutter, that “costs will go down” for middle-class families, the translation of which is that taxes might well go up but that those families would be economically ahead of the game in the end.
"If that’s the case, why not be explicit about the arithmetic and own it? If there’s nothing to hide from, why hide from it?"
"Hide"!?! Ye gads man, was there a candidate on that stage with more detailed plans on more of the pressing problems America faces than Elizabeth Warren?
4
@gary daily Yes, he was standing right next to Joe Biden.
1
I don’t understand why Warren opposes a public option, calling it Medicare for all who can afford it.”. It would have to be nationally available and it should be less expensive than private insurance.
2
@Lawyermom
It would be less expensive because it would shift the costs of covering people who need more care to the public system.
UnitedHealth Raises Profit Targets on Higher Sales
Results top analyst expectations as net income rises to $3.54 billion in quarter.
The only way massively paid healthcare CEOs make such profits is by charging higher and higher premiums while simultaneously denying claims.
Healthcare, like education and roads, is an essential service in a developed country. 100 senators with top insurance have sold us out. Why does the press not question Congress as to why universal healthcare works in other countries?
3
I'm disappointed that most Democratic candidates eagerly jump into the media-crafted narrative around healthcare and taxes. They are all smarter than that and they are all making a choice to play the dumb line because they know it will get press and they know people will hear "tax increases" and get angry (only when they apply to the middle class though). We pay a tax on healthcare in at least two forms: 1) our healthcare premiums that come out of our paychecks, and 2) the reduced salary we received owing to the employer's portion of the healthcare premiums they pay on our behalf that we simply don't see and therefore don't complain about. If we get rid of that premium and employees see a salary increase because of it, then why are we talking about whether their taxes increase? Warren's right to talk about the net gain/loss.
I also am annoyed because almost every candidate railing against MFA is lying. They all claim that people can keep their private insurance if they want. Good luck with that. Once a public option is in, we will see a rapid upward spiral in premiums as small businesses drop the hassle of health insurance and move employees to the public option. The "moderates" are all lying or pretending this is not an eventuality to try to score points on the progressives and it will bite them all later if they are elected.
3
@AW Agreed on the math behind the taxes and costs of healthcare. But I'd add that the portion of premiums covered by employers should probably be transitioned to some form of payroll taxes -- which will help fund MFA. And then after you reduce/eliminate the tens (hundreds?) of billions in profits earned by the broader healthcare complex, you wind up with a much more efficient system with the same if not better health outcomes. I think the only legit concern is whether the US Government is capable of effectively running MFA, and running it efficiently.
2
@JayNYC Great idea!
I have watched all of the debates and, increasingly, I do not see any of them being the next president.
None of them stand out, for me, as being a strong leader who will be able to master both domestic and foreign policy and negotiate and compromise with what will most likely be a GOP controlled Senate and a House that could... just could....go back to being GOP controlled.
Understandably, the debate format itself is detrimental to any of them being able to outline a policy with enough detail for us to understand and make comparisons. But, that's what the DNC chose.
Steyer has, reportedly, already put over $40 million into his own campaign. I hope he is not spending it, because we need that money to be funneled into the Senate campaigns of Democrats.
Same for some of the others who have no chance. Go ahead, raise funds, but save them for Senate and House races.
And, for those already in the Senate who have no chance at the nomination? Stay in the Senate. We need you there.
Priorities:
Hold the House
Get at least a majority in the Senate
Win the Oval
1
Warren is my favorite candidate. I will vote for her.
Still, I too wonder why she can't tell the truth about the financing of her plan. I suspect it's a campaign decision. Sadly, I suspect any talk about any tax increase would alienate too many voters. (People like to think infrastructure grows on trees.) That it would be offset by increased benefits makes the talking points very complicated, also losing people.
It must be strictly strategic that she doesn't come out say the word 'tax' and instead focuses on the overall beneficial outcome.
1
When have voters demonstrated that they are grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner?
1
"Warren ... came across, in this instance, as a classically evasive Washington operator, scared to treat voters as grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner."
that's one way of looking at it. the other way of looking at is that the gentleman from the ny times who kept asking her the same question over and over was in fact unable to process the information she had already given him in a sophisticated manner.
2
Let's do the math. Right now, a person making $70K per year and who is < 65 years of age, spends $1,015 per year for Medicare (tax rate = 1.45%) plus about $15K in premiums for a private health insurance plan. The comes to $16,015 per year; it does not include additional charges for co-pays, exclusions, and other charges not covered by private insurance, Such added costs vary and are difficult to estimate; however, let's assume they amount to $1.5K per year. This brings the total cost for health care to $17,515 per year.
If the medicare tax rate is doubled -- from 1.45% to 2.9% for individuals -- its cost would rise to $2,030 per year. Since Medicare, as now constructed, pays 80% of medical costs, one would have to get a supplemental health insurance plan (Medigap plan). This costs less that a regular plan, but might be as much as $6K per year, bring the total yearly cost to $8,030, much less than $17,515 for a private plan. More important, there will be no co-pays and other added expenses under a Medicare for All plan.
Being able to enroll so many people in a Medicare for All plan puts the government in a very strong position to negotiate significant cost reduction in all health care services. Since administrative costs for Medicare are now about 8%, in comparison to >35% for private plans, health care costs would be reduced even more. Sanders and Warren are right in focusing on a plan designed to reduce total costs. Cost savings are what really matters.
5
You're doing math, but it doesn't apply to everyone. Self-employed people already pay 2.9% for medicare, for instance.
People who make less, but buy Obamacare may get subsidies that pull their premiums well below your given amount.
People who get decent healthcare through work certainly don't fit your math. No, their employer picks up half their medicare taxes plus many pay comparatively little out of pocket for decent healthcare. Why do you think they are a hard sell for medicare for all?
This is true for both upper income and lower income "healthcare haves". My brother is median income but he's in a union, gets great healthcare. He's a hard sell. I also know $150k/yr-plus folks who get great healthcare benefits through work. Hard sell.
Self-employed, too much income for subsidies (people like me), would absolutely love medicare for all. Hence, so many of us do like what Warren/Sanders have been selling. But we're not enough to elect a president.
If Warren becomes the nominee, I predict that Democrats will lose to Trump, again.
I wasn't a big fan before, and after last night am even less so. She came across as condescending ("What's the point of winning the White House if you won't dream big?" Uh, because a president is not a dictator, and there is the pesky Senate to go through to pass bills). She came across as disingenuous (when she wouldn't admit that taxes would go up and omits to say that many developed countries with universal coverage have a mix of public and private insurance - as in, Medicare as one option, not the only option). She came across as petty and small (when she pointedly thanked Obama and left Biden swaying in the wind).
Centrist voters will look at her and see an east coast liberal who thinks she knows better than anyone what everyone else needs.
Full disclosure: I support Pete Buttigieg.
8
Democrats face a simple choice - win or lose. Warren needs to be honest and clear about the details of her health plan. She needs to be specific about how cost goes down, how much taxes will go up, and how the math will benefit most people. Otherwise, she doesn't deserve to win. And last night showed that she will sulk rather than fight. That's not a plan.
4
“Middle voters” who think others will not vote for Warren or Sanders in the general election are not thinking for themselves. They hear media proclaiming that an ambitious plan (and a “plan” is just that—not legislation, not bills, not law...but simply a roadmap, a guide) will scare moderates who don’t want to disrupt society. Well, hello, society ALREADY IS DISRUPTED. We need bold vision, as Mayor Pete says, but we also need “plans” on how to do it, which Sen. Warren has. Makes perfect sense if you only think about it.
1
I'm mighty sick of the media's defiant demand that every Dem candidate who wants Medicare for All needs to utter the phrase "I will raise your taxes." Will we ever hear a Republican candidate who supports private health insurance be asked "How do you sleep at night with so many Americans dying each year because they don't go to the doctor for lack of funds?" No way. This is not the way the wealthy pose questions to each other.
4
"scared to treat voters as grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner."
I'm politically incorrect. "She realizes that many voters aren't grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner.
Walter Mondale, in a debate with Ronald Reagan, said "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.”
Reagan won 49 states. I'm not saying that that statement was responsible for that landslide, but it was a factor.
Voters don't like to have their taxes raised, and many don't believe that their health costs will go down enough to make up for the tax increase.
In any case, President Warren won't get Medicare for all in the first few years of her first term. It will take more time.
I intend to vote for her in the California primary.
4
I don't think it's a good idea to insist on Medicare for All in the face of a decided popular preference for a hybrid solution. However, I can suggest how to talk about the financing in a way that would make it understandable to someone like me.
Start from the universal recognition that you pay for what you get. Of course you're going to pay for health insurance, whether you get it from the government or from a private provider. The question is where you can get the better deal. Sanders and Warren are probably right in saying you can get it from the government.
It might be best to propose a dedicated health-insurance tax scale, which people could compare with the total they're spending on health care now, instead of letting rumors run rampant about the way "taxes will go up" under Medicare for All. That's if one really must press for pure single-payer instead of considering a modified alternative like the German system.
Besides clearing the air on the subject of costs, it will be necessary to address concerns about the quality and timeliness of care that can be expected under Medicare for All. There's no shortage of horror stories from countries with public health-insurance systems. However, there are success stories as well. It would be best to see what manner and degree of government involvement leads to the greatest success and be guided by that knowledge, rather than set out to do away with private providers.
We have a country that has been taught to live with lies. One of the biggest lies is that a President can accomplish much of anything without a supermajority in both houses.
Shooting for the moon - speaking to ideals rather than practical possibilities - is the best way for the powerful and effective pragmatist who is Liz Warren to make her case.
As long as the "left" is encouraged to think that anything less than bold ideas and no compromise is the only way, the progressive leadership must thread this needle.
We have Reagan, Laffer, Bush2, and Trump to thank for tax cuts for the rich - no tax and spend - as the solution to everything.
Our willingness to give up our market-driven inequalities is a very great shame, but ignoring the vile prejudice against honesty led by corporate America and the 1984-like corporate apparatus is not the way.
Odd that those struggling hand to mouth prefer the cosmetic illusion of wealth and possibility to the reality of a Democratic set of programs that bring us back to a proper market, not a rigged one.
I will vote for any Democrat, but when I look at our economy, I get a cauld grue.
Only Warren has experience with the financial world, and the intelligence and grit to begin to deal with the removal of real value from our world.
3
I've said it before and I'll say it again, and again, and again...
Warren/Booker as the Democratic ticket.
I think they balance each other very well, and would be a powerful, intelligent, harmonious paring.
And they both know the workings of the corrupted McConnell Senate. A definitive advantage.
1
Warren consistently shows us a different way of thinking about the issues. Other candidates define problems as we have for decades, and talk about doing the same things we have tried but expecting different results. Warren has a new way of looking at problems, and new ways of solving them. So refreshing -- and promising.
4
What I saw and heard last night was a strong moderate presence trying to be heard. They weren't attacking Warren as much as trying to get a little media attention that there are other democrats in the room. If you are outside the bubble you will know people are eager to replace DJT. But, not with Elizabeth. I am shocked but not surprised. Let's give all of these candidates a voice.
4
Warren is dodging questions about a middle-class tax because she doesn't want her answer to become a soundbite. She is pitching her campaign to middle-class and working-class voters, including those who may have supported Donald Trump. Her progressive rhetoric is tempered by her assertion that she is pro-capitalism (and has two GOP brothers). She has carefully defined, and is aiming at, the constituency that Sanders has imagined and Biden takes for granted.
Warren has modified her image, so that she is now less the professor who flunked you, than the assertive, smart PTA mom who stood up for the community when the school administrated defaulted. It's a good sell to those voters whom she needs: blue-collar and middle-class moms, and maybe husbands who will be less threatened by Warren than they were by Hillary, who despite her protestations had "Human Resources Termination Team" ("We wish you well!") metaphorically embroidered on her jacket.
I am very impressed with the Warren campaign. My concern is that she will alienate uneducated white men; but really, if she captures the smart blue-collar women, she'll do well. She is telling people, "I was and am one of you" (and, as a woman with blue-collar roots, I see that she's for real about that; you can take the girl out of Brooklyn, but the grit, steel and disdain for corruption remain).
I think she'll be the candidate and can win. (Castro or Booker for V/P.)
3
I would like Warren to turn the question of taxes for healthcare on it's head. Point out that a tax to pay for healthcare, based as a percentage of income - as opposed to premiums based on age but irrespective of income - is the most progressive way of paying for healthcare. The ACA subsidizes the premiums for many people with a tax on wealthier Americans - a tax that Republicans are keen to get rid of - but there was a whole group of people left in the lurch - people who's incomes were too high to qualify for subsidies and find themselves only able to afford high deductible insurance that would prove to be expensive should they get sick. Why not take the opportunity to point out what the ACA did accomplish, namely getting the wealthy to contribute more to healthcare costs, but that more could be done? Why not point out that one reason workers have not seen gains in their income is because healthcare premiums - whose costs are hidden from them by their employers - represent a bigger and bigger percentage of their salaries?
2
Let us not be fooled by the process of momentum and entrenched camps within the Democratic Party.
While Warren may be up by 10 some-odd points, Sanders is down by nearly the same. The two own title to the same block of voters. Eventually only one can succeed although I imagine that the Biden campaign was hoping for a longer, drawn-out debate between Sanders and Warren. His numbers haven't budged too much but for every point Warren has picked up can be mirrored by every point Sanders has lost.
The heart-attack didn't do Sanders any favors and Warren was the benefactor.
But Warren will need to do more than just chip away at Sanders. Biden will too benefit when those that are more moderate stand down from their front runner.
3
Warren doesn't need to go into detail about how to pay for Medicare for All. She could just quip, "Mexico will pay for it." Or mimic Trump's campaign pledge of "beautiful healthcare" for everyone that is "better and cheaper" than Obamacare. He certainly didn't mention how HE would pay for it. What disappoints me about her response to the question and the attacks is the absence of "fight" in it. She doesn't seem to be fighting for Medicare for All. There are great benefits for the middle-income working people of America she could be promoting, benefits that would overwhelm any tax-raise "gotcha" noise. I want Medicare for All or something like it for my children and grandchildren. I want that peace of mind that they will always get the care they need after I am gone. Warren is my first choice, but she'd better start fighting for what I want. Soon.
2
I think this talk about the costs of healthcare misses half of the equation. The other half is risk. Those who get insurance through work lose it when they leave, go on strike, are paid off, or when the company cuts benefits and raised rates. Those who make it safely from Company A to Company B, whether they moved themselves or their company was bought out, may find a much weaker plan than the one they had. Further, the ability to chose one's own doctor is a mirage -- you get the doctors your plan says you can have -- or pay yourself for others. I'm three years out from Medicare and cannot wait to cross the finish line, not because it's cheaper, because I'll finally feel safe.
5
Populism -- whether from the right or the left -- isn't a good way to run a country. Someone made a point on CNN this morning that Warren is the reverse image of the current president.
I agree ... and I find it nearly as terrifying as I find him.
What she, and many in the left wing of the Democratic party, seem to be saying is this: "We're here for those of you who are striving for the American Dream. But once you achieve it, you're nothing but an ATM to us."
Spend the money my family already gives the government better before asking us for more.
Be honest with the American people about who is going to see their overall costs for health care go up.
Answer the question: who is going to pay for all of this?
7
@JM
So only billionaires achieve the American dream?
What a straw man. How many people have over $50 million? And even then, it's a marginal tax of 2% on wealth OVER $50 million.
2
@Eric --
Despite Warren's focus on wealth >$50 million, she won't be able to make enough money from her wealth tax to fulfill all of her promises. The people who have that much money can move assets and themselves, if they need to, to prevent the taxes.
When she's asked about paying for Medicare for all, she refuses to answer. It will have to be paid in some sort of income tax, so again, why can't she tell us who she means when she talks about the "middle class." Who she means when she talks about people who are "rich" and "elite."
There are a lot of families in the top 10% of incomes who get their income from wages, not investments. In the end, we'll be the only people she can turn to, as the capitalist class shuffles investments, tinkers with business structure and expenses and generally is able to hide the majority of their income and assets.
Wealth taxes haven't worked in virtually any country where they've been tried. Capital can be moved easily, and when you've got that kind of money to protect, my guess is you'd move pretty readily to, if need be. There may be a population explosion in the Caymans in 2021.
1
@JM
So we are incapable of addressing tax cheats? We should just accept the fact that, according to Forbes no less, "the country’s three richest individuals—Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos—collectively hold more wealth than the bottom 50% of the domestic population, “a total of 160 million people or 63 million American households.” Roughly a fifth of Americans “have zero or negative net worth”?
The reason Warren refuses to talk about raising taxes is that any mention of higher taxes will become a Republican meme to attack her. She needs to explain that any increase in taxes will be offset by not having to pay for private insurance. But that subtle point is difficult to put across without including a sentence about higher taxes that will be used in attack ads, particularly in a debate where the total time allocated is less than 20 minutes. Once the stage is reduced to a few candidates more complex answers avoiding giving ammunition for attack ads become possible.
3
Medicare for All will likely kill Warren's candidacy. If you want to see what American style nationalized health care looks like go to the VA, Native American Reservations, or Medicare run nursing homes. Neither is an option I would wish upon anyone. Then look at how well other hugely expensive US programs are run. Like the Pentagon, which "only" gets a trillion dollars a year. Yet it 'lost' a trillion $ during the last decade somewhere between Afghanistan and Iraq. You really have to wonder how the US will effectively be able to go from zero $ to an overnight $4T public health care program. Other countries with national programs took decades to develop them. Add in that some Americans actually like their current doctor and accompanying insurance program. And then there are the taxes. Yes, if America wants European style health care, and pensions, etc. then taxes will go up on ALL levels of the middle class Add in a VAT tax of 3-25% on simple items like bandaids and sun screen and you get an average tax burden that is 56% (Sweden) vs. the 36% Americans pay now. For sure our health care system is insanely dysfunctional, but simple transparent pricing, with cost caps related to efficacy on medications, and procedures will make a significant dent in the runaway inflation of health costs. Mandating GP/NPs spend more at least 30 minutes per patient will help too. Vast medical care change takes decades and costs trillions. To pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.
4
Not so fast. The VA and Medicare wards are absolutely full of extremely expensive, high needs, chronically ill, resource poor patients who are thrown to the government, because private insurance refuses to pay for their care and all the family resources have been drained dry by the private medical system.
I am a disabled vet. I use that care. Yes it can be frustrating, but it is also filled with fine civil servants who know the meaning of service before self.
@Ask Better Questions To ignore the massive waste, rationing of care, denial of care, and inefficiencies of the current private health care system is more dishonest! The message should be that Medicare for All will cost LESS than the current system, and that's the truth.
1
I thought Buttigieg made the best point of the night. The day after Trump leaves office, the body politic will be in shock. The first priority will be to restore some comity to a polarized nation. Nothing will be accomplished on the pressing issues of our time, no votes will pass in Congress, until some healing is obtained.
The conditions at the time will dictate, almost day by day, what steps the new president must take to heal the rifts, and begin, however modestly, to address the exigent problems of our time. The radical, purity-tested plans of the campaign will remain in their digital file folders.
Those on the left argue there will be no time to waste, and we must shoot for the stars, if we are to meet the rising tides of water and despair. But they will be fooling themselves, and doing a great disservice to our common future, if they fail in their zeal and hubris to take account of human nature, if they cry out for radical change when small, doable first steps are needed to restore confidence in the social order.
10
When we have Medicare for All what will wait times for specialists (i.e. orthopedists, rheumatologists, etc.) be like? Will the wealthy have "underground" ways to see specialists more quickly than the average recipient? Will we actually be able to keep (and see quickly) the physicians we now have? Will be be able to go directly to a specialist, or will we have to be cleared first by a primary care doctor? What about wait times for preventive care, for instance mammograms? What will allowable visits be for physical therapy, mental health, acupuncture, chiropractic, massage? Will physicians be able to say their practice is closed? Will there be no more pre-authorizations and denials? Will the latest drugs and techniques for catastrophic illnesses be available to everyone? Will there be an underground market for the wealthy who can pay for these? For those whose excellent medical insurance has been part of a total package (i.e. teachers, firefighters, dock workers, police) will their salaries increase as their taxes also increase? Should the few sacrifice for the many? I look forward to any clarification.
3
@Sharon Maselli I mean you can get hung up on all the nitty gritty details, but how about just look at the health outcomes of countries with--dare I say--socialized medicine. The US spends more on healthcare and has worse outcomes than most high-income countries. Something has obviously got to change.
1
We see what we want to see I guess. I didn't see a front-runner staying "cool and confident" under fire, but a somewhat duplicitous, definitely weasely, condescending academic speak disdainfully about all those not on board with her fuzzy math, decrying us all as shills for millionaires. What a load of rubbish. I saw someone unable to own it, and unable to think Vice-President Biden for his role in passing Obamacare, which told me also she doesn't know how bills actually get passed.
It was a night for the midwesterners -- Buttigieg and Kloubuchar -- not for an imperious academic from Massachusetts.
13
“...scared to treat voters as grown-ups.” Are you kidding me?? What rational, reality-based politician would treat voters like grown-ups? Those with a death wish? How did that work out with, say, Walter Mondale, who treated voters like grown-ups and got destroyed by a man who treated voters like idiots? What Warren’s performance showed me is that she recognizes her wider audience, and makes allowances that might give her fighting chance in a future fight against an American calamity that goes by the name of Trump.
2
We need a candidate for all Americans, not a socialist with talking points about how to raise our taxes. We don't need a revolution; we need a leader who doesn't embarrass us. Bernie didn't win in 2016 because he was all about Medicare-for-all. Let's learn from that.
4
There’s no candidate for all Americans. And Bernie lost the primary because the DNC was rigged in Hillary’s favor. Anyone who denies that is just willfully ignoring the facts.
Warren's refusal to state unequivocally that taxes will rise for middle-class people but total expenditures on health care will fall probably stems from a political calculation: if she owns up to that fact (as Sanders does), she hands the Republicans a standard line: "Warren wants to raise your taxes!"
This is a mistake, because no matter what she says -- indeed, no matter whom the Democrats ultimately nominate -- Republicans will cry, "The Democrats want to raise your taxes!"
So better to get out in front of this hoary line of attack. "Yes, your taxes will rise some, but we are rebalancing what you pay for in total for health care. A slight tax rise is worth no more co-pays, no more outrageous drug costs, no more monthly premiums. In the end, you'll have more money in your pocket to spend as you see fit AND have secure, guaranteed health care for you and your family for your whole life." People can understand that, and it has the virtue of being true.
2
As far as Warren's attacks on billionaires and multinational corporations, I still think it's a positive. If the last few years of international politics has shown us anything, it's that populism and scapegoating resonates. Look at Trump, Conte, Modi, Duterte, Erdogan, Brexit, etc. But targeting immigrants and minorities isn't the only form of populism. If humans can't resist scapegoating, at least they can set their sights on the right target - the oligarchy who has captured political power along with the lion's share of the national wealth over the past 30 years. If Democrats lost 2016 partly because they didn't address the frustration of the white working class, Warren's strategy attacks the real culprit, rather than deflecting blame towards immigrants and minorities which trump has done so successfully, and so tragically. Bring out the pitchforks!
Warren it is. I think I was one of the first people to advocate she run for president back in 2008 or 2009.
I'm astounded that such a simple thing like medicare for everyone would be so controversial. This is a very corrupt country. People are getting gouged by a corrupt health care industry.
1
Sheesh. Warren won’t say that middle class taxes will go up and shrouds the reality with the ditty that overall costs will go down because she doesn’t want to give Trump a sound bite. Like he needs it. He will say whatever he wants anyway. She should come clean.
3
Why do you want her to utter the words "taxes will go up" in a place where that can be recorded out of context and made a centerpoint of the general election attack ads? She knows better, and so should you.
2
The elephant in the room... There aren't enough doctors and medical facilities to treat everyone.. We will be forced to ration healthcare.
Here's another thing to consider.. Will medicare for all eliminate the VA Hospitals- or will everyone have access to those facilities?
2
We ration health care now, by price. And some people don't get the care they should because of this.
1
As a a lifelong Democrat (first voted in 1970) I do like Warren, but if she sticks to the Medicare for All mantra and not be open to a transition to Medicare, I won't vote for her nomination. The former is a sure loser. Also, free college, if that's still on her platform, unless it is for the first two years (i.e. Community College) is also a loser with all but the Z generation, and although we do need the young voters not at the expense of losing the presidency. My $0.2.
4
Warren’s manner is NOT cool. She’s so intense and intellectual that she wears me out, whether watching or just listening to her. Many of her ideas are good, but she is too far left and her manner too elitist to beat Trump. The Democrats need to wake up.
9
Warren can’t explain all the details to pay for healthcare bz most Americans are too busy or too ignorant to understand it. Americans w healthcare from employers
have no idea how much they and their employer pay for healthcare. And forget they are one lay-off away from being uninsured. A Medicare for all can change that equation and put money back in people’s pockets, while keeping them from medical bankruptcy. But the devil is in the details. For now Warren should just say she’ll keep private and add a public option. Dumb it down until after she’s elected.
Put aside for the moment your voting preferences. Trump presently (subject to impeachment) dominates the field because he is sharp, incredibly aggressive and very very dominant. Kind of like LBJ, minus the accent. OK, a sop to y'all--he's also amoral, but other than that...:-)
The Dems have no counterweight. Biden was supposed to provide it but he frequently seems confused and diffident. Trump will blast him out of the water.
Listen. If he got out and Bloomberg got in (who is a tough guy and superb administrator), I'd vote for him happily, as would many thousands of others.
2
Its all a waste of time. Any Dem will get all the Dem votes and anti Trump votes. It does not matter if its Bugs Bunny. The Trump folks will never vote for a Dem. Their policies? They are all the same with little details that do not matter since when they get to the congress they will be totally changed to get passage.
It goes goes on too long.
If the Dems fail to get the house and Senate it will all be a waste except the Crazy Man will be gone. This whole show goes on too long. Trump should not be allowed to fly all over at our expense and run for reelection, the Dems should be in Washington working and the whole thing should be limited to 3 months.
1
Medicare for all sounds great.. The State Department may as well start running ads in the international papers now.. If you are a Doctor and want to live in the US- please apply now! We will need thousands more doctors and health professionals and hundreds of new hospitals and treatment centers.
We will also seriously need to think about eliminating the VA hospital system.. because we will need those facilities too..
@Aaron
The VA hospitals in NY are run by private Hospitals. Mine, Manhattan by NYU Langone, Bronx by Mt. Sinai.
"why not be explicit about the arithmetic and own it? "
and give the GOP free ads?
Smart woman!!
She answered the question, but in terms not dumbed-down at all.
Sort of Mr Mueller's report - clear as can be, if you pay attention.
1
Warren is my top choice.
I have donated and will campaign for her.
I will vote for whoever the nominee is, without pouting, backstabbing, staying home in a pouty snit or voting for Trump as a protest.
I invite all Dems to do the same and save our Democracy from the destruction of another 4 years of a Trump Cartel crime spree.
2
Piling on Warren; show me the money. Aside from Sanders, show me where your money is coming from- donors, dinner/donor meetings, etc. Be specific- on stage, name your biggest donors, their companies. Specificity should run both ways.
And I had to laugh at the “Winners and Losers” companion op-ed; Steyers ‘ buying his way onstage’? Huh? But isn’t that one of the requirements for participation? They are all buying their way in.
I like Steyers. And we know exactly where his money comes from- and where he’s donated it for years. You go, guy! Like Jimmy Carter- early days.
I've come to the conclusion that Americans are simply too close_minded or too dumb to do what every other advanced nation has done for decades..guarantee affordable health care for all.
1
Bernie for a bolder and better America. And Elizabeth should be his running mate. Go Sanders and Warren in 2020!
2
Socialism is expensive.
5
Frank,
Biden was President of the Senate when the Consumer Protection agency needed the votes. Much credit goes to Joe Biden. Warren looked "small" when she thanked Obama. Warren is a "show", similar to Trump without all the negative antics. "We are going to build a wall and Mexico will pay for it". "Medicare for all and the wealthy will pay". Both are fantasies but they sound great to their voters. Time for Amy K to get a run for the Dems. She would also be the perfect VP candidate for Biden.
3
Elizabeth Warren did answer your question about middle class taxes, Mayor Pete. She gave a solid answer that went to the heart of the question. You just weren't listening. You were too busy taking pot shots at the front runner.
Elizabeth Warren is not talking to the Pete Buttigieg's of the world, with their fancy Rhodes Scholarships and their smug, super-rich backers. Elizabeth Warren is talking to voters like me, and we are listening.
I am, again, impressed with Elizabeth Warren's strength of conviction. If she says she will not sign a law that raises health costs for the middle class. That's good enough for me.
3
Warren's key sentence: "I will not sign a bill that raises taxes on the middle class."
Last night she didn't say "I'm with Bernie" or "I support Medicare for All." People just assumed she does.
Instead, she repeated that sentence about not signing any bill that raises taxes on the non-wealthy.
Why?
I may be wrong of course, but I no longer believe Warren truly supports Medicare for All as Sanders advocates it, if she ever did, because it is political malpractice, as her moderate critics suggested.
But Warren is also right that those critics do not seem to understand the gravity in the crisis of skyrocketing health care costs upon the currently insured.
What's the best solution? Essentially she is saying that we'll figure out the best range of policy options when we see where we are politically after the election. But she made her principles clear and that her vision is distinct from Sanders and the moderates.
In short, it'll be something her Republican brothers could possibly support since, as she said, they don't want people to be without medical care anymore than she does.
My guess is that she will make this clearer as it is politically feasible to do so.
I'm now convinced I can fully support her. Before last night her purported position on Medicate for All made me wonder what she could possibly be thinking politically.
Now, I'm in awe of her mastery. As I see it, Warren is one canny political practitioner!
1
@Melissa Well, she was a Republican through the mid-90s. Whatever she comes up with will absolutely be "something her Republican brothers could possibly support."
1
It is maddening when a direct question is asked and every response to it is deflection and detour into a reflexive sales pitch . On the question of whether taxes would go up for the middle class with healthcare for all, it would seem to even the least analytical that the answer is, yes. If we can agree on that, we can go on to analyze the reduction in “costs”. It would seem that the costs would go down the most for those who need medical attention the most, and the least for the young and the healthy. It’s likely that “costs” would even go up for the young and the healthy while they are young and/or healthy, because their share of the tax would probably exceed their annual medical costs.
This would not be inherently bad, so why not simply acknowledge it? If we are healthy, we are more likely to get old, so over time it evens out an becomes equitable. It works well in a lot of countries. It is a chilling thought that an illness can bankrupt a family.
This could be a simplistic, or simply wrong analysis, but a direct answer to the question would clear it up, and the courage and honesty of a real answer would be less of an insult to the voter.
I wish Elizabeth Warren would revert to the teacher she is and explain that any health care plan will be fully discussed and evaluated by Congress; that she is prepared to stand behind her plan and steer it; that she knows that with it, value from our taxes will be returned to her fellow Americans; that wealthy Americans will be fairly taxed; and that in the end, we will have health care that serves us all. Most of all she should explain that all the objections so far in the debate is so much nickel and diming.
Warren did not display "charm" is brushing aside Biden's pointing out that he worked to get votes to create the new Consumer Finance agency. Sure, President Obama supported the initiative, but as with many other issues, Biden did the heavy lifting to round up Congressional support. By declining to give him credit, Warren was quite the opposite of charming, gracious or even honest.
3
.
There is a BIG difference between "personal expenses" & "taxes" going up and down.
Taxes are paid by taxpayers. That means that a "tax increase" is SHARED by the whole populace. And the amount and duration is spelled out in the legislation.
However, personal expenses have the HUGE downside of being erratic and - far too easily - catastrophic!
I - for one - don't mind paying a modest increase in taxes to protect me (and my family, friends & neighbors) from financial ruin.
2
I am all-in for Warren. Is it true taxes will be raised to pay for healthcare? Probably. I pay almost $1600 a month for healthcare right now to cover my kids and me. So if my taxes go up, so be it. It will still be cheaper for me and in the meantime, all of those American citizens who do not currently have ANY healthcare, will get covered at last--like in every other wealthy nation. I have no problem with her not answering the question directly. She never said taxes will go down or stay the same. Rather, she knows, as any good politician should know, that referencing any tax for the middle-class will be used to bat her over the head time and time again by the right-wing echo chamber. They will take the quote of more taxes, but forget the part about lower costs. That she doesn't get caught in this got-cha moment is one of the reasons I'm voting for her. If you don't like that she does this, then your anger should be with the political system that allowed someone like Trump, who actually LIES multiple time a day, to be elected, rather than with Warren. Also, that she has big ideas is appealing to me. We can't have another milque-toast candidate. And I want (and will vote for) big ideas even though I am quite well-aware that such ideas must be actualized in legislation, which will be an uphill battle. But I'd rather start that negotiation and then move to the middle. Starting in the middle means you end up on the right. No thanks - not again if we can help it.
4
For the first time in nearly 4 years, I liked Bernie. Different than before his heart attack. Not so angry with flailing arms. Effective but also mellower, sounding more compassion than fury. No, he's not an electable candidate, but a more likable man.
Like with Hillary, we're now going to get our fill of positive articles about Elizabeth. The journalists seem to like her or at least they've decided she's the likely winner. How that can be when she conceals how to pay for her biggest, most radical idea is just unwise.
3
I think it's exceedingly naïve for candidates like Buttigieg and Klobuchar to criticize Warren's Medicare for All plan as being tailor-made to provide Republicans with a whole host of anti-socialist "talking points." Face it: ANY Democratic plan, no matter how incremental or moderate, is going to be blasted by the Republicans with both barrels. How quickly Klobuchar and Buttigieg seem to have forgotten the Obamacare debate, in which a healthcare plan very similar to what they now advocate—one originally modeled after a plan created by the man who would later become Obama's Republican opponent—was demonized by the GOP with outlandish, pearl-clutching accusations about "socialism" and "death panels." Do they really think Trump's going to go easy on them now just because their plans leave private health insurance intact?
The Democrats have had this "let's don't rock the boat, and maybe the Republicans will be nice to us" strategy in place for what feels like decades, and it's failed on two fronts: Their incremental, corporate-friendly policies have failed to inspire the voting public, AND they've failed to appease the increasingly radicalized GOP. So why keep doing the same thing over and over if it's failed to pay any meaningful dividends? Warren has made it clear that it's time for the Dems to stop playing scared, and I think that's what's attracted a lot of people to her campaign.
2
@Doug Gillett exactly. So tired of the Dems trying to appeal to everyone, including right-wingers (who now compose the vast majority of the GOP) - who were never going to vote for them anyway. Ever notice how NO ONE ever suggests the GOP candidate should appeal to anyone on the moderate left or beyond? No. The GOP understands that way to win is to bring out your base in droves and the rest of the GOP and those who usually vote GOP will come along. (There are very few true "independents.") That's what Trump did. It worked and may well work again if we do not get our heads out of the sand and realize it's about getting your based excited so they will be the ones working the phones, donating money, and canvassing actual people who VOTE!
Warren's candidacy may be viewed in the history of this century as the high-water mark for socialism in the U.S. but she should never be president - and certainly won't win in 2020.
She needs gov't to dominate citizens to do what she wants and we are just too free to give all our assets to gov't.
4
Biden to Warren: "17 trillion dollars for medicare for all over ten years. How are we going to pay for it?" The nature of governing is to par down and find concrete answers to questions like these. "Vague" was his word for someone who doesn't have the answer. "Petty" is my word for her inability to thank Biden for gathering the votes to make her bill pass. She was booed for that, and roundly so.
4
Elizabeth Warren has plans, but needs to be much more open and specific about details, such as actual numbers regarding the cost of Medicare for All. As someone on Medicare because of my age, I appreciate deeply the fact I don't have to go broke to have health care. Medicare isn't free, since I pay the premium for Part B and also the tax from my part-time job wage. What Ms Warren should do, maybe, is give some examples, like some actual families, what they pay now for insurance wherever they obtain it, and compare it to what it would cost them to be covered by Medicare. Dollars and cents, actual budgets, cost shares, deductibles, and real comparisons instead of "costs will go down". That's too nebulous.
Pete Buttigieg has the right idea. Offer Medicare as an option in the ACA and let people compare and contrast plans to choose what works for them. If it eventually turns out that Medicare is the right plan for the majority of Americans, that will become obvious.
2
It amazes me how little Democrats remember recent history.
In 2004, the election was all about "anybody but Bush." Kerry was elected as the candidate deemed "most electable" by primary voters. He was subsequently proven to not be electable.
By 2008 after 8 years of a far-right president dragging the U.S. economy into a Great Recession, a bold choice was elected in Barack Obama - bold in the sense of race, hints of progressivism, and class. Obama's opponent, a "moderate" said to appeal to the most voters, was trounced. Same with the subsequent Republican nominee in 2012.
In 2016, with an open seat in the White House, Hillary was dubbed "most electable" by the party stalwarts (aka primary voters). She was subsequently proven to not be electable as a bold pontificator with a propensity for hyperbole.
Now we see the same debate over who appeals most to moderates and is seen as most electable. The lesson is clear: go big or go home.
I hope Democratic primary voters vote bold over fear lest the replay button get pressed again on history.
2
You appear to forget the massive slander and out and out lies directed at Kerry and Clinton via the Swiftboaters and of course Russian operatives and Trump sycophants.
Oh, and Clinton won the popular vote...remember?
2
How do you answer a question like 'Will middle-class taxes go up yes or no' when it is not a question that can be answered by yes or no because the answer requires context.s
I wish Warren would say something like this. Take a family of 4 making $60,000 per year for example:
TODAY
Insurance Premium 12,000 per year
Deductible 4,000 per year
Drugs 1,000 per year
Federal Taxes 7,000 per year
Total Expenses 24,000 per year
MEDICARE FOR ALL
Insurance Premium 4,000 per year (Medicare is not free)
Deductible 500 per year
Drugs 500 per year
Federal Taxes 10,000 per year
Total Expenses 15,000 per year
Savings under Medicare for all $9,000 per year
Now which do you prefer, the one where we do nothing or the one where you pay more taxes.
Democrats are always going to be at a disadvantage to Republicans because Democrats have to explain their plans whereas Republicans just have sound bites but no plans to explain. They promise the best 'Healthcare' in the world but that all it is, a promise no plan. Remember Paul Ryan's budget plan that didn't have any numbers in it.
7
It doesn't take much of a medical issue to impact savings, retirement accounts, the ability to work.
Hav a serious medical issue and you can be wiped out.
Take a medical center's offer of financial help with your medical bills, and they want to put you into a "community loan" which comes with late charges (even if you can pay you health may prevent keeping up with everything), and possible legal action.
Refuse a "community loan" and you are told to get healthcare elsewhere, even if you have paid every bill but the most current is thought to be "too high".
Try keeping up with insurance company required authorizations, refusals, appeals,.....
It only takes one medical issue.
Elizabeth Warren understands the economics and the need to protect consumers.
Yes, I'd pay more in taxes, while Elizabeth Warren works to approve medical care for all, the economic benefit would be to everyone's benefit. As would equitable/fair taxes.
2
Yes, I wish Warren would just spell it out. We know taxes would go up - so why not be wholly transparent about it. I get that shes trying to avoid a clip for the Republicans to pounce on. But not spelling it out it out honestly hurts her as well.
2
I am a strong Warren supporter. Nevertheless, I was frustrated that Warren kept repeating the same answer about healthcare last night. It sounded robotic after a while.
However, I think I figured out why she is so unwilling to say that she will raise taxes to pay for healthcare. I was reading the Washington Post this morning and they wrote: “...she did get pushback from across the stage, including from Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke and even gently from Sanders, who again forthrightly admitted taxes would go up under his plan.”
That’s it. No mention of the fact that Sanders strongly qualified his answer by saying all other related healthcare costs would go down meaning that most Americans would end up paying less (which is what Warren means as well.) They only reported that Sanders said TAXES would go up.
Once you say the word “taxes” everything else goes out the window. It’s been like that since the 1970s at least, but it’s even more true now, when people can take a tiny snippet of what someone says and send it around the internet in the blink of an eye.
While Elizabeth Warren does need a better way of talking about this issue, I can see why she doesn’t even want to say the word “taxes”.
6
Maybe I’m just being realistic but even if Warren becomes president the US will not have Medicare for all in 4 years or even 10 years. But that means we must begin the transition. Both Sanders and Warren know that “ middle class” taxes must rise to help pay for it. But no one in the debate wanted to outline the monetary boundaries of this “middle class”. We have to begin a very complicated but doable transition. Will it begin by building on the ACA? How many people will want to continue with private insurance? Remember how Obama blew that opportunity? How will businesses who provide insurance to their employees respond? I can see why a debate amongst 12 candidates on TV, even over a 3 hour period, is insufficient to handle this subject in detail. Perhaps this explains Warren’s evasiveness on the tax issue. On the other hand, it gave Pete and Amy, posing as centrist realists, a chance to challenge Liz. But truly it gave the audience a glimpse of how such a transition has to be managed in the president’s cabinet and in Congress. It’s a Huge job but so necessary when Americans pay so much for medical care, drugs and equipment. And quality of care does not rise. Access to specialists is tightly controlled or miles away for rural citizens.
Lastly, I fault the NYT and CNN moderators for not asking questions about campaign financing, the FEC, The Citizen’s United decision, etc.
1
It seems so many Americans would rather pay a little less tax but a lot more deductibles or treatments for disease. Odd.
4
@FilmMD: at the venerable age of 74, I think I can enlighten you. The human brain is a funny computer, it beIieves that we are younger and healthier than we really are ... until we need health insurance, much to our surprise. The left wing of our Democratic Party has learned nothing from the failed attempts of Hillary during Bill’s first term (resulting in shifting the congressional majority to the GOP) nor from the loss of both Houses to the Republicans after Obama forced his bill through. And if I hear the adjective BOLD one more time, I may lose my mind.
2
@Claude Vidal Why you Americans insist on paying much more, and getting much less health care than any other advanced nation in the world never ceases to amaze me. Medicare for All has been a world standard for decades
I know "tax" is a dirty word so set it in context: According to the CBO and Tax Policy Center in 2018 Americans spent $3.4 trillion per year on health care and the Government spent an additional $1.2 trillion. Combined $4.6 trillion. The Universal Health Care (UHC) plan will spend $3.1 trillion per year and everyone is covered. Our out of pocket health costs for insurance will go down and our taxes will go up. But on average we will pay less for our health care under a UHC plan. I was at first skeptical but it does make economic sense. I do not think the half and half version will work because we all have to pay into it for it to work. If half stay out and still have their taxes raised, it won't work. The only real losers in UHC are the medical insurers. And of course they will throw out all sorts of horrific language to scare us. Most civilized countries have UHC. It seems to work great and nobody is afraid.
1
No, most civilized countries do NOT have, “UHC,” which by the way is the abbreviation that a major insurer already uses, and by which you mean a single-payer system. They just don’t, okay? .
There are 2 reasons why Warren is not saying that middle class taxes will rise. The first is that, as some here rightly point out, critics will seize on that as a sound bite "Warren is going to increase your taxes!".
The second is that it is far from certain that her plan will increase middle class taxes. If the wealthy are taxed more (something most people seem to agree with), we waste less on defense and corporate welfare, and we cut out the insurance companies (thus freeing up employer's contributions for taxation) I don't see why middle class taxes should go up.
3
To repeat: if the Dems win the White House but Mitch McConnell remains Senate Majority Leader what is the value of “plans,” however progressive they may be? The challenge is to win the White House and turn the Senate. This requires motivating your voters to get out and vote and motivating Republicans to stay at home on voting day. Nominating a divisive figure who would mobilize moderate Republicans offended by Trump’s manifold indiscretions and abuse of long-standing political, legal and moral norms, who would otherwise stay at home, would be a colossal mistake. Remarkably, Biden appears to be the only candidate who understands the endgame and has attempted to assuage GOP voters.
1
I have not seen one point ever raised about Medicare for All - what happens to the millions of people who work in private sector health care? Not just for insurance companies, but small companies that also support the system. Many, many of these people are female and low wage. Where are they going to work? If we wring costs out presumably that will mean we will wring out lots of jobs too.
This does not mean that change is bad - but the marvelous inventions of word processing, email, bar code readers, etc managed to displace millions of women who moved to lower wage service jobs as automation took over our lives (my mom was one).
We talk endlessly about the displaced men who worked on factory floors. In the words of Abigail Adams “please remember the ladies”!
1
For all of those big Medicare for All supporters, please explain to me why it will work when it was a complete disaster in Vermont. Every realistic analysis I have read makes the same claim. If we expect GOP to live in the world of facts then we should set the standard. BTW the pundits and her fans don't matter. I know a huge spectrum of voters in the Midwest and they don't trust or like Warren. Don't get wrong; I will support any of the serious candidates. But, the blue states don't matter; only the purple ones.
7
It was a great debate between establishment moderates with their focus group and corporate talking points (Buttigieg, Klobuchar) vs true progressives willing to challenge the status quo even if it seems scary to aim for big change (Sanders, Warren).
If “true progressives,” by which I suspect you mean the four guys in America who agree with you about absolutely everything (though that one guy...need to keep an eye on him, might be a splitter on the topic of grilled cheese) keep this dismissive nonsense up, they might as well get started on their alibis for Trump’s re-election right now.
1
It is Warren in the lead.
She can soften her hard line.
I’m impressed with Buttigieg.
As VP he’d really shine!
1
I was disappointed in Buttigieg's remark on gun control “We have to just get something done.” If you don't set the bar high by the time the Republicans and the NRA get done with your proposal we will be lucky if water pistol are the only thing regulated.
3
@Steve
He doesn’t intend to do anything of substance. He’s an intelligent and articulate guy who likes participating in politics, and people are easily influenced by that.
1
FOCUS y'all. The single most meaningful thing Democrats can do to dis-elect Trump is to keep pre-impeachment hearings going full speed ahead. And please explain why the process seems to want to center on only one example of Trump's unlawful behavior?
Emoluments clause violation to me is the biggest. (And there was the manipulation of the tax code to further favor real estate developers.) And too bad Jeffrey Epstein died!!
It's a long way til the general elections. (Will all the Dem candidates under 45 please drop out.. you are too young. But please help write the platform.) The best thing about these awful debates is that we see lots of ideas. BTW candidates-- interrupting is never attractive. I thought the OHIO debate was the best thus far. YAY Elizabeth -- Granny! (Like in England)
Warren was the worst in ignoring time limits. Self-important. Bad team player. Obnoxious.
5
Compared to whom? Donald Trump?
If the NY Times columnists actually filled out their own tax forms, perhaps they'd realize that asking Warren for "a simple yes or no" answer to whether middle-class taxes will go up under her plan is a truly "dumb" question. Are we talking about middle class in New York and California, or middle class in Alabama and Ohio. What income thresholds are we talking about?
4
Medicare for All is a NATIONAL plan that would require UNIVERSAL tax increases,you know.
1
Who is the 'all' in Medicare for all?
Will it be given to illegal immigrants?
3
Hopefully in the next few months the NYTs will get a chance to learn that they cannot make people vote against their own interests. Pushing moderate democrats and disparaging true progressives is the Times way of keeping corporate interests at the forefront of political consideration. I think the Times will fail in getting a moderate at the head of the DFL ticket , this time. The GOP and moderate democrats put corporate interest ahead of everyone. Everyone being real people and not predatory business entities deemed real people by a partisan court of political hacks.
A change that keeps corporate interests as the first order of business is no change at all. It will be better to let the GOP fully punish the country than to spend fake years under a moderate do nothing that helps the corporations keep the serfs where they belong. I doubt Trump will last, so it will be some other liar from the right, but they all like to punish. Something, by the way, that the middle of the country deserves for being well indoctrinated serfs who know their place.
1
You guys really hate the idea that a woman is leading both Sanders and Biden, don't you? Too bad republicans in all but name and bros.
1
@Neal
The gender defensiveness card. Again.
Gender defensiveness provides a frisson of self righteous excitement to the choir, but is never going to win the election. It generates more Trump voters than Warren voters.
2
Amy Klobuchar’s bumper stickers:
“Stick your dreams in a pipe and smoke them. They ain’t never going to happen while I’m president “
Or
“Klobuchar: Incrementalism! 2020”
1
@FXQ
She was shaking on stage and appeared as if she was about to cry while speaking. Kind of scary.
1
I like to think that perhaps not speaking directly to the tax issue and using very carefully selected language is part of "the plan" (because Warren always has a plan, right?). But, she'll be attacked no matter what she does or says, so maybe it's better to lay it all out now, way in advance of the general election, to try and get ahead of the Trump machine, which will inevitably scream about communism and how Dems hate the middle class. By the time the general comes around, initial headlines would be out of the way, it would be old (though of course not insignificant) news, she would have already laid out the numbers and details, and in the process, (hopefully) strengthened her case against whatever Trump throws against it. The concept of Medicare for all is one that many people will need a lot of time to wrap their heads around, so it can't hurt to start explaining her plan early, when she is not yet the nominee and has the freedom to control the narrative. Bernie has already acknowledged the tax issue and by dancing around it she's leaving herself open to the additional criticism of appearing to be a "typical" lying, self-serving politician, when she is anything but.
2
Do the debates matter? I could care less if Warren or Sanders had a great night. Their policies will throw the US into a recession that will make 2008 look like a boom-town! The moderate Democrats, Biden and Mayor Pete have sound ideas that will work. If they come together, it will be a winning formula. Sanders and Warren are the other side of the Trump coin, better intentioned, yes, but they will still create major issues that take the US in a direction that is dangerous.
6
Warren is trying to emphasize whats been going on can't continue. Does it really matter if 12% of your income goes to private health care providers or the government. People like to point to Medicare fraud and government incompetence but when you're insurance dollars are going to like the high cost of medicine which amounts to theft, whats worse? The prices keep on going up and we have to pay for it anyway.
You can read about drug companies scandals like epi pen and some drug cooperative robbing their customers but what do we in the news 24/7/365 is a "Yuge" diversion. The media decided what's more important and convinced us it was so.
The problem won't go away if you treat it as a tax issue and keep it on the back pages.
4
For a country that elected Trump based on a raft of empty promises, Warren knows that the best approach on explaining Medicare for all is to keep emphasizing the big picture. With current health care insurance being paid by a blend of employer-employee contributions, it is not easily stated whose taxes are going to pay for Medicare For All, neither in the transition four years nor when fully implemented. What is disingenuous of the 'build on Obamacare' bunch or the 'Medicare Option' bunch is (a) how many people are still left uninsured or underinsured and (b) how any expansion is paid for. Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, O'Rourke, Castro leave the poor and the bankrupted by catastrophe in the ditch (they don't vote anyway), stealthily playing to a swath of voters who believe health care is a privilege deserved only by those who work for it while supporting the private health insurance industry that has failed to deliver affordable care.
2
When Elizabeth Warren lays out a plan, that doesn't mean that plan will be implemented starting when she enters the Oval Office. She's pointing to a goal. It tells us the direction she will be working in, when she starts making bargains and so on as all presidents end up doing. Better to start with far-reaching visions to work towards, because the progress is going to be incremental anyway. Which is too bad, because we have lost so much time already, in this ongoing disaster we are living through.
3
I continue to wonder why no candidate suggests cuts in or accounting for the defense budget. It is clearly bloated, wasteful, and, although a sacred cow, needs to be sliced up. That money could then be used for some of the so-called "too expensive" items that Senator Warren presents.
4
Should Income taxes to be higher or lower? Who know’s what they’re currently buying? Imagine you’re buying a cart of items. The receipt gives you a singular total amount without itemizing.
This illustrates the absurdity but also the emotional effectiveness of positions taken on income taxation. It’s a complicated topic but it certainly cannot be understood and appreciated as to what’s a fair and equitable amount on the basis of ‘personal’ generalities without known facts!
Our Federal & Local governments have failed completely to address this public knowledge deficiency. Maybe instead of just a high school Civic’s Class, one dedicated strictly to income taxation policy, procedures and formulations should be established?
Should income taxes be higher, lower or are they just right? Substitute the ‘current outside temperature’ where you’re located for income taxes and that question has a greater context. It then depends also on one’s comfort zone.
2
Cannot envision Warren on the debate stage with Trump. Whoever gets that spot has got to be really strong and really solid and....politically scarey?? Warren does not have the chops...so far anyway. Remember how wacko Trump was onstage with Clinton?? it's not about the message really...more about who can beat Trump. No one on that stage last night....
4
None of the candidates spoke to nor for the most loyal long suffering base of the Democratic Party aka black African Americans. Particularly black African American Protestant women
Why not?
In the 2016 Presidential election Donald Trump won the votes of 63 million Americans including 58% of the white voting majority made-up of 62% of white men and 54% of white women.
Trump didn't run a covert stealthy subtle campaign. Every American knew that Trump was running against African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Mexicans, Muslims, Arabs, disabled, unions, Medicare, Obamacare and Social Security.
Among the 66 million Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 was 92% of the black voting minority including 88% of black men and 95% of black women. But turnout was down 11% from peak Obama 2008 and 2012.
Why?
Black mass incarceration and black mass welfare deformation while talking down to and denying and dismissing black education, health and socioeconomic 2nd class separate and unequal misery.
3
“If there’s nothing to hide from, why hide from it?” Seriously? Ever hear of a Fox News soundbite?
2
Fox watchers won’t vote for Warren anyway. She needs to come clean. Who, in her opinion is the middle class? Who in her opinion are the “rich”? How much will each person pay every month for health care coverage? Who will make decisions on need? Will we need supplemental plans for sums Medicare won’t cover and prescription drugs? Warren is vague and apparently looks down upon people who want details.
1
2020 is shaping up to be another disastrous repeat of 2016. But that’s par for the democrats they just don’t seem to learn very quickly. We are no more ready to except a female president then we are a homosexual president. There are still lots of closet trump voters out there and older people who view this country as falling apart at the seams with great morality failures. Not to mention the people who see the far left hijacking the democratic party that once supported the working class. They still have their backs turned to the blue collar and want to heap free everything on the poor or minorities. Like Warren refusing to admit her socialist agenda will raise middle class tax. I hope we won’t be fooled again.
9
It's sad how a hack like Biden has to do nothing but merely show up.
4
Warren is not served well by the current Pundit Love she is getting. Why?
Because it creates a false bubble around her, that will be pricked and popped at some point, revealing less than the myth makers built up.
That and Frank and Company are propogating another myth, that leftward Dems can win in 2020.
A liberal woman professor with a unproven plan for everything, including effectively seizing a big chunk of the economy for the government to run, what Frank called Fantasy Island two months ago, may not be the best start for the Dems.
The Big Lesson in 2018 was that moderation wins.
Anyone want the big lesson of 2020 to be that Socialist ideas get crushed?
7
I credit getting to Know 12 committed public contenders....
and the side-Roasting of the “Presidential” Pretender.
Come on we are smarter than this.....we did not trade our brain size for our waist size. Warren is the perfect choice she smart and tough,and if something not working she can change that. For all the billionaires out there........a half of a bundle is still a bundle.
2
Ooh , ooh, I have this one! Because the ads would say “your taxes would go up.....” and leave off “but your premiums and deductibles and out of pockets go away.” and Elizabeth knows it.
5
Please, please, please, Democrats, find a way to avoid the circular firing squad that could give Trump his second term.
4
If the Dems nominate Liz we get four more years of treacherous, Putin's Puppet. The dream team, Biden and Buttigieg or Biden and Klobuchar would obliterate the Trump/Pence spectacle.
1
Warren's evasiveness about taxes for Medicare for All (in contrast to all the other costs that people still do incur with today's system of private insurance) may have something to do with the media: They (you) will make a huge headline out of "Middle Class Taxes Will Rise Under Warren" without the nuances she, like Bernie (who was more straightforward but is losing), are introducing in the plan. Namely, that COSTS will inevitably be lower while taxes will be higher. The net looks better, potentially, and fairer, for everyone. But the good old USA is so tax-averse that millions of Americans have voted for Trump, who is an enemy of working people who have bought his fake rhetoric about tax cuts and jobs.
2
The real test is how will Elizabeth Warren fare against a debate against President Trump? He is an expert at debates and outsmarted the 16 Republican presidential candidates to win the nomination. He also won each of the debates against Hillary Clinton who was a seasoned politician but apparently not seasoned enough.
Elizabeth Warren may be doing well now among the Democratic presidential candidates at the debates but she is no match for President Trump. He is a real pro and can bring on the attacks and leave his rivals in the dust. He has done it before and can do it again. Elizabeth Warren is no exception and he will come out on top. All the preparations by Elizabeth Warren on debating will not be enough to beat President Trump during a debate. This is his strength and he has a knack for unseating his opponents. He does it every time.
1
Medicare for all:
Taxes will go up for everyone including businesses. The real question should be will the tax increases be entirely offset by the elimination of health premiums, deductibles, copays and coinsurance, and how will the tax increases be spread by individual income levels and business taxes? The healthcare system is fully funded today through business and individual premium payments and co-pays etc. By eliminating insurance companies and their profits, and presumably redirecting the eliminated profits to the health insurance pool, will that be enough revenue to pick up all of the uninsured and under-insured, or will additional taxes be required? Elizabeth has more to explain regarding the math of how to fully fund Medicare for all and how the government will regulate drug prices.
Wealth tax:
As I understand her proposal, extremely rich people will need to pay 2% of their wealth each year in taxes. In the case of Bill Gates, the vast amount of his wealth is shares of Microsoft stock. This would require that he sell equivalent shares of his stock each year to pay the tax, diluting his ownership share of his company and driving down the share price for MS effecting the rest of us as MS is widely held by retirement funds. Compound this by everyone else such as Paul Allen and literally we would see undue pressure on stock prices each year, not to mention the capital gains tax to be paid as they unload their positions.
3
What am I missing here? Warren clearly stated that overall health-related expenses for middle class families would be lower with her plan. Perhaps she should've added that the significant increases in the "medicare (for-all)" tax would be more than offset by the disappearance of health insurance premiums that families (and often employers) pay for the private insurance.
What is missing is the fate of those who do not work and are uninsured not from their own volition. Those costs may push the medicare-for all costs higher...
3
Moving to a Canadian model will cause a seismic shift in the cost structure of the Health Care industry.
Hospitals, Clinics and Doctors rely on high paying fees to supplement government Medicare/Medicaid. When it becomes only Government program - there will need to be cost cutting and consolidation.
In the long run - this re-balancing could be beneficial - but in the short term - it will make ObamaCare look like a picnic.
Bernie is a true believer - for Warren - this may be just another tale to tell the rubes like her native heritage and her getting fired for being pregnant.
4
I share the conventional wisdom that the single option no more private insurance Medicare for All position that Elizabeth Warren advocates would be unpopular politically and provide Trump with an inviting target. However, I also think that it is bad policy. Health care is a huge and deeply imbedded part of the national economy. To think that an enormously intricate central government Plan that demolishes and replaces it would not have all kinds of unintended consequences IS a "pipe dream"--as Amy Klochubar critiqued. Remember all the serious glitches when "Obama Care" rolled out.
A government Medicare type plan as an option to be voluntarily chosen by people as a gradual transition towards single payer is the right path with respect to both politics AND policy.
4
Yet some how the majority of other industrialized countries have figured it out. Of course we can to. But it would put the insurance companies out of business and less lobbying $$$ in the pockets of politicians. Maybe that’s what’s politically implausible?
When Warren takes the fifth, she evades the follow up question of how heavy these taxes would be if she were elected -- an important issue for people concerned about their financial situation. In terms of wealth and income, all the candidates are from the top half, some one percenters -- they are not representative of the economic stratification in our society.
In spite of their claims against inequality, they would not eliminate it.
4
Tulsi Gabbard is this elections Jill Stein.
Ask Cambridge Analytica.
3
If Warren wins the Democratic nomination, Trump gets re-elected.
She is really out of touch with the average voter and offers few realistic ideas to move forward.
Her fiscal policies would devastate pension plans (via the stock market) and cause great uncertainty in the business world here and world wide.
5
As a recent retiree who is attempting to live off my hard earned savings (and still being taxed like crazy) Warren scares me to death. How much will she raise my taxes and how much of a hit will the stock market take? I am not alone in thinking this way. Do you want more people to become burdens on the state? Or will we just fade into oblivion while those that work for the feds get to enjoy their pensions that have cost them nothing.
2
The most important point of the night was Warren's "some vague campaign that nibbles around the edges of big problems [is going to lose the election]”.
People voted for Trump because they thought their government had failed them and Trump promised to "drain the swamp". We can argue forever about what the failures were and who was responsible for them, but if a people feel their government has failed them, there ain't no bigger problem a politician faces than simply restoring the people's confidence.
Still, the Democrats nibble without much attention at all to the root problem. This, in a time when the whole world faces possible extinction. Is anybody there? Anybody at all?
1
That Elizabeth Warren refuses to provide the GOP and others with a video clip of her saying taxes on the middle class will go up should not be a surprise. That Frank Bruni and others keep trying to get her to provide said clip is more concerning.
trump and the republicans are going to demonize M4A no matter what and since a debate stage with a dozen participants in no place to expound on the details it is well past time to let this attempt at a gotcha moment go. Let Bernie be the person to state the obvious, Elizabeth can do so when she has the opportunity to provide a thorough exposition, hopefully head to head with trump or "whoever the republicans are stuck with".
3
It seems to me as though she's absolutely correct to focus tenaciously on the amount that people will actually pay for medical services, rather than condoning the false distinction between paying via taxes (bad! socialism! bad! bad! bad!) and paying via sky-high premiums (which somehow the insurance industry has gotten us to accept as hunky-dory).
3
Mr. Bruni,
Not sure what you mean by disruption?
We have been living side by side with Medicare for 50 years. Ask anyone on Original Medicare if they would give it up and return to private insurance!
Maybe the disruption is more about the tremendous wealth being made by corporations and their investors off 'health care delivery'.
Did you know we are the only country that profits off health care delivery to the extent of $5.5 Trillion of Health shares in the Wall Street casino?
Shameful that US is known for Profit first, Care maybe!
5
I've been a supporter since Sen. Warren announced, but last night has given me real pause. She showed no largess or openness as the front runner, and was frequently dismissive, derisive or just plain rude. "My way or you're a..." doesn't read tough or brave or surefooted to me -- and if I feel this way, how will those we most need to reach react? Her zingers and arch put-downs may be catnip to some, but I wince at how alienating they can seem. To win, we need vision and we also need healing. I was completely turned off.
10
@Parker
Buck up my friend! Don't despair because Elizabeth Warren won't fall for the higher taxes trap. She's smart...remember that! She is nobody's fool. Also remember that she is fighting for the little guy like me - a 63 year old Lyft Driver. I love my job. I wish Lyft was around when I was in my 40's.
I love the fact that she is a fighter. I have waited a lifetime for someone like her. Make no mistake...you will need a fighter to go up against Trump. She is just the person to put him in his place. Oh by the way, I am a fighter too. I am a US Army and US Navy veteran.
1
I remember that after Trump was elected that this paper went on and on for months, leading to years, that all we had to do was "just wait", that Trump would somehow come to understand what a "presidency" was, that he "would grow into the role", and on and on.
Instead, he grew this country into Republican passivity, accepting of crime, lurid sex stories, ghastly doings by his "friends" in other countries, and bankrupting us.
It's a little more than one year until the next election.
That is going to be plenty of time for everyone on this planet to go after Elizabeth Warren.
Pile on.
Trump will love it and so will the Republican nominee, whoever that will be.
WARREN IN 2020.
....so glad she has a plan.....
3
I don't think any of the Dem candidates have the power to effect any real change. What they need is a powerful governor who has done similar policies in his state.
We need at least a clear description of a feasible national healthcare plan.
Everybody's afraid to say anything definite for fear of losing votes. The Dems peek out of a cupboard stuffed with unpopular ideas and spectacular urban failures. What do they promise? Addicts and needles on every lawn? Floods of newcomers crushing the schools? The tax death of the middle class?
Trump, in a blundering way, is doing the will of a lot of people. Remains to be seen if he blows up the world.
As Obama said, not everybody in the world should be able to come walking in here. As for the ME, they have been drowning in tribal/religious violence for centuries. We can quit throwing money down that hole.
I do not understand why Senator Warren is not responding to this charge of "raising taxes" in her usual clear manner.
Here is what I wish she would say: Your taxes will go down. The tax paid to to the government will go up, but the tax paid to the insurance companies will be eliminated completely. You will come out ahead.
What we are paying to the private health insurance companies is a tax, pure and simple. And since so many of us can't even get medical care after paying this tax without being dinged for even more with deductibles, co-pays, and other outrageous gobbledygook, it is actually more like a shakedown, and we might as well be feeding the dollar bills to a goat.
Buttigieg and Klobuchar are harping on the word "tax" in a way that I find intellectually dishonest and alienating. Warren should swat them away by taking away this silly semantic maneuever.
1
Dear Frank: The terrible underpinning truth here is that these "debates" are not debates at all. I know you might think that American voters will now use this October CNN debacle as a lift-off point to examine the 12 so-called hangars-on, but the truth is that Americans don't read or do research except those at good universities and police departments. Anything gained or lost at this debate is forever lost, with one or two of the most outrageous mini-commentaries may survive a few weeks. (Yawning). With the right ProPol teams - any one of those "debaters" could move into the Oval Office. Politics is about money - most of it unseen, and yes the sly remarks that "Americans can't be fooled" are tantamount to a fairy tale. One hauntingly bare fact is that Donald Trump was elected President of the United States which violently corrodes your argument's worth re these silly CNN ego trips. Money, campaign length, and unfettered 24/7 ads on so-called NEWS stations must stop immediately
1
Anything that will cut the legs from under Aetna or any of the rogue "Health Care" providers is fine by me. My families health care should not be under the watch of "for profit" companies. If my auto mechanic is recommending a certain set of tires for my car, I'll assume he got a good deal in order to make a good profit on them. Good for them. Good business acumen. If the tires stink, I'll not go there again. Now, if my Health Care provider decides on the cheapest course of action to save one of my family members life, and they die, it's of little solace to give them a 1 star rating on Google.
Don't think major companies take the cheapest route, disregarding your safety, in order to make money? Going to jump on the 737 MAX anytime soon?
I don’t understand why so many liberals are trying so mightily to give Republicans a talking point in getting Warren to admit that her healthcare plan would require a tax increase. We all understand that is the case, but Senator Warren rightly understands that if she utters the words “taxes will increase,” Fox will play it on a continuous loop and that will be the end of it.
To use Mr. Bruni’s term, this perverse fixation on divorcing a tax increase from the overall cost decrease is like badgering someone at Gillette to admit they want people to put sharp blades to their face. When divorced from context, even the best medicine can be made to look like deadly poison.
Leonhardt asked the question Warren wouldn't answer regarding whether the middle class would be taxed to pay for Medicare for all. That's a dumb question because as a middle class taxpayer, we all know the answer. Two bigger questions are:
1. how much will be taxed
2. when the inevitable need for rationing occurs, will it be done by long waits, bureaucrats, or physicians. I vote for physicians knowing that's the least likely option.
1
Very disappointed in Elizabeth Warren's inflexibility. I hope Mayor Pete continues to rise.
4
Rent, the minimum wage, Social Security, Healthcare, Student debt are the central issues right now. Trump panders to bigotry and misogyny. He will be re-elected by a populous craving naughty entertainment. Elizabeth Warren must not become Mike Dukakis or John Kerry, she has to sound like FDR and Obama if possible.
Nothing scares people more than an intelligent, articulate woman with a plan who also speaks forcefully and has the chutpah to lead.
3
Warren is harsh and lacks self-perception, her ideals are grandiose and do effect real people. Until she can conquer that reality she will not generate cross-over voters that are crucial to win.
4
The moderators slanted the whole thing for Warren by giving her the most time to speak. They allowed her to go over the alloted time every time she spoke, allowed her to talk over any one else, allowed her to interrupt others.
The 'debate ' was to supposed to give all contenders equal time to provide their respective views. This did not happen because the so-called unbiased moderators prejudged the candidates and played what they or polls thought their tv audience wanted.
Never the less:
VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO
1
@Nshsandy
Couldn't agree more, and surprised it took this far down into the comments to raise this important point. What went on with this supposedly controlled debate, that this was allowed to happen?
But: VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO
1
The Ds could run a chimp against whomever the Rs come up with. Most likely Trump will be gone, impeached or resigned, and the Rs have no bench. It is all about the anti R/Trump vote so I am not getting too excited about the Ds.
Given that though, the D primary is about the soul of the party. They have proven over the last three decades or so they are in the pocket of the wealthy. I do not see that changing, but if it does, it will be because of Warren. At this point though, I am just hoping the Rs go down hard and the party becomes an afterthought. They are truly the biggest threat to this country and you can only fight one battle at a time. The next battle is whether the Ds can resurrect themselves as a party of the people and leave the corruption and wealth behind. I am not optimistic, but we'll see.
Three hours of a very long, too long time for all on that stage. Too much air time for Warren which she hogged unmercifully. She cannot answer the big question about taxes for all for her Medicare plan and in that debate Bernie is more honest and forthcoming. Warren is a pedagogue. Lots of brains on that stage which is a big thanks to all on that stage. I find Mayor Pete a bit too moralistic, a priest, warrior and scholar all wrapped up in his ideals. Uncle Joe could handle things, perhaps. Yang takes away my fixee-in-place menu of where things are with his terribly on-target statements about the past, present, and future. Beto needs to stop repeating his failed success story of the Texas election against nasty Cruz. Klobuchar strong but needs pizazz, I guess? Harris extremely smart and capable. Steyer on the right side of history and love the plaid necktie he always wears but it won't happen. As one wag wrote, donate the money for your campaign to the DNC or some candidate. Booker great but can't get above the big ones. Good-bye Tulsi. Castro super but also a good-bye. A feisty night for all.
1
@Katalina
Totally agree on hogging the air time. I went into the debate pro Warren yet was significantly put off by her explicit attempt to suck up all the oxygen. So many words with so little actually said.
1
The after debate comments were interesting, especially regarding Joe Biden’s performance, his comments were “mostly coherent”, pretty low bar set for, in his opinion the most electable candidate.
Although his backers may have a sigh of relief that he was “mostly coherent”, I’m just sighing because he remains in the race. Nothing personal Joe, but you’re not the person for the job.
1
Arguably Pete Buttigieg has been the most impressive Democratic candidate. The dispositive issue with his candidacy revolves around his ability to attract Black voters. The South Bend police incident is certainly problematic, but a bigger issue may be his sexual orientation. Remember Ohio in 2004, influential Black preachers abandoned John Kerry over the issue of gay marriage, securing the Ohio's electoral votes and the presidency for George W. Bush. While attitudes toward gays have undergone a sea change since 2004, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that attitudes about homosexuality among Black voters has kept pace with the changing views of society in general.
1
Guns and religion still motivates a large segment of Americans. Somehow the .01% has convinced them that their culture will be wiped out by the 45% plus that want a pluralistic, egalitarian, unionized, effective government types. They believe abortion is a symptom of the decay of culture, and hence America's economy. That going full bore with a free for all economy will restore America to its greatness. What was America when it was its greatest? Pluralistic, egalitarian, unionized, with effective government. What am I missing?
Klobuchar and Buttegieg should fold their tents and go home. When they get there, they might want to consider switching parties. The other bottom feeders aren't even on the radar, so MEH. If you are still giving money to any of these, I think you'd get more ROI from setting it on fire.
1
I'm not sure where all these cost savings are going to happen in single payer unless drug prices come way down. We currently subsidize the world market, wonder what will happen once we stop? Will Europeans be willing to pay higher prices or Canadians? And yes, I'm going to pay higher taxes for the plan, since my cohort is in the cross hairs for all taxes. Mainly, due to the fact that 45% of the newly insured won't pay a dime into the system since they don't pay taxes.
I like the wealth tax over the capital gains increases. Capital gains hurts everyone and not equally, there are plenty of people who have moderate incomes that invest in the market. It's too punitive to raise their taxes on returns to get to the wealthy. We need to encourage higher market participation not dissuade it through higher taxation.
Finally, on wealth, it's not that wealth is bad. It's the generational transfer of wealth that leads to negative outcomes. Society needs incentives for people to take risk, build things, create things and conduct business. Part of this is the notion that you will achieve economic success. Bezos should have his billions. However, he shouldn't be able to transfer billions to his children, this is not capitalism. It is aristocracy; creating a class of people that are outside of our laws for generations. I'd like to see much higher inheritance taxes based on the amount transferred post-mortem or they have to setup a charitable trust containing a majority of their wealth.
With my private insurance, I pay $41/pay period (bimonthly - so that's $1,066/year ) and have a $1,500 deductible before my company starts pitching in until I hit my max out-of-pocket which is $4,000. So $4,000 + $1,066 = $5,066 is the most I ever pay a year for insurance (which I did last year for the first time). Our coverage is good, we have a large in-network list of providers and this doesn't even account for my company's HSA contributions, dental, vision, fertility, adoption, and mental health benefits. Call me crazy but that sounds like GOOD private insurance and I for one, don't want to get rid of it.
I'm voting no to Warren and Sanders. Go KLOBUCHAR.
1
That would be considered OUTSTANDING private insurance! None of Warren's programs will be implemented if the Democrats don't gain control of the Senate .. and I don't see that happening anytime soon. So don't worry about losing your private insurance.
1
@Aaron yeah, I know it would be unlikely to pass even if she was elected, it's just sort of a principle thing. I don't want something good taken away when the alternative could be to just offer care to those who don't already have it.
Well for me the attacks on Warren cooks the goose of those that did. For me it's down to three. Biden Warren and Sanders in no particular order. The truth is that Warren my well be right. Others may be taxed at rates which make it unnecessary to tax the middle class. And remember this. With employer paid insurance most employees pay a part of the premium cost. That payment could be made into Medicare as well. Employers would be relived of private health insurance premium costs so they could be taxed at rates less that they are now paying because the profit motive is not costed. This would also level the playing field for employers who are now not providing any health insurances. They can and should be taxed as well for healthcare. It's not that Warren isn't frank. It's that its so much harder to explain than Bernie's simplistic approach.
2
Why is universal health care seen as such a bogeyman when the US is the only developed nation not to have it? For heavens sake LOOK at the UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, Germany - all have 'medicare for all' and ALL spend less of their GDP than the US ie. they deliver health care for ALL citizens more cheaply than the US does with its mangled system which ties health fund payments to employer contributions. Why does no one in the US know these facts which are in the public domain?
Google them; ask any of your expat colleagues living in these countries, but for heavens sake fix this fixable problem.
Of course that will mean putting the health funds and Big Pharma in their place, and neutralising their lobbyists - at least that would be a productive start in draining the swamp... Someone please tell Senator Warren to incorporate these data in her policy statements. She could make it happen.
2
@Cass Phoenix
It's sounds great but everyone is forgetting the one most crucial piece to this complex puzzle.. There aren't enough Doctors in the US to treat everyone! We will be forced to ration healthcare. Think it's crowded in the hospital ER now? Wait until everyone has FREE INSURANCE.. Sorry take a number or come back in 2 weeks.
Also.. there are 160 million Americans who are considered overweight or clinically obese. They have a plethora of self inflicted health issues: Diabetes, Heart Disease, respiratory issues, vascular degeneration, lower back pain.. Why do my taxes have to pay for somebody else's bad life style choices?
If workers paid into Medicare for four decades before they got it and worked 30 years to get private health insurance in their retirement such that they only pay a small copay, how would you win them over by declaring everyone suddenly getting Medicare for all?
2
@Bob 1) LOOK at the viable models of universal healthcare in France, Germany, UK, Australia, New Zealand and completely the expensive inefficient US model.
2) Neutralise the inordinate corrupt influence on legislators of health funds and Big Pharma - ie. actually drain the swamp.
3) Consider working towards a flourishing collaborative society instead of competitive economy.
@Cass Phoenix erratum: "...and compare with the expensive inefficient US model"
It's bound to happen that less performing campaigns will attack Elizabeth Warren. I am glad she did not fall into the trap of "taxes will go up" in relation to Medicare for All. The focus should be on "costs will go down" in a Medicare for All scenario. I will definitely vote for her in the primary. I hope she makes it all the way to POTUS.
2
I'm tired of hearing about the "political miscalculations" of the "monumentally expensive plans" of Warren and Sanders. First, this argument ducks the substantive debate of whether we need large, systemic change in key segments of public policy (health care, education). Second, it rings not only hollow, but smug and presumptuous, coming from one of the many pundits who completely missed the Trump phenomenon as it was happening (and have still failed to learn it's lessons). Stop lecturing us on triangulation, Frank - it's not the 90s anymore.
2
If Warren gets the nomination she will certainly lose the election unless and until she answers the question on increasing taxes on the middle class to pay for her Medicare for All program. Sanders seems to be saying that the taxes are necessary -- and they would be -- but makes the point that because there would be no deductibles and no insurance premiums the middle class would be paying less in taxes than they are now paying in insurance premiums and get better medical care. The Big Question is: Is that true?
If so, then Democrats must ask themselves: Will Americans buy into the idea? Polls show that many Americans would prefer to keep their insurance. If so, then the "centrist" Dems like Biden, Amy, and Pete may be right in arguing that the pragmatic solution is to improve Obama Care or "fix it" as some say.
At a moral and intellectual level I favor Medicare for All. But when the Republicans kick their fear and smear campaign into gear, my concern is that it will cost us the election. If Trump is not impeached and is re-elected Putin will grow stronger, America will become weaker diplomatically and economically and the rule of law will be in tatters. Medicare for All should wait for another day. Trump and the Republican Party pose an existential threat to the nation.
1
I'm a Bernie supporter and once again I can't bear to hear Warren using all Bernies talking points like there hers. Except Bernie is Honest and Warren doesn't stand a chance once she lives Liberal New England. Bernie doesn't get rattled because he doesn't lie and knows who he is. That's why others should look at him as our Best Choice for a sane and inspiring leader. We deserve and need a President who is serious about making working peoples lives easier. To vote for anyone else just means you're back listening to promises of the past that will repeat and never come to Fruition.
2
After Warren's interview with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, I
made my first contribution to her campaign. I love how smart she is.
3
Look how perceptive and open to nuance the Democratic electorate -- or at least the Democratic punditry -- will have to be to differentiate and assess their candidates, while the Republicans, back in 2016, could happily pick the loudest and most sarcastic person. Working smarter AND harder turns out to be the way we'll have to go.
1
I find these debates almost comical because most of these "big" ideas are DOA in DC. The only folks that have a chance of getting their ideas partially moving are the moderates like Pete and Amy. Also the only folks that have a chance to be unifiers.
Remember, chances are very good the Senate stays GOP. And while the House is Dem, overall it holds a moderate Dem vision.
Remember who elects presidents. Independent swing voters in a few key states.
2
Health Insurance like taxes is not just about deciding what the best system is and then enacting it. America has a health insurance system which is largely provided through employers and unions. To recreate it is to force many people to give up coverage they may already like.
1
@Daniel A. Greenbaum Thought experiment. Why not look at the universal health care models in the UK, France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand?
@Cass Phoenix Excellent idea they are all different.
1
All of the candidates are flawed but as the impeachment inquiry deepens, many Americans will come to terms that Trump is damaging the core of our constitutional republic and they will vote for the Democrat, no matter who he or she is. The quid pro quo president has revealed himself to be nothing more than a day trader who can never see the Big Picture (our national interest). Watch for more revelations about how the Trump family has profited from the Presidency. Emoluments clause to the rescue!
2
Although the Republicans and Trump seem to care little now about how to pay for anything--why not spend it on health care instead of billionaires latest yacht. Having said that Warren is super smart, so, she needs to sit down and do the math---I am a bit surprised she has not put out a position paper on this yet--probably because the math does not add up and she does not want that in black and white.
1
Am I missing something? I understand that taxes may go up for “healthcare for all” but we won’t be paying these crazy high premiums. As an individual who pays $900/month with huge co-pays, the tax would surely save me money. And wouldn’t businesses, especially small-medium businesses, make out by not having to provide this as an employee benefit?
1
@R Busalacchi I'm not convinced that a lot of people would save money, overall. The math probably works for people who are paying their own premiums, but for those of us who have employer provided health care, a lot of the premium is paid by the employer. (Not all, and of course there are the deductibles and copays.) So part of the implicit argument here is that if we went to single payer that money that is now being paid by the employer in health care costs would be returned to the employee in the form of higher wages. I don't see any reason to expect that's likely to happen - does American business have a history of paying their workers higher wages with their profits, or do they have a history of rewarding the people at the top, putting the money back into stock buy backs, etc.? I think we all know the answer to this. So I can easily imagine a world in which taxes go up to pay for health care, business gets a bonanza, and workers are left worse off.
I expect you could write a bill to avoid this, but I've not heard much discussion of it.
1
@Warbler Question: Why do the UK, France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand have universal health care which costs their countries less wrt GDP than the US, and is not tied to employer contributions.
Question: Why does the US keep paying for an inefficient expensive system?
Answer: Look at the influence the health funds and Big Pharma have on your legislators ... time to drain that swamp.
Generalizations about a "middle class taxpayer" are frustrating when Warren's examples are always about people that are going through health crises and financial distress. What about the healthy people who don't even use their insurance, but only buy it because it's part of their employment package or because they want it just in case, or because they had to under ACA? The overall cost to these individuals will surely go up under MFA.
Warren needs to recognize that the just-mentioned individuals (many of whom are young) exist. Appeal to their better angels—tell them that this is how a healthy and equitable society is built, that sometimes the strong and fortunate (not just the superrich) help take care of the weaker, but we are stronger overall. This is how we build a strong safety net, which every individual will need some day.
Talk about how the bargaining power of 330 million people will cut the U.S. people a better deal in negotiations with the health industry—better deals than any million-member union could get.
Talk about how the employer contribution to your health insurance is actually an invisible deduction from your paycheck (over $10,000 a year for many) and how that will be redirected to the single payer fund.
Show that you are listening, and you understand the "middle class" in all its diversity.
1
Debate review should analyze whether each candidate's remarks strengthened or weakened their ability to beat Trump. Three candidates lost.
Sanders, O'Rourke and Warren hand the Republican Party talking points. "A vote for Trump is necessary to 'Defend America!' from Socialism, police knocking on doors to confiscate your guns. (AR-15's are only the start will be a claim that resonates), forcing working Americans to pay rich kids' debts for college and the gov't takeover of health care."
Warren & Sanders are accomplishing what I thought would be impossible for the Repub party: casting them as the defenders of 100+ million people's health care. A horrible accomplishment that also foments resentment for a "gov't-knows-best policy," elitism and claims of socialism.
Climate change & many crucial issues make us want to turn the ship of state on a dime with proposals like forced medicare or gun confiscation. They are slogans that cannot pass but can rally the opposition to defeat more measured laws. Nothing can be achieved without defeating Trump & McConnell. Red states with 2 senators and an electoral college exist and cannot be ignored.
The primary, the sole analysis of who "won" a debate is who positioned themselves better against Trump. Warren, Sanders & O'Rourke lost.
1
To read the comments here, you'd never know that 71% of Americans support Medicare for All. Mr. Sanders referenced that poll last night. Nominating a "centrist" à la Clintonesque will not bring the structural changes needed/desired in the US. Warren & Sanders have data to support these structural changes....the second tier candidates do not. In French presidential elections, each candidate is vetted before a national audience with experts on hand to "fact check" the candidate's proposals. If the US had some similar process instead of this media cacophony of "debates" you'd end up with better candidates and a better informed public. That you have so many second tier candidates just 3 months before the first primary is mind boggling. I was impressed by both Warren & Sanders' message that bold structural change is needed & desired. Nibbling at the sides of problems (I'm paraphrasing Warren) will not advance your country's structural problems. The MN Senator gave a fine example: She's ready to tax opiate Rx's at 2 cents/mg (a direct tax to consumers) to fund opiate withdrawal, but disdains taxing the mega rich 2 cents/$ over their 50th million dollar in wealth to fund programs in Warren's platform that the majority of middle class Americans need & support. I've been in France for 20 yrs & my life is so less stressed than it apparently would have been if I'd remained in the US where so many could care less about their neighbor & family. You want change? You better fight for it.
2
@jmc What I thought I heard Sanders say was that 70% of democrats support Medicare for All. The popular vote in this country is fairly close to 50/50, so 70% of 50% gives us a solid 35% supporting Medicare for All, which is very different than 71% of all Americans. I may have mis-heard, but I was surprised by his statement because it wasn't, to me, indicative of overwhelming national support.
I predict Warren's less than candid answer on whether she'll raise taxes to pay for medicare will mark the downward turning point in her campaign. AOC and the squad's subsequent decision to endorse Sander's may not be just a coincidence.
3
All Democratic candidates face a dilemma. Democrats want them to speak transparently, but so does Trump. He is a master at branding people with nicknames and sound bites. Each has to resolve that dilemma in their own Dickensian way.
Warren did really well in my opinion. She's being cautious when attempting to answer some of these questions; she knows is the front runner and the microscope is on her...and Republicans are watching and getting ready to bring down her candidacy.
Kudos to Warren; she's got my vote.
1
"scared to treat voters as grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner"
What warrant is there to support this as a reasonable baseline assumption?
1
Most Democratic candidates are in favor of a single payer system for medical care ( Medicare for all is a version of a single payer system) . Except for Sanders, they are somewhat evasive on how to pay for it. No one has mentioned the possibility of a value added tax (VAT) which is a major tax revenue for most countries; the European Union has a VAT of 20-25% on most goods. It is essentially the equivalent of a flat tax. It has the advantage that it cannot be evaded and the disadvantage ( for many) that it is not progressive. This is how European countries can afford free medical care . As for the disadvantage mentioned above : is it really too much to expect that even low income citizens
have some skin in the game?
1
Let's look on healthcare plans of the attackers which actually are much less defined than Warren's, and leave so many holes that it is not even possible to make the budget estimations.
Kloubuchar's plan: 1)expend Medicare to people 55-65. Great idea, but it doesn't help people who is younger and who is struggling with healthcare cost. Who will pay for expansion? We ALL pay 2.5% of our salaries to support 65 years and older, how much more we will have to pay for 55-65? 2) she will allow the sick people to sign up for healthcare. Great, but that removes incentives for healthy people to sign up while they are healthy, it will increase the pool of sick people, while drain the pool of healthy people, driving cost of healthcare. 3) she will expand role of the private insurances in Medicare, that is actually will strengthen the private insurances while weaken the Medicare, because it will be left with more sick people. Basically, her plan will create great mess, in which the Government healthcare will be restrained in ability to curb the health cost and deliver healthcare to all citizens
@yulia Buttigieg's plan is even worst, because he will not change the system at all, but rather throwing more money in the system through subsidies to people who could not afford, and with uncertain regulations (that he failed to spell out), as result his plan does nothing to curb the healthcare cost and make the healthcare affordable, as ACA did, which is a base for his plan. On top of that he doesn't know how much that will cost and where will the money come from. His and Kloubuchar's plans look attractive only because nobody look at them closely. Once they looked on, it is clear that these plans will do nothing good for many people, but will help the healthcare industry to maintain their profit
I too was disappointed at Warren's answer about taxes and her Medicare for all proposal. I think that she has to approach it by first stating that asking if middle class taxes will go up as a "gotcha" question, where she is only being asked about one side of the ledger. She should then follow up with a simple analogy that would show that overall costs would be lower.
The other tack she must take is to criticize the ACA (Obama Care). Having lost my job this summer and having to find health insurance I was appalled by the cost. Because my wife makes a bit over the salary cap for subsidies (the cap is $65,000), the cheapest plan available is $1,900/month, which comes with a $7,500 deductible. This of course is not affordable.
No one has ever satisfactorily explained to me why on earth MFA would be any more stable than the ACA? There is literally no way to guarantee that the GOP when they hold power again (and they will - we know that) won't gut it. They have worked to kill the ACA in a "death by 1000 cuts" fashion and have had varying success. What is going to happen to all of us when there is no market to try to stabilize? What happens when the government is our only market and it's working to undo itself? The GOP is absolutely going to work to make this happen and lets not even pretend like they care at all how voters feel about it.
1
@Lauren Same reason why Medicare and Social Security are. Too many people will have skin in the game. ACA helps some but for majority it does nothing. It doesn't curb the healthcare cost, it doesn't make the healthcare more affordable. It did expands medicaid in some states, but the number is too small to make political difference.
I don't agree that she wasn't frank about health care costs, Frank. The question itself was a lie in disguise, and she showed that without attacking the moderator; maybe she is just too polite? Why don't YOU attack the question, instead of the answer? The answer was more honest than the question, and if even you can't see that, how can you suggest that Warren behave as if everyone will understand when she explains why, though taxes might go up, overall costs will come down? "Will taxes go up?" Give me a break. The question was asked by a Republican-lite moderator BECAUSE it has the potential to be a Republican (and "moderate" Democratic), dishonest campaign slogan. Who cares if my taxes go up if I have to pay far, far less in premiums and deductibles? The people you should be accusing of deception are the moderator and Buttigieg, with his "medicare for all who want it." Evidently, he thinks we could make a system for which only SOME of us pay for medicare work for all of us. If "medicare for all who want it" is really broad enough, and affordable enough, for all who want it, it will cost just as much,and more, than Warren's plan, either in premiums or in taxes. The fact is, to get coverage, you have to pay. And, unless you exclude the sick, the larger the pool, the less you have to pay. So let's be humane and prudent at the same time. Let's just do "medicare for all" and stop trying to deceive people into thinking something else will cover them for less.
2
As I watched last night, I wondered how Warren’s often dismissive tone would work as president.
Not very effectively.
5
I didn't watch or listen to the debate. But I do know that our medical system is completely broken. I'm all for single payer "Medicare for all". We are the laughing stock of the world, folks, as we pay higher and higher premiums for the CEO's to buy their lavish yachts and second and third vacation homes! Wake up and face reality. Are we back to pre-existing conditions? Who doesn't have one?
And our planet is frying. Methane bubbles are pluming in the Arctic. Well, it's almost game over, folks. What does that mean for your children, grandchildren and future generations? A lot of suffering, mass die-offs, and a planet that is not livable. There is no Planet B! Go Greta!
Who has the courage to really tackle that problem? I'd say Warren and Sanders are the only ones.
3
You say Warren was "scared to treat voters as grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner." I don't know if I'd put it in quite those terms, but isn't there some wisdom to this approach? If she utters the phrase "raise taxes", then that's all the Media and the Right will ever utter again about her health care plan. At the end of the day, I question if America is made of grown-ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner. These days, everything and everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator, and Warren understands that. I don't think she's being devious, I think she's playing a smart game; she's controlling the spin.
2
The last Presidential election proved that it’s the substance of a President’s platform that drives voters - not how he says it.
Strip away how Warren says things (which to me is like fingernails on a chalk board) and just look at what she says. Her extreme ideas and proposals will likely assure that she o my wins a handful of states - Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and California. I can’t imagine much more.
4
@William Trump had substance? That is news. What was his substance?
Re Health Care Cost
There is more than taxes that is evasive about Warren. Until 46 she was a registered Republican. She made her academic career by branding herself as an underrepresented minority - all these maneuvers give me pause
Mr. Sanders on the other hand has always been straight. For that reason he is still on the top of my list
3
@Lisa Why should I care what she was 24 years ago? I am interesting in what she is proposing now. And I do like what she proposing, why should I support say Biden who was Dem all his life, but who supported the policies I found wrong and harmful to many people?
1
While VP -- Biden was, of course, President of the Senate. Biden's relationship or bi-partisan relationship with the Senate indeed got her Consumer Financial Office through. As I recall, the Senate for the most part would not do anything for Obama -- Merrick Garland comes to mind -- Obama could not even convince them to hold hearings -- I'll bet Biden could have. So when he says he got her the votes, he's being truthful and while she still remains my candidate and the one I hope gets the nomination, she was a little more than disingenuous in her comments to VP Biden.
2
@October So, why Biden could not get the other votes for Obama (on Merrick Garland, for example), after all he was VP for 8 years? The difference is it was Warren's project and she got it through
@yulia No votes were ever taken on Merrick Garland as Leader McConnell would not allow it or hold any hearings. I'm sure if he had and it got to the voting stage, Joe Biden would have done just what he did for Ms. Warren's program.
1
"The latter group of candidates traffic in measured remedies that are more obviously attainable, prioritizing imperfect, incremental change over grandly transformative proposals that face hurdles galore and very long odds. In their estimation — in mine, too — that’s probably the safer agenda with which to do battle against Trump, whose ouster eclipses all other goals. It’s also the best hope for national healing." If there was ever a time for "grandly transformative proposals" it is now, Mr. Bruni. Assuming it is a fair election, a ham sandwich will beat Trump. Let's make that sandwich worth it.
Avoiding the gotcha tax question shows how smart she is. As this column notes, we all know what she’s saying: yes, the “tax” line on your list of costs will go up, but your “insurance” line will go down by a greater amount. Meanwhile, she’s avoided giving the GOP a sound bite to use against her. It’s a point in her favor that she understands the political battlefield and the weapons that get used unfairly against Democrats.
2
There is no "front runner" as nobody has a single delegate and not one American has voted.
The media wants Ms. Warren to commit to some number or tax increase to give them something to attack her plan.
Mayor Pete is showing his McKinsey & Company "centrist" tendencies. Also, note the difference over never-ending wars between a Naval Intelligence Officer (Mayor Pete) who was mostly inside the wire with Congresswoman Gabbard who served as an enlisted Medic (2004-5) in Iraq and an officer in the Miltary Police (2008-9) in Kuwait in the Army (Hawaii National Guard).
Bernie again showed how he would be the most effective debater against Trump. The businessmen showed well by being on point. The Senator from Minnesota showed us again told everyone what we cannot do. Ms. Harris needs to get out now before she is embarrassed by losing California. Mr. Booker needs a few more years on his resume.
Biden bumbled and rambled and stumbled enough to make any reasonable person pause. Bernie may be older but is way sharper than the former Vice-President.
The next debate should have the top 4 candidates & no moderation. Let each candidate speak at length and then interview and debate each other. How they moderate the discussion will tell you as much about them as anything they could say.
1
The real reason Warren could not respond to the question about taxes is that the answer requires a more complicated argument than she would have been given time for.
The reason "Medicare for those who want it" will not work is that there is no mechanism to prevent people from waiting until they are seriously ill and only then enrolling in medicare. In order to avoid the inordinate expense Warren and Sanders are being accused of favoring, this would necessitate pricing the voluntary medicare beyond the reach of many people. It was for this reason that the original affordable care act included a penalty (since repealed by the Republicans) for anyone choosing not to buy any health insurance. This is also why Warren is somewhat justified in accusing her critics of recycling Republican talking points. Paying for medicare for all with a tax increase, even though it will raise taxes for some middle class taxpayers, is the equivalent of reinstating the ACA penalty, although it is to be hoped that it will not extend to those whose income is so low that this would be a real burden.
1
And yet, all these range of opinions are going to be trimmed down to one in the primaries by Democrat voters, and in the end only one of these candidates will be confronting the Republican candidate (which will also go through the same process among themselves).
One of the many visible flaws of the system, if I may say so, seems to be exactly that: The dominance of two parties not presenting all the Americans with many different options to choose from. Why do Americans have to pick only between french fries and mac&cheese, really? I am even beginning to think that since the two-party mechanism is so deeply ingrained in the system where it's almost impossible, it seems, to have a third person her/his voice heard, it may just be a good idea to have a (relatively) smaller change and have each party choose _two_ candidates to enter the elections instead of just one... and even better, also have a two-round election similar to that in France. Of course one may argue that nothing would have changed if we had had Trump, Clinton, Sanders and Cruz(?) back in 2016, but then again, considering the possibility that many Trump voters could have voted for either Sanders or Cruz, it just might have.
Warren may win the nomination but she won't win the White House. She's too extreme. Moreover, she's not charismatic. She has more energy than HRC but that doesn't translate into votes, But her biggest problem, which Trump will beat her up with, is her self identifying as Native American -- not as a teenager, but in her 30's. That was clearly done to enhance her professional prospects, and it did. She went from an administrator at a second tier law school to a full professorship at Harvard -- with a very thin publication record. Anyone who thinks she did it for any other reason doesn't understand how academia works.
She won't be able to defend her time spent impersonating a Native American -- nor will most of her policies appeal to most Americans. And she's personally not very appealing.
So good luck dems if she's your nominee.
4
@Ralphie How did her claim that she has a Native American blood, help her in her career? How many Native Americans are professors of at Harvard? And what at Harvard they don't check the such claims? And what the typical career of the professors at Harvard? Are they all come from elite school?
@yulia Yulia, check out the Harvard Law School Faculty directory. You'll see they all come from Harvard -- or other top tier law schools.
If you know anything about academia, you know two things to be true across all disciplines -- top tier schools rarely if ever hire grads from 2nd or 3rd tier schools. Rutgers law is 2nd-3rd tier. Ditto U of Houston Law
the second -- advancement depends on publication record except maybe at small liberal arts schools that emphasize teaching -- but all else is publish or perish.
Warren began her meteoric rise from an administrator at U of H in the early 80's to a full prof at Harvard in early 90's at the same time she self identified as Native American. Her publishing record was weak when hired at Harvard, vs other candidates for full professorships. She got the job because Harvard wanted to have more minorities and women on faculty. That's how she got the job, not through her qualifications.
@Ralphie I checked. Although majority came from Harvard, there is bunch ones who came from different Universities: Chicago, New York, Richmond, Minnesota, NorthEastern University. I did see several women, but so far no Native Americans, so that makes me think that to be a Native Americans doesn't help her much. I would think coming from different University will more fit for diversity program. And although Warren was definitely qualified under diversity program as a woman, she is not obvious "Native American", so tell me why wouldn't Harvard check her claim if that was the key for her hiring? I hardly believe the people at Harvard are stupid and could be so easily fooled.
Just as with Trump's election victory and continued presence as president, the Democratic campaign, and specifically the insulting and worse-than-useless presentation of the debates, should alarm all of us. The craven embrace by political consultants, all three branches of government and the media, of the "influencer" culture, not to mention the unobstructed meddling by foreign and domestic players, have led to the spectacle that amounts to the realization that the electorate knows close to nothing about anything, so they can be persuaded to believe anything. With the right publicists, you could sell homes in flood zones, build towns in parched forests, poison the water and air, starve the hungry, scapegoat the powerless...and receive the greatest rewards our country dangles before us. What are those rewards? Anything you covet, regardless of the cost.
1
While I am consistently bothered by Warren not acknowledging that taxes will go up for members of the middle class, I understand her rationale. When people hear tax increase, they become triggered, their emotions tend to get the best of them and they either don't hear that their costs will decrease in an amount greater than the tax increase or they distort what they heard to match their fears. This is how cognitive biases impact human thought processes. As such, I really can't blame her for the way in which she continues answering such questions. She's very savvy because she is aware that neuroscience has found that people make decisions based upon their emotions and then rationalize those decisions. She therefore doesn't want to trigger negative emotional reactions.
As far as age is concerned, if Warren were to become the Democratic nominee, she would still be younger than the alternative, which is Trump.
2
My feeling is that the conventional wisdom on Warren is backwards. She isn't a policy wonk who has electability problems. She's a talented politician and communicator who has policy/math problems.
1
@Jeff Not more than any politicians including one in the WH. If anything, she has much less problems with math than any one of them
Over the past three years, the stature of Barack Obama has increased. Yes he was special, even while one sometimes speculates: what if Hillary had been the Democratic nominee in 2008. Donald Trump won by foul means, how foul we are constantly finding out. Apparently he has been obsessed with keeping his most powerful position and that of his children, whom, he has admitted, have benefited from nepotism. That will not stop Trump from hammering on the Bidens. The article and comments here appear to dispense with Biden as a candidate. I would concur with that. He cannot nimbly put a sentence together properly. He has the advantage of being a white male, while the women (wrongly, unfairly and misogynistically) will be seen as nags and scolds.
1
Warren's evasion on the tax increase that would be required to finance Medicare For All disturbed me profoundly. She was almost Trumpian in her willingness to pretend that a fact staring everybody in the face did not exist. The issue is not whether taxpayers -- at least some of them, certainly not all -- would be net winners as a matter of arithmetic. The issue is candor and, perhaps more fundamentally, what a steely resolve to avoid candor says about her. Is it not a red flag?
4
@observer
Failing to answer questions precisely the way journalists frame them isn't necessarily evasive. When Warren's been asked about her healthcare plan, she answers with the context that a complex issue deserves. Questions about single-payer could be framed in any number of ways: broadening access to care, for example, or improving health outcomes, which contributes to productivity and enhances family economic security. But the political press corps has fetishized getting the candidates, especially Warren, to talk in terms of "tax increases". That won't tell us what we need to know about anyone's plan.
@Maggie Mae Sanders has no problem answering the question. He candidly acknowledges that his proposal -- which Warren has endorsed - will result in higher taxes on the middle class, which he says will be offset by elimination of insurance premiums, co-pays and deductible (although that may not be the case for many individuals who don't need to utilize health care as extensively as others). It's the same issue, no less complex than what Warren was asked about, but Sanders isn't afraid of answering the question forthrightly. Warren refused to do that.
The moderators made sure it was Warren's night and the others were also-rans. When she wasn't filling the screen, she was shown with her hand up while someone else was speaking, impatiently trying to get the last word in. I found this extremely off-putting - an echo of Hillary Clinton's finger-wagging in 2016. Too many of the Dems (Buttigieg excepted) simply didn't answer the questions, falling back on the old political tic of regurgitating their potted take on the problem or saying how awful Trump is. And when are the Dems going to wake up to the fact that all "big corporations" aren't evil, that many are the economic backbone of their communities, that some of their wealth supports a great many excellent institutions from hospitals to art museums, that many provide what Americans want most - good jobs. As someone told Warren last night, it's time for a reality check.
3
It's not a 'tic or a stutter'. It's the result of years of studying family budgets as a whole and finding out what creates the strains within them. Warren has learned that medical expenses are the single biggest reason families go bankrupt, and that's why she insists on costs. To say 'yes, taxes will go up', is to play to a republican talking point.
3
Yes, Warren is evasive on the tax issue. But I can see why. If she says "my plan is going to raise middle class taxes but provide bigger savings, so the middle class will come out ahead", all we'll hear forever after is "Elizabeth Warren is going to raise your taxes", and when she adds "the middle class will come out ahead", she'll sound defensive, while her opponents will snarkily comment "Oh, sure". Apparently she's made a calculation that sounding evasive is the less costly option.
1
"If there’s nothing to hide from, why hide from it? Warren has campaigned as a truth teller but came across, in this instance, as a classically evasive Washington operator, scared to treat voters as grown-ups who can process information in sophisticated manner".
Framing the issue of whether taxes will have to be raised on the middle class as a simple "Yes or no", is a devious trap. It's like asking someone: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" There is no way to answer it without putting yourself in a hole. And the reason for that is because, contrary to the politically correct line that "voters are grown ups who can process information in a sophisticated manner", that is simply not true, as borne out by the election of Trump. If Liz answers "yes", most of these "sophisticated voters" will stop hearing anything after that, and not hear the critical second part: that their overall outlays will go down significantly. And the media need to stop framing this issue in such black or white terms.
That said, fair or not, Warren does have to find a way to address this question, and Sanders must also. Is it true that someone earning $75-100K will see their taxes rise $10,000? Those kinds of attacks need to be answered.
And they need to better explain why their "all or nothing" approach is better than the Medicare As An Option approach.
I prefer Sanders and Warren, but Buttigieg presented some real problems they need to address if either is to win.
Why does no one at the NYT ever address Andrew Yang’s presence and performance. If you listened, everyone agreed with him on UBI last night. Warren’s “UBI is social security” and Harris’ $500/month tax break to put he money in peoples hands. Yang has the answer for taxing and controlling tech - VAT. The candidates are listening - why isn’t the Times reporting????
3
Two comments regarding the debate.
First, there was almost no mention of climate change and no questions by the moderators. This is primarily the fault of the moderators - they should recognize that climate change is a major issue that must be addressed by the next administration.
Second, the moderators of all the debates seem to focus on health care because it accents the differences between candidates. I would hope that all the candidates, if elected President, would focus on other issues before making major changes to our health care system. Climate change, immigration, and repairing our world wide reputation are all need immediate attention.
If we are to make good decisions, we need better moderators focusing on these important issues and not just trying to create spates between the candidates.
4
I just signed up for Medicare, after being covered under my Union Insurance my entire adult life. My union insurance is now my secondary coverage to make up for what Medicare DOESN'T PAY, which is 20% of doctor bills and drugs. The premiums, including my senior coverage premium under my union, is $100 more monthly than I have been paying my entire adult life....and I have the same coverage. I have to meet the deductible on my secondary coverage (only $250), which I've had to do all along, and then it will cover that 20% that Medicare doesn't. All that being said, most union members with the "Cadillac" coverage will pay more out of pocket, period. That is why there is push back from the union members (note GM strike) . They do not want their taxes raised for something that is included in their contracts, yet not taxed, so basically tax free income. Warren and Sanders have to be honest about this and convince the unions to take one for the team, if they plan to win their votes in OH, MI, WI and PA. I fear they are shooting themselves in the foot here...because those are the only votes that matter in this election. Those 70k votes in a few states. Those could be union members.
2
@Kelle This is an informative and terrifying comment.
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1904)
We are a civilized society, and we should be proud to be members of this great society. I am. We have a government of laws, not of people. We are bound by a written Constitution which we have adhered to for over 230 years, with only occasional amendments. We have built the most prosperous and diverse nation on the planet. We have vastly improved our nation internally when it comes to the rights of all citizens, when we cast back a look to the late 18th century. We have continued to create a more perfect Union since the Constitution was promulgated. We don't just sit on our laurels; we change things to improve things. We are a big-hearted people with, in the big picture, malice towards none and charity for all, in Lincoln's words. We think big here, not small. We dream big, not small. This is the can do country, the prime mover of the developed world's economy. This is the big show.
This issue of universal health care is a matter of civics, not of politics. A civilized society in the early 21st century makes sure that all its residents have access to high quality health care. Taxes, not insurance company premiums, are the price we need to pay for a 21st century civilized society. Let's join the rest of the civilized world and fashion a great new civilized society through the patriotic act of paying the necessary taxes to provide it. The time has come; seize the moment!
3
Warren was savy to avoid the weeds.
Doctors and nurses in this country make too much money - they should be paid half of what they earn to bring them in line with other countries. Spending on healthcare professionals is where 70 percent of the money america spends on healthcare goes (the rest is facilities, technology, medical devices, Pharma, administrative overhead). We should spend less on pharmaceuticals and insurance overhead as well.
Why should a doctor earn hundreds of thousands or more per year? How can we have a social good like healthcare where individuals involved in delivering it are entrenched at the top of the plutocracy? The one (or maybe 2) percent providing service to the 99 percent doesn’t work.
3
@HH. Why should athletes/entertainers earn millions per year? Because that's what society says they're worth; I disagree, but that's just me. There are many factors that affect a physician's salary (eg, malpractice insurance), but if anyone is going to be overpaid, I'd rather it be a physician than some singer.
But tell me, who would determine what a fair salary for a physician is? You? Some government panel? By the way, where did you get that statistic about 70% going on salaries? I'm not disputing it, just that I've never seen that anywhere.
1
Danny - entertainment is not an essential social service. If you don’t think basketball players and movie stars deserve to earn 25mm per year set income taxes at 90 percent above some number. Or just take their wealth through taxes on luxury goods and excessive savings.
@HH Not a good take, i'm sorry. My father just went through a 10-hour open heart surgery. That doctor performed a very difficult surgery for 10 hours, never left the room, never stopped operating. Pieced my fathers heart back together. And that doctor will do similar surgeries again, and again, and again, day after day. IMO, they aren't paid enough.
Maybe it was smart politics for her not to say whether Medicare for All will broadly require middle-class tax increases, but Warren's persistent refusal to do so came across as a dodge. Not only that, but it came across as an admission that it will mean higher taxes.
A lot of Americans are allergic to tax increases, as Walter Mondale and George Bush Sr. could tell you. They won't be swayed by stories of people going into bankruptcy because of health care costs, even if the same thing might happen to them someday. Instead their response will be, "Why should I pay more taxes to take care of those people's problems?"
Regarding "Medicare For All," I don't think Democrats are doing a good job of explaining the benefits. The way single payer works in most civilized countries is there are no insurance premiums.
Yes, there would be a bump in taxes, but they'd be a fraction of the ridiculous premiums Americans pay for health insurance today. The net result is more money in your pocket.
Bottom line, more people would be insured for less money. If Democrats don't focus on that, it will be a loser for them in 2020.
4
@Mark McIntyre "Yes, there would be a bump in taxes, but they'd be a fraction of the ridiculous premiums Americans pay for health insurance today. The net result is more money in your pocket. "
You sure about that? Our gov doesn't have a good track record of doing things on time and under budget. The shear amount of red-tape and regulations and people that would be involved in a MFA system, on the gov's dime (our dime), will grow far beyond what any of us want to admit or these politicians want to admit. And all that is before we get to the actual healthcare costs. We'll never be told the true cost. Just told to accept it. I don't want that in my gov.
I was very impressed with Klobuchar. She's the only Dem I'd consider voting for. The rest would take all my money away from me, so I can be poor like everyone else, while the elites and their cronies live it up on my dime. In the liberal world, everyone's equal, with some being more equal than others.
4
@MJG This is fantastic satire.
I was glad to see Warren challenged on her healthcare plan and proposed wealth tax. As usual, she couldn't defend the specifics of either and continued to deflect questions, returning to the same tired rhetoric. Her diatribe might fire up her progressive base, but scares many of the moderate electorate. She also sounded ignorant and dismissive of urgent foreign policy issues in the Middle East. This debate was a glaring example of why she isn't a viable candidate for the general election.
2
@cindy
This debate was a glaring example of why debates like this are a terrible way to cover complex social and political issues. Everyone was reduced in the process -- journalists and candidates alike. I don't agree on much with Tulsi Gabbard, but she was right in her criticism of these televised formats. What we saw was an entertainment event, posing as a serious candidate forum.
The biggest employer is the govt, which pays for good health care, as do all leading corps.
It sounds like her plan is:
We all pay taxes for Medicare
richer pay more
we all pay extra to cover current uninsured, billionaires and millionaires.
Only way this would lower cost for govt and major corps is if workers and salaries increase. Obvious question:
With medicare for all, would NY state, Boeing, etc, increase the wages of their workers, if so, by how much?
2
Warren did say she would not tax the middle class. Perhaps she has plans to tax the rich more heavily, so as to destroy the dominance of the rich elite in this country. It is the only other way "medicare for all" could be paid for.
That being said, most people on good health insurance plans will not want to give them up. I have a family member who was diagnosed with a severe cancer, and only through a generous company insurance plan, has this cancer survivor been able to receive the hundreds of thousands of dollars of treatment necessary. Some private insurance plans pay! Medicare may not pay for all of this treatment that has sent this person into a more permanent remission.
1
MFA, free college, basic human wage, student debt relief, etc, OF COURSE middle class taxes will go up! The author is right. Stop patronizing voters and treating us like imbeciles. You have big ideas? Great! Own them and tell us who's going to pay!
3
"If X wins the nomination, Trump will get a second term!"
"That's crazy; X is the only one who can beat Trump!"
No one knows who could or will win the election, except maybe that octopus that picks the winners of sports games. Just support whoever you like (coughwarrenorbuttigiegcough).
1
Warren is smart, bright,energetic and condescending. Ask Al Gore how this works on a national scale. If nominated we will be a smart, bright, energetic loser.
3
If the choice is Trump or Warren on election day I will stay home - as I suspect millions of other Americans will - because I would find it impossible to vote for either one of them.
5
It’s not often that I agree with Bruni, but I found myself nodding along with his assessment.
Warren (my preferred candidate) wobbled in her answers about financing Medicare for All. She was indirect, and her rivals were right to call her on it. I bet that she will use this as a learning experience - next time will be better.
Pete was terrific. Klobuchar was forceful. Bernie was his reliable, authentic self. Biden didn’t screw up. And Tom Steyer showed off his new Christmas tie.
5
Once again Joe Biden’s issues with women came through. Patronizing Warren was really, really bad.
Warren was petulant and pandering. Buttigieg, Steyer, Klobacher, and Yang stood out.
2
Warren is starting to let it leak out that not only will the wealthy be paying higher taxes, it's going to trickle down to everyone else as well. In my mind I don't believe that people would reject the notion of higher taxes if Ms. Warren could deliver all the free things she envisions in her grand plan for America. The problem is that I don't believe she has the slightest idea on how to implement or administer them.
3
Remember the death panels Republicans brought up to attack Obamacare?
THAT is what we are up against. And, the media is obsessed with getting Elizabeth Warren to say taxes will go up... when what matters is costs.
It’s the gotcha story of the 2020 debates. How do we get Elizabeth Warren to say taxes are going to go up... it was painful watching an entire panel of grown ups on CNN want to hear those words. When everyone knows the answer.
This is how Republicans win elections. They have Democrats debate issues on their language and their terms by telling the media what to focus on.
It will not stop there. The geniuses in the media want you to believe that all they want is an acknowledgement from Warren. Nope. If Warren was to say taxes will go up, the next question will be: by how much? How much for the mythical industrial worker in Ohio. By Then the whole conversation would have shifted to tax increases and not total costs - which, let me say if you’ve not realized this are the ONLY thing that matters. I don’t know how economic literate we are as a nation if we don’t know this.
There are legitimate questions to ask about the scope and size and sequencing of Medicare. Getting Warren to acknowledge a tax increase should be the least of them.
6
@Patrician Thank you for this comment. It's maddening. Bruni claims she should treat voters like adults who can process information in a sophisticated manner, but the media and and huge swaths of the electorate have proven themselves wholly incapable of doing that. (Not that taxes go up but costs go down is particularly sophisticated, but this is America in 2019.)
1
@C
Agree. Bruni could also treat his readers like adults and acknowledge that he has a horse in this race.
Speaking of disclosure: It’s time Bruni disclosed who he has donated to and how much.
We do not need incremental change. The system is corrupted by $, and McConnell blocks all that would help the majority. Fundamentally, our democratic republic is teetering on the edge and we need a reboot. Warren does not seek the presidency for power or personal ego, rather truly wants to fix what's broken.
4
For those commenters saying that only a moderate candidate can beat Trump, I'd like to remind them that 85% of independents went for Sanders, over the moderate Clinton, in the primaries.
It's false to think that undecided voters -- who don't hate Trump --are going to get excited about a moderate Democrat. Only a candidate who promises real change, like a Sanders or Warren, is going to get the vote out, generate the enthusiasm and the excitement needed.
The Clinton (over Sanders) supporters already took us down this losing path once. It seems like they want a repeat of the last election.
2
@SC
So who did those 85% of independent primary voters go for in the general? Did they hold their noses and vote for Clinton? My guess is it's the independent voters who don't vote in the Democratic primary that will decide the general election. And they went for Trump in 2016. Are they more inclined to vote for a progressive Warren or one of the moderates?
All the plans that the candidates have to get what is desperately needed in our country, hinge on winning the senate.
4
Warren is sincere, and her heart is in the right place. Agreed that it's currently a bad situation and health care needs reorganization. However, my prediction is that Medicare for all would run just like the Post Office does.
Long lines for service. (delays in receiving surgery). Lost mail (or test results and medical records). Mail delivered to the wrong address. (or medicine and treatment given to the wrong patient). Closed on weekends and holidays. (Staff shortages at hospitals). These things are already happening, and they would get worse if the government was in charge. The bigger an organization becomes, the less oversight is possible.
1
The Democrats are at a familiar crossroads: They must pick between a moderate who can get support from some anti-Trump Republicans, or a more progressive candidate who will energize the left-wing voters but lose the moderate Republicans.
They can try for a split decision, with a progressive candidate and a moderate vice (or vice versa). That might help. In the general election, their choice candidate would have to show that they will tone it down and compromise with the opposite wing.
The worst case is if they go either all-out moderate or progressive, and someone runs as a third party candidate.
1
"It’s also the best hope for national healing." First off, the divisions in this country are now so great that "national healing" for the near future is a pipe dream. Secondly, even without the question of "Medicare for All" there will be a tax hike. It's inevitable after the Trump gift to the rich and the devastation of the budget by Republicans. The country's infrastructure is in desperate need of repair, education needs addressing, climate issues are top priority and social programs have been stripped to the bare bones by Trump and must be salvaged. Americans just want to be sure the increased taxes go to the projects that will benefit them and the country, as a whole. Warren is right that we don't want to see "business as usual" after the elections. This is an opportunity to make some bold changes. In my opinion, a Warren/Buttigieg ticket holds the most promise of accomplishing that.
3
REALITY TV - I can't watch the so-called debate until it gets down to a manageable 6 MAX actually debating one another. A dozen should be EGGS, not people running for president. When the field gets realistic I will tune in. Til then, just reading headlines tells me all I need to know.
3
The attacks on Warren is just a warm up practice preparing her for general election against Trump. She stood on her ground and counter punched. We are not voting for loud and passionate voices. We are voting for a change from both past and present. There are clear bifurcation among democratic candidates with Warren and Sanders on one side and the rest on the other side who are opportunists trying to find a traction. At the end, Warren is a clear choice and no wonder she is rising in the polls.
4
I disagree that Elizabeth was as strong after the debate as before. I was leaning towards her before the debate for a number of reasons, but am back to thinking that a sweeping Medicare for All stance will get her beaten by Trump (unless he's impeached and ousted).
3
Opponents of Warren on this matter are simply dishonest. Their plans have holes not in funding, but in just describing what actually their plans are. What will it cost for person to join in? How many people will sign up? How much money it will require if 1 min sign up? How much money will it require if 10mln sign up? Where the money will come from? It also does nothing to lower the cost. As result, it will drive healthcare cost, because the Government will have much less negotiation power under their plans and because they did not eliminate or strictly regulate the private insurances that adds to healthcare expanses.