I am a life long Democrat. Senator Warren will lose. Run away! We need to win!
16
I like Warren, but this is a loser plan. Medicare as an option could be a winner for millions who have no health care option other than the two-headed Hydra of no health insurance and be bankrupted by the health care system when it must be resorted to, or exorbitantly expensive private health care plans which make other personal expenses impossible. Medicare-for-all should be an option, not a mandate.
5
With the middle class defined as families with incomes up to $250,000 a year, there is no way some of the middle class would not be taxed with Ms. Warren's plan. Most have investments and she proposes that trades would be taxed. It may not amount to much (or it may), but that's a contradiction she needs to address.
7
@Barbara Not only that, but she proposes taxing unrealized capital gains, which is absurd.
10
Those who are anxious to see the U.S. turn into Europe should carefully study this:
https://mgmresearch.com/us-vs-eu-a-gdp-comparison/
particularly the "US VS EU: REAL GDP GROWTH COMPARISON 1980-2018" graph.
Social democracy's downside is that too much of it slows down economic growth, leaving less money for government services and redistribution.
(Those who reflexively hate Reagan should note what the above-mentioned chart shows from 1980 to 1988, where a double-dip recession broke the back of the Nixon/Ford/Carter inflation and was followed by a 7% spike of GDP growth, a number never seen since. The EU's GDP growth rate never came close.)
4
Nowhere in this "analysis" is there any mention of how much less the corporate sector will need to pay in direct subsidy of the health insurance their employees receive. And since the overall cost of US healthcare will decline from its currently unconscionable $10,600 per capita to a more manageable $8,000 per capita, many corporations will actually experience a net decline in expense in this category.
No other country pays even $6,000 per capita for healthcare. And our healthcare is inferior to that of most of the advanced industrialized world. So the thrust of any "analysis" should be the extent to which our current system is effectively a multitrillion-dollar criminal racket.
Should all sources of income [revenue] for individual families be taxed equally by Washington and states? One’s answer determines one’s politics .
Simply put, should revenue for labor—wages—, profits from family business, and profits from taxable investments in stocks, corporate bonds, real estate, state municipal bonds, mutual funds all be subjected to the same graduated income tax rates?
To do so, congress must first disavow the tax system as an instrument of social policy. To grant an income deduction,exemption, or tax credit is to declare that the favored source of income must not be taxed for the services of government without which there can be no secure revenue for any family. it also entails the belief that everyone else must pay more so that the favored family pays less.
These realities have no bearing on how steep or shallow congress choses to set the progression of the net tax rate for each bracket of gross income.
From 1941 until 1962 the highest tax rate for personal income exceeded 90%. From then until the 1980s Reagan tax cuts, the highest rate was over 70%. Yet productivity and GDP from 1946-1988–despite recessions, and corrected for inflation—grew substantially.
If congress were to increase maximum tax rates and ”progressivity ” to where they once were and taxed all sources of family income within brackets equally then having government fund services for which the people themselves cannot pay becomes possible.
1
Just north of the border, Canada is a good example as how following a rigorous progressive imposition governments at Federal and Provincial level can be able to finance the Health Care System covering for high cost procedures and medications for all.
1
I'm not against people making money. I am fully aware that there will always be those that will be Financially better off than others. What I am against is people who play by the rules, work for a living and wind up paying a higher percent than those much better off. College should be affordable for people. Not the kind of Numbers that are out there today. Today those who do not have health insurance wind up at city Hospitals and we All are paying for it. Doing away with Private Insurance will be a problem with certain parts of the population. One Thing I have come to know in my years on this earth Changes come slowly. things are eased in. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Disablity did not arrive in one big sweep.
1
It's about time that certain people (as in "corporations are people, too, my friend") should actually pay something like their fair share of taxes, rather than getting more tax cuts that can and will be used mainly to buy back stock.
2
"Warren Health Plan(Panacea)Tightens Democrats’ Embrace of Tax Increases", Parenthesis mine. Warren's "I have a plan for everything" is right out of the Trump 2016 playbook. Mexico will pay for the wall. I hope there are enough moderate Democrats like me who will reject the idealism and naivete of a plan that would take 60 Senators to pass, throw the financial markets into chaos, and put 550,000 Americans out of their jobs, for the most part good paying jobs. If there are just 100M of the 170M voters who like their private health insurance then when Warren's name goes on the ballot the score is Trump 100M Warren 0. We can get to universal healthcare coverage and oust Trump at the same time. How do we affect change? It's like the Del Reeves Song, A Dime at A Time.
3
We will have some form of Medicare for All in due time but in the
near term we don't need major disruption that Warren's plan would create. Expand the ACA and include public option. Yes, taxes on the rich and corporations is needed but the subject of taxes doesn't address the issue of health care costs. Warren should have also disclosed how much Americans are now paying for health insurance premiums, copays, uncovered medical costs and deductibles. Our national health care costs could be dramatically reduced I'd we all led a more healthy lifestyle, had real competition and eliminated gouging and outright corruption by providers. The real answer is that private for profit health insurers do nothing to benefit our health. They are an added cost and impediment to timely and good health care.
2
The term "tax increases" is a bogeyman word among Republicans. If you pointed out that countries that finance health care through taxes actually result in just over half as much money out of patients' pockets that the American system, which nickel & dimes you a dozen ways, yet provides comprehensive cradle-to-grave coverage for everyone, a different picture emerges. If you look at what we would save in private spending from our pockets versus what we would pay in taxes, you'd see that, like in France & other single-payer systems, the average person pays far less for far better care. By selectively harping on higher taxes, while failing to mention what we pay in annual deductibles, co-pays, monthly payroll deductions, annual & life caps, out-of-network services, uncovered or under-covered services, 80/20 coverage in many policies, limits on the meds in your providers' formularies & scandalously high costs for the newer drugs not covered, you get a different picture that Republicans never talk about. The average American with a corporate health insurance policy pays almost double the cost that the French pay in their tax-funded policies and gets far less coverage. Add the tax costs and subtract the private costs & single-payer is much cheaper & much better.
2
First of all, it’s so nice for a candidate to actually propose a plan and air it for public discourse and even potential refinement. Thank you Elizabeth.
2
You know, the tax canard gets tiring. Sometimes, taxes are the most cost-effective and egalitarian method for achieving a social, economic, or commercial goal.
Can you imagine what our interstate highway transportation system might be if each taxing authority across the nation got to decide the cost and quality of each mile of roadway. The debate and lack of progress of high-speed rail, a needed infrastructure as well, demonstrates the point.
Ms. Warren is 100% correct that our present (lack of) healthcare system is an abomination, and which is correctable. But yes, to achieve it, we need to replace premiums, deductibles, and copays, with taxes. And yes, there may be some losers in the deal; billionaires, Big Pharma, health insurers - to name a few. But no billionaire, CEO, or PBM manager will go hungry, I assure you!
Correcting the delivery of health care is a social, moral, and economic good. It is long past time to do so. Let's not get distracted by the 'tax-increase' squirrels that only serve to poison the discussion and debate of the merits.
4
"Senator Elizabeth Warren’s “Medicare for all” plan is the most prominent example of how the Democratic Party is moving toward far more ambitious efforts to redistribute wealth."
This ominous sounding tagline implies that redistributing wealth is morally wrong. It is misleading and disingenuous.
Progressive tax rates charge higher rates for higher earners precisely because we believe it is a moral imperative for those in abundance to help those in need. What Warren accurately points out is that the current implementation falls short of the spoken goal. All you must do to confirm her hypothesis is to look at our growing income inequality.
This tagline should read "Warren's plan addresses loopholes in current law that thwart achieving the stated objectives of taxation."
6
Not only will this raise taxes, but it will increase the cost of merchandise...goods and/or services, that everyone buys. When the Federal Government increases payroll taxes the money has to come from somewhere. And it will be rolled right into an increase into the products or services the business sells. Groceries will increase. Gasoline will increase.
It’s all smoke and mirrors.....don’t believe it won’t impact the middle class. It will impact us SIGNIFICANTLY!
She lied about her heritage, and she’s lying about who pays for “Medicare for all”.
8
This is a tough one for Americans. Reagan convinced voters gov. was bad, unnecessary except perhaps for the military. He also declared that all those gov. programs Americans loved and needed would not be reduced with his tax cuts. If you accept steep increases in our debt he was right. Perhaps Warren should follow Reagan's path of no new taxes and ignoring the deficit. 45's big "accomplishment" tax breaks for everyone, permanent for the very rich, ignored the deficit. Trust in gov. is fragile and republicans have made a living attacking it while secretly funneling its resources to their rich patrons. Maybe Warren should just lie like Reagan and 45 and ignore deficits.
I have a few questions: we are talking about a new comprehensive health program for 370 million people, ten times the number of people in Canada ,and more than ten times the number of Scandanavians. Every state has its own version of addressing the problem, or not. For example Colorado, thanks to its terrific progressive governor , has a "reinsurance" program which has lowered insurance premiums for 100s of thousands, and the governor is proposing a state insurance plan that would compete with others. What would administrative costs for Medicare for All look like? I suppose countless people who work with insurance in doctors' offices and hospitals as well as those in medical insurance offices could be absorbed by the new Federal program? I know they are nervous about axing private insurers. Also there are many rural areas of the country,like Wyoming, where most counties had "frontier" health care, I.e little or none, which have inadequate health care, no matter what kind of insurance people have or dont have. Health care is not ALL about insurance costs. I think that if Medicare for ALL was phased in over years, (and it can't happen all at once for lots of reasons,) the problems with financing it and administering it would become apparent and could be corrected. The new plan doesn't have to come in fully solved. But I think the re-imagining. of the new system is what has people spooked.
2
I'm with Elizabeth. I wish she were more clear that these are plans and goals, not a statement of "what I will accomplish in the first 100 days." It's been too easy for opponents to attack her by stoking fear of the unknown. Actual legislation will be the result of months (maybe years) of analysis and negotiation. But if you aim low, you get low.
1
Over 36% of Americans are OBESE. Not plain overweight, obese. We are by far the fattest developed nation in the world. Obesity is a direct factor in a whole host of diseases, including some cancers. And is directly related to health care costs. It is the second leading cause of preventable death. For most people, extreme weight is a result of lifestyle choices. I fully support their right to make those choices, but have no interest in subsidizing them. We will not fix health care until we are willing to address this issue as with smoking. Maybe we should be raising revenue by taxing sugary sodas, not retirees 401Ks.
3
"... support for economic programs that redistribute wealth has grown along with voters’ increased anger toward big business and a sense that companies and the rich should pay a larger share of taxes. ..."
This old man - older than FVP Biden and younger than Sen Sanders - is saddened by the sense that as desirable as redistribution and shifting taxes may be (IMO that's highly) the culture of the USA in the 21st Century is better reflected in Ken Cuccinelli's addition Emma Lazarus' language on the Statue of Liberty.
Yes, America invites “... your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” but only if they "... can stand on their own two feet" and “[be] self-sufficient, [and] can pull themselves up from [sic] their bootstraps.”
And to the extent that the bootstrap variety of self-sufficiency is thought preferable if not optimal, ain't gonna be no redistribution or denigration of the one percenters who, a blind man can see "know the value of a dollar." Anything else is ... un-American.
1
This article reads like an editorial masquerading as news articles on the front page of the times.“Democrats are trying to push the boundaries of how much a country can rely on a sliver of high-end investors and other wealthy citizens to find widely used social programs and bankroll other services traditionally paid for by individuals.”
Tankersley is implying that the rich already contribute their fair share, that we are already at the limits of this contribution. Our current financial system has resulted in massive inequality, wage stagnation, and the complete hitting of social services. The current system only works for the few and ignores the rights of the many. How about we try something different?
1
Why, Mr. Tankersley, do you quote conservative economists but not liberal economists? Why no Stieglitz or Picketty? Writer's bias, perhaps?
The Democrats seem determined to re-elect Donald Trump.
4
Elizabeth Warren: “...then I think they’re running in the wrong presidential primary.”
Translation: I’m the only real Democrat.
Get over yourself. Enough with the Democratic purity test. You’re really running against Bernie when you should be running against Trump.
3
Who are these people?
3
Who let grandma up on stage?
3
And so on and so on. Are you all really spending time (and writing) about taxes? The inequality is clear. nyt contributors are simply beating an already dead horse to death. People just need to vote n 2020. Leave the judicial fine points to the judiciary. Barr is there.
Anti-tax czar Nicole Kaeding paints a lovely "fairy tale" about how corporate America helps Americans. She said:
"Capital drives the U.S. economy." and, “Investment increases productivity, it creates jobs, it raises living standards and wages."
The thing is, corporations have not invested in their workers, job training for the future, raised wages or invested in innovative R&D. 99% of workers' buying power has not increased since the 1980s.
Trump's tax break for the rich resulted in company's public announcements that they would keep all the money--and they did. Corporations invested in stock buybacks and off-shore accounts.
They've kept wages at "live-in-your-car" levels (Ex: Disney, Silicon Valley). They' ve become slipshod in worker and customer safety (Ex: Amazon, Boeing).
Support for the American oligarch, for tax dodgers, for corporations who greedily suck up government welfare, yet fail to "give back" to Americans has got to end.
Higher progressive taxes are a must. Liquid capital must be invested in green tech, higher wages, job training for the future. Financial influence must be removed from politics, or American oligarchy and American serfdom continues.
Useless, if all doctors simply "opt-out" as they are allowed to do now. Then just back to out-of-pocket do get decent care...especially if gov't payments to doctors are further curtailed. Most focus on costs and taxes - the devil is in how it will actually work in real life.
Complexity is what defines this - complexity is what kills it. "We will have to wait and see", is simply not good enough!
2
This headline is not only misleading, it is a blatant and frankly disgusting advertisement for the re-election of Donald Trump.
The Democrats are not embracing tax increases.
The Democrats are finally embracing fair and long overdue tax increases ONLY on obscenely undertaxed billionaires.
Dan Kravitz
1
Sad to see a person that obviously has what it takes to be the first woman president thrown it away (and maybe help re-elect the dictator wanna be), on a fools errand. "Medicare for All", will not happen in our lifetime. The foolishness of the Democratic party is never ending.
3
Biden: "Bring back the good ol' Obama days when we destroyed the Middle Class, and ignored the Working Class."
Warren: "Ring in the new era when we destroy the Middle Class, and ignore the Working Class."
4
When are Warren, Biden, Bernie et al going to take on the elephant that is donald trump? America will get better only when trump is thrown from the White House, not with these dopey health care plans and goats in every yard. Trump should be the target.
Sorry: The math does not add up.
4
Keep at it, Democrats. Nominate the 2020 version of McGovern.
2
The banality of evil comes to mind when I read this article and the comments. A supposedly neutral News outlet of record like the NYT ends up subtly propagandizing for the financial elite.
Start with the title. A blatant scare title. It should read as the extremely popular "...Democrats Embrace of Tax Increases on the Extremely Wealthy."
Then the sub-headline says taxes for MFA would "push the boundaries of taxing corporations and the rich". What boundaries? Really! What boundaries? The status quo? That is a direct lie in the form of a sub headline! We had 90% taxes and then 70% taxes on the wealthy in the last 70 years. It would appear the boundaries being pushed are the author's willingness to admit to history. High Taxation on the wealthy has been done and very successfully in this very country. It resulted in the most productive and secure sensibility for (admittedly mostly white) Americans the country ever experienced. What is being proposed is Far Far less taxation on the wealthy than what we have had in the past. Yet it's being treated as some kind of never before ventured social experiment. This is ahistorical and unconscionable bias presented as "objective". I can't let that pass without note.
1
I appreciate any Democratic presidential candidate’s proposed plans to lessen the burden of health care on American citizens. However, we already have excellent examples of universal health care systems from a country directly north of us and several across the Atlantic - particularly in the Scandinavian countries. Are any of these candidates looking at those systems as a basis for their plans? Well, they work. My recent trip to Oslo, Norway especially was illuminating. They have, including universal free health care, free schooling and a living wage and benefits-even for waitstaff. Corporations are still making money and there’s plenty of capital flowing and job opportunities. It would be a compelling argument for any naysayer - including any GOP dinosaur that claims it can’t work here.
1
Warren (and others') anger against success in the marketplace is brutal - almost vicious. What has caused the unequal distribution of financial gains over the last 2 decades - 2 answers that she avoids - 1) education in meaningful subjects that support outsize contributions during a student's career ... and 2) technology innovation created by risk takers (with some basic research often supported by government).
It is difficult to legislate equlaity, as it comes from how we treat each other and the expectations we set for the next generation, a.k.a. our children.
A final point on Warren's tirade against businesses that use the corporate form of organization ... where millions of Americans have found meaningful work and good compensation for their growing contributions. Corporations themselves are not people, but their organizations are people ... no different from many who chose to work elsewhere. They are not evil. They do allow a firm to consolidate savings from many and invest and develop products and services that could not otherwise be done. If we tax the corporate form of organization substantially higher than global competitors, we will reap less private investment, lower growth, and less employment opportunities in the U.S..
5
The single problem that every nation in the world now faces is the concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority at the top. Even the richest nations now seem incapable of meeting the basic needs of their populations in spite of their great aggregate wealth. Everyone has by now heard the figures, in some cases with a handful of individuals richer than tens of millions of a nation's population. Frustrated masses no longer turn to soviet solutions as they once did not does the present faltering position of capitalism seem to offer a solution. There indeed seems to be an end to ideology. Elizabeth Warren's practical economic proposals may well point the way not only to a solution for this country but for a global solution to the current dilemma. We have an opportunity to once again be a beacon of democracy and even fairness.
1
While I am afraid that Elizabeth's choice of words may be her downfall - her concept is completely right. here are some suggestions (that she'll probably never see... any of her campaign people reading?)
Call it a PREMIUM (to Medicare - without deductible etc). Everyone understands that language.
And please, leave the CHOICE for private insurance. Time is needed for transition + how will she sell this to the millions of workers in the (inflated) insurance industry?
Put a "HEALTH PENNY" tax on trades. It will not affect those who let their portfolios sit for retirement, but those who conduct 1000's of trades a day.
Give the people the right words, not just lengthy explanations.
I have no name for the 'wealth tax' but there should be a good, less punitive name for it. (BUILD + TEACH FUND??)
The Democrats need a reasonable candidate and a sensible platform. The radical giveaways we’re hearing about don’t come with much detail aside from some “macro” estimates from possibly broken calculators. I’m all for restructuring the tax codes to have the rich and corporations pay their fair share, and also am in favor of a national VAT. However a move toward a single payer plan needs to be a slow evolution over multiple administrations. (As for free college how about we focus on the GI Bill and giving that benefit to those who have already served the country.)
Democrats please make it reasonable and sensible. It is crucial to fix the Trump mess and an election is likely the only way to do it.
More media coverage for Amy Klobuchar please. She is practical and many I know like her ideas.
1
Why increase taxes on anyone? Simply replace the private taxes that we pay for insurance that runs and hides when we need healthcare for a public tax. Reducing insurance's overhead costs which has been estimated to be 40% of our insurance costs would reduce what we now pay for insurance and replace it with a medicare for all system that would give healthcare for all.
1
@John
100%
All of the Dem candidates are concentrating on the symptoms, not the disease.
2
These articles seem to carry the notion that these proposals are stealing from the wealthy who earned their wealth through a fair and honest system. Perhaps some have earned their wealth. However, if you believe the system is rigged, that through unfair and perhaps corrupt influence, laws and policies favor those who have now become wealthy, then taxes on the wealthy seem more like payback.
I am thinking of inaction on antitrust that gives an unfair advantage to huge corporations. Taxing labor at a higher rate than capital gains, wages of labor stagnant while CEOs make huge gains independent of corporate performance, golden parachutes for ousted CEOs, the bailout of risk taking banks funded by financial repression.
Thinking of the rule of 72, small tax breaks and other advantages/subsidies to the wealthy reap huge rewards over time. A 2% tax on wealth over 50 million, undoing the Trump tax break for the wealthy and similar proposals seems more like righting past wrongs than robbing from the rich.
2
I come to the health care issue from the other direction. America is over-diagnosed, over-treated, over-medicated and over- insured. We need to stop going to a doctor and emergency room and for every ache, pain and sniffle. This will lower the demand for doctors, hospitals, unnecessary tests and drugs, and that will in turn lower health care expenditures and the need for the Medicare, Medicaid and expensive private insurance to the degree that they exist today. When I was a teenager fifty years ago, this issue did not exist and people lived almost as long and just as healthy.
5
"But conservative economists who have long argued that tax cuts are the best fuel for economic growth and rising wages"
Why is this statement not followed by the phrase "voodoo economics". Check out the Wikipedia page on the Laffler curve. Tax revenue is maximized when the marginal rate is 70%.
Really, the media shouldn't give equal time to proven falsehoods in the name of fairness.
4
Is the idea to tax EVERYONE who has stocks and bonds?? If so, yes, it will his the middle class, pension funds and charitable foundations not just those who are super wealthy which we all think of as someone else.
Furthermore, there has been no talk of reforming the way that health care is funded such as paying for results rather than procedures.
Of course, these ideas are not as catchy as 'soak the rich', all of whom have the money to find ways to lessen their payments.
2
@BJS : "The idea" is plainly stated in black and white for anyone to read. Your comment suggests that you have not done so.
The new proposed "mark to market" tax on capital gains explicitly applies to holdings in excess of $10 M (top 1%) and excludes IRAs, 401ks, and other retirement assets. Ms. Warren's proposed wealth tax applies to portfolios in excess of $50 M.
Your "concern" is already answered by Ms. Warren's proposal. The new taxes apply only to those who have non-retirement wealth in excess of TEN MILLION DOLLARS.
That is less than 1% of us. Ms. Warren's proposed wealth tax applies to the top 0.1% of us. The middle class, pension funds, and charitable foundations have nothing to fear from these proposals.
Similarly, the proposed Medicare For All legislation explicitly DOES propose paying for results rather than procedures -- that is a central tenet.
It is no harder to read this proposal than to read pieces like this. I invite you to do so.
1
Just curious, why is anyone opposed to adding more taxes to the wealthy who have seen their taxes cut so dramatically since the days of Reagan and now pay less than the middle class? Not only that, they don’t invest their wealth (corporations included) in the country or the people. In the 60s and 70s most of life was affordable, including for the low wage worker. Since the wealthy have seen drastic drastic cuts in their taxes, it hasn’t trickled down as today over half the population cannot afford an extra $400 bill while we have a wealth establishment that tries to manipulate our lives politically, using their vast wealth to manipulate our political system to benefit them, not us...the people who often work for them.
With wealth comes responsibility, not oligarchy. Tax them!!!
1
The department of energy wants to spend a trillion dollars on more nuclear weapons. We seem ready to kill everybody on the planet but not help to heal them and keep ourselves healthy.
4
I'd prefer Elizabeth to slay the biggest ogre in the swamp first, then move onto to big policy problems, like universal health care, which has stumped Presidents since FDR.
Why are we wasting are time on this issue ? Fix the Affordable Care Act.
Warren’s a great candidate with a flawed vision on what policy ‘s have any chance getting passed.
Democrats need a candidate who’s to the center and can get out the voters to remove Trump, Warren come center .
Warren’s plan is a non starter for me.
I’ll vote for Mayor Pete over Trump, but Trump over Warren. Do NOT, mess with my healthcare.
2
Ben Sasse laughs, but what is HIS plan?
The plan/bill/trial balloon would never pass Congress and Warren knows it. Eliminate the deficit first - then ee can realistically discuss MFA.
Warren is now officially unelectable.
4
I hate my private insurance company. I pay $710 /mo and never reach my ‘deductible’ or ‘co-insurance’ (whoever came up with this concept??). Whoever thinks Americans are happy with their private insurance coverage is not really asking people who are paying into this corrupt system. My insurance company and ‘pharmacy benefits’ are building massive new office buildings with the hard earned dollars I pay them, while denying claims and creating schemes to avoid paying benefits. I’m sure millions of Americans feel they are being scammed. Thank you Senator Warren for moving us forward. We will all be better off with Medicare for all. Future generations will wonder why it took s so long.
2
Has anyone toted up the long term cost of Republican tax cuts from Reagan onward in terms of foregone revenue? $30 trillion? $50 trillion. Psst! Pay it back!
3
Warren's platform: 1) a wealth tax on middle-class Americans who have saved for years in their IRAs, since any increase in value is taxed every year. 2) abolish private health insurance, which works for millions of Americans 3) free health care for illegals 4) reparations for blacks. The only good news here is that if Warren is nominated, she and Democrats nationwide will be crushed. Four more years of Trump and Republicans in the Senate will assure a conservative majority on the Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary that will last a generation or more.
4
I hate to say this, but an outright guarantee of tax increase (even if it’s for altruist goal of universal coverage) is not going to pass muster in general election. And Pelosi, along with Biden and Buttigieg, is exactly right. Warren and Sanders can say what they want, pass whatever leftist purity test they claim, but if they can’t win in November 2020, then all hope is lost.
ObamaCare with a public option is a good combination. If the goal is to cover as many people as possible while letting those with employer coverage as-is, it’s a very compromise. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Warren and Sanders are just very foolish in that regard, just because they want to be “different.”
2
If the United States wasn't a Third World country in a number of respects, I'd say Elizabeth Warren would be a shoe-in for President. But this is a country populated by a large number of people who elected an ignoramus called Donald Trump and are determined to elect him again. Sad, very sad.
2
If Warren's plan is implemented, we can look forward to the end of healthcare as we know it - 1 year wait for appointments, long waiting times, substandard care by demoralized doctors, crash of the financial markets (why invest, when your profit is taxed into oblivion) and rampant, unchecked, semi-legal immigration. Increases in crime (in San Francisco, prosecutors refuse to indict anyone who has stolen less than $950, hence theft is skyrocketing). In other words, socialist utopia.
5
We all can’t wait to pay for health care, prescriptions and all kinds of services to illegal aliens and others who can afford to check the HMO box at work for themselves and pay some for their dependents and avoid it!
My wife and I paid for half a century for now less and less coverage and increasing Medicare premiums so we can pay for people who cross the border with way too many kids or those who continue to have kids, mostly out of wedlock or a MIA parent, while getting free Healthcare?
Trumpslide Red Tsunami, or:
Better get your guy Romney to get 67 votes to convict Trump of impeachment over being upset how Trump conducts leverage and deals in his foreign policy which is under his constitutional power or investigative corruption which is also under his Executive power control.
That is left wing radical extremist Dems only chance, and it’s fading fast?
Hopefully all views are printed again here.
4
How can the Times run this headline?
Warren has just presented a plan for no increase in taxes for the lower and middle class.
Health care was a winning issue for Democrats in 2018 and I am not happy that Warren and Sanders are making it a losing issue in 2020.
But this headline is misleading and it should read: Rich To Pay Fair Share.
2
Please, someone, tell me how the Times does it. Another front-page article discusses the vital topic of endless wars, and yet fails to mention the presidential candidate whose first policy priority is changing our policy of regime-change wars in other countries. What about the taxes we pay for unnecessary wars? What about the debt and costs in trillions? You exclude Rep. Gabbard from any serious reporting or analysis, and there is no journalistic reason to do so.
Personally, I feel if you didn’t pay anything into healthcare at all, you shouldn’t receive any care at all - even kids. Not my problem to take care of other people’s kids
2
In one year we will vote for the next President of the USA. There are several issues that need to be addressed without losing the very essence of American culture: freedom of choice. As a US citizen residing in France, I am appalled that affordable healthcare does not exist in America. At the same time, we need to compare healthcare systems that work then decide what is the best option for 337 million Americans. Universal healthcare exists in France (pop 67 million) yet we also have the choice of private additional and affordable “mutuel” insurance which covers co-pay and other expenses (private hospital room etc) not covered by the government’s universal healthcare. In Sweden it is the same: The Swedish health care system is mainly government-funded, universal for all citizens and decentralized, although private health care also exists. The health care system in Sweden is financed primarily through taxes levied by county councils and municipalities. When running the data, please compare what is comparable, change what needs to change but don’t overlook what needs to stay the same: Freedom of choice.
2
"But conservative economists who have long argued that tax cuts are the best fuel for economic growth..."
Why is this not followed by some appropriate context, like, "... despite decades of evidence to the contrary."
806
@Edward A
Well, because we have had stunning economic growth over the past 40 years.
16
We've had stunning income inequality for the last 40 years, Dave.
And our GDP would have been higher with higher tax rates to build and rebuild national infrastructure and a civilized society instead an oligarchy.
139
Preach, Socrates!
Not sure how anyone doesn’t get this yet? Oh, well, I guess the messaging has been pretty effective. Time to cut through it though. Enough.
38
It's not abouts taxes, folks; it's about total cost. If my cost for health care bought with taxes turns out to be lower than it is now I'm ahead. If taxes are higher something else, like insurance costs, will be lower and my total for an office visit will be lower. Please do the math.
1
“There will be, all else being equal, negative effects for sure”
There is an enormous problem with such casual observations: all else will most certainly not be equal. M4A will dramatically restructure the economy, which will see benefits that we haven't yet dreamed of.
How about a major increase in entrepreneurial activity from citizens who no longer have to keep their jobs to maintain their health coverage? How about the freedom of all employers from the costs and complexity of our currently dysfunctional health insurance system? How about increased spending by families who suddenly have thousands of dollars extra every month to either spend or invest - thousands of dollars that are now being spent on insurance premiums and copay's? And how about an overall boost to our economy from a healthier workforce?
Of course there will be challenges as well - thousands of people are currently employed by health insurance companies; I imagine there will be thousands of new positions opening elsewhere to absorb these folks, but certainly there will be a period of adjustment.
But the extreme myopia expressed by economists and journalists regarding M4A is insane. We need to look at the whole picture; that's what Warren, Sanders and many others are doing, and that's why M4A has my full support.
1
The one simple fact Mr Leonhardt does not address is this: the US economy is consumer driven.
If you increase the income of 100 million people by 20%, it does far more to drive the economic health of the country than giving the 10,000 wealthiest people 38% more.
That simple.
1
I don't see any mention in all the articles on this topic that MEDICARE COVERAGE IS NOT FREE and DOES NOT COVER EVERYTHING. If you want Doctor and Drug coverage you must pay and most people buy also buy Medigap insurance policies at additional cost.
That said, I appreciate the need to provide cost effective medical care (hospital, doctor, drug) to everyone.
How about imposing medicare rules and limits on insurers. Those that can survive will and those that cannot won't.
I thought long and hard about which major health system to work for based on the quality of the institution as a place to practice and the wide range of resources available should someone in my family or myself require treatment for a serious issue. Like many, I prefer the coverage I have versus the unknown - particularly insofar as the range and completeness of available services. The last thing I want is a cubicle dwelling functionary using some quality adjusted life years formula to decide what treatment my life is worth. I’m in a better position than most as my wife and I are well trained physicians who have the knowledge to advocate for each other should something serious happen to either of us. I feel for those with no serious medical knowledge trying to go toe to toe with an entrenched bureaucracy that doesn’t serve their needs.
If all private plans / relationships, (Insurance - concierge type plans) go away, people without the means to look elsewhere will be stuck with what is offered. A few large institutions will probably be able to muscle their way through and maintain very high quality physicians in all specialties and physical facilities, but quality / range of services will likely suffer outside a very few already established and financially sound centers of excellence (particularly salaried staff model institutions such as Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic). Offshore subspecialty clinics will also likely pop up to serve those who can afford it
The rich will just move. Or move their money out of America. These schemes don't work. What would work are more and better paying jobs and better unionization. But instead, the Democratic platform is to bring in 10's of millions of additional immigrant workers to keep wages low, jobs scarce, and unions non-existent. This hurts the people Democrats say they want to help - those Americans on the lower end of the wage scale. Ironically they are largely monorities. You can't tax your way out of an immigration Ponzi scheme.
There will be no where better for them to go. This country in a state of extreme poverty for more than half the people is worse than one where inequality is addressed. When people aren’t in lifetime debt, or living in tents and the streets and when we can all contribute to the economy, it’s a happier, healthier place to live. Not one where a real threat of pitchforks and guillotines is real.
1
And corporate welfare ?
1
"Those concerns have been exacerbated by Mr. Trump’s economic policies, including a $1.5 trillion tax cut, which delivered its biggest gains to corporations and wealthy Americans, and has yet to produce the sustained investment boost and accelerated wage gains for middle-class workers that the administration promised."
So why are people so intent on voting for Trump? Where's the health care plan he promised? People are sill paying out of network humongous bills during emergencies. There are several reasons why Trump should not be re-elected. Of course the insurance companies will wage a war to stay in business. The last time I was in Canada (2008) someone I met there told me she had private insurance to supplement her basic insurance. So it's not like they got rid of private insurance. The Dutch and Swiss still got private insurance. I think you can have both private and public insurance access. Even though Trump got nothing to offer in terms of health insurance after three years he will sow fear and discontent all the way into the 2020 election against any plan removing private insurance that is currently problematic for a good number of those who have private insurance.
The main problem with Warren’s plan is that, even if she wins, the US is an Oligarchy and the Oligarchs are not going to consent to being taxed. Taxes are for the little people.
Then don’t put up with it anymore. Fight for the politician who isn’t corruptible. Who is on our side. Who understands this and is trustworthy. Vote. Vote out money in politics. Vote for Bernie.
Inappropriate headline and we wonder why American people don't know much. Warren and Sanders are trying to reduce inequality, return to a more reasonable tax structure in order to provide healthcare for all its citizens.
3
The headline is a half truth. The old tax returns and gets distributed differently. The rich will have pay more and those at the bottom pretty much the same.
Never has this plan has ever been tried in the USA and nothing never tried will ever work or be allowed to fail.
1
It doesn't "push the boundaries" it exceeds all reasonable boundaries and will put our economy in a tailspin for which the Dems will say that even more government control is needed.
7
Health care already costs this much. Do we let it keep spiraling out of control or do we stop paying private insurance companies stock dividends?
There is a huge aspect of this that is being ignored - the sheer organization of what is being proposed and how the government is in no shape to cope.
I recently had to sign up for Medicare - it was a nightmare. No one in these bureaucracies really knew what they were doing, it was impossible to get simple answers, I spent easily 30 hours on the phone, going over 2 days, waiting for 4-7 hours, to a regional social security admin and IRS office to get them to talk to each other and and and.
Just to sign up!!
We have starved the federal government of staff funding and support since Regan, and these bureaucracies have been hollowed out. They can barely cope with their existing workloads, and how what is being proposed would -make a guess - increase it 5- 10 fold??? Even if the money were there, the sheer logistics of gearing up, hiring and training staff is a 5-10 year project.
Other countries use a mix of public and private organizations with government negotiating on prices of medical procedures and drugs. This seems the only realistic way formward.
1
Let me start by saying I am a lifelong Democrat and a liberal and I believe every person has a right to affordable healthcare. I practice what I preach as am a small business owner and I provide my employees with free healthcare insurance for their entire family. Elizabeth Warren's proposals do not take into account the impact that her tax plan would have on the US or in fact the world economy. I have not heard of one serious economist who believes that investment would not shrink and that unemployment would not rise under her plan. Additionally, her assumptions that a government run healthcare system would be efficient and would significantly lower the healthcare costs is insane. In Canada the government dictates that a breast cancer patient can only get one type of chemotherapy which I am sure saves millions of dollars but the result is misery and early death for patients. Try to fix the healthcare for Veterans as a first step and if you can do that, I might believe that a government run healthcare system will be effective. Additionally, let’s look at why our healthcare costs are so high and I believe you will find that a major reason is that Doctors in this country are so fearful of medical malpractice that they order unnecessary tests. Fix our medical malpractice problems and you will go a long way to lowering the cost of our healthcare.
6
The USA already has an efficient and well-loved, single payor health insurance system. It’s called Medicare. Whatever goes on in Canada, under USA Medicare, the federal government does not tell cancer patients what type of chemotherapy they can have — that kind of thing is done by the private for profit insurance companies. Medicare does not get between a patient and his/her doctor, that’s what the private, for profit insurance companies do. Medicare does not tell patients which doctors they can go to, that’s what is done by the private, for profit insurance companies. Everyone deserves Medicare, improved by eliminating copays, eliminating private insurance for Part D, and adding vision, dental and hearing services. (The VA is completely different — it is more like the NHS in Britain — which is NOT what is proposed for Medicare for All. And notwithstanding whatever the problems in the VA, which could be fixed by fully funding it, many veterans love the care they get from the VA.)
@Bill C Every medical office is drowning under a thicket of paperwork caused by the multiplicity of insurers. There are more admins than nurses!
Intellectually your argument has no logic to it (like most advertising).
You suggest some kind of nebulous economic fallout, but how would simply having a single insurer do that?
Stop the fear mongering.
So Trump rode wave to victory. Guess that’s true. Imagine if D Party had run an ethical campaign like the Rs, Trump wouldn’t be there. Another honest and ethical populist would be.
Instead of appearing to blame populists for Trump, blame the true culprits: Democratic Party.
"push the boundaries of how much a country can rely on a sliver of high-end investors and other wealthy citizens to fund widely used social programs"
Hello? This is a terribly biased sentence. This is the norm in any civilized country, except Switzerland, which has an Obamacare as it was intended sort of system. And incidentally it is the second most expansive system in the world.
2
Under Medicare for all Medical COSTS will go down as insurance profits are eliminated and insurance companies are unable to control both doctors and patients. Republicans the top 400 rich and business will invest heavily in attacking the viable plan for equality. I gave Warren thirty five dollars today. I hope every person concerned for the well being of our nation does the same.
2
Our terrible health care system is exacerbating inequality, but nothing can be done about it, because everyone who has at least DECENT health care now won't give it up for any system that could be good for everyone.
So what are our real options here? A majority would probably support Biden and strengthening Obama care, which will of course die in the Senate, and some constellation of Republicans will keep trying to undo Obamacare altogether, even though that probably won't be feasible. But Medicare for all with new taxes? Not a chance!
Historically, when times have been relatively good, the poor could simply be ignored. ("Let them eat cake!") But for whatever reasons, the middle class keeps shrinking, and health care costs are becoming unbearable for more and more people, and somehow the rich (and conservative), if they think about it at all, must be hoping that there is some solution to this crisis that won't involve redistributing some of their wealth.
Well, "redistribution" is so automatically and always wrong to a lot of folks in our culture that it can't even be considered. And probably Warren's proposal won't be considered by those same people either.
But what serious alternative do any of you have? We already know you'll fight any improvements or serious stabilizing reforms of Obamacare to the death.
So, as you dismiss Warren's plan without a second thought, let's hear what you would do instead!
2
I love this title which tells so much about what America is and has probably always been, even if the Donald succeeded in making things even worse: how can any civilized society wealthy and humane enough believe in and implement social progress without taxing the wealthy, corporations or individuals?
What matters as much as the truth is voter perception. People will be scared that what they know will be taken away for an unknown. Why play with fire? Start with voluntary buy-ins. Trump will have a field day scaring the already scared. Offer choice. And win the election.
The Medicare for All plan sounds simple. Turns out it’s not. It’s far too expensive and Warren’s plan to pay for it is way too complicated. And I don’t believe her math.
2
@Vicki This argument tell us that up is down: It's verbal judo that seeks to confuse. The real question is how can we possibly afford to continue with our chaotic, duplicative non-system.
Is it more simple for a doctor to deal with one insurer or to wrangle a morass of middlemen companies that provide no value?
1
Warren actually has 54 plans on her website. The healthcare/tax plan has over 15,000 words. She uses over 80 personal pronouns in it, like "I" and "my". In the healthcare plan she attacks other Democrat candidates as dishonest slackers for not being as bold as she is in her plan. The plan will never pass Congress. It makes FDR's New Deal look like a continuing resolution.
3
@Winston Smith Where did you learn this? The comment sections on healthcare industry reform topics always yield interesting, very polished memes.
Any article that can print the assertion “...conservative economists who have long argued that tax cuts are the best fuel for economic growth and rising wages...” without immediately ridiculing it based on all the historical evidence showing otherwise betrays its bias. Everything proposed is a variation on things done previously in the US, or currently done in other countries. What is unprecedented is a rich country allowing its citizens to suffer easily preventable bankruptcies and deaths from a cruel and inhuman health insurance system.
4
Our country is focusing on the wrong agenda. In Asia, the young are being trained to embrace wealth, sustainability, entrepeneurship, and leadership simultaneously.
A goal to simply eliminate American Billionaires will just make the world's non-American billionaires, and thus non-Americans, more powerful on the world stage while we recede.
From a "wealth/income inequality" standpoint, the goal is to be sure that the majority of our middle class can afford the cost of daily living. That is what matters from an American household economic standpoint.
Otherwise the key to being "rich" is have assets that have value, and passive income streams. For most, that is the only way. Simply being a worker for any company or institution ( governmental or otherwise) is no path to wealth for most of us.
How much more money does the average American household need to afford the average cost of living? What is the number? Just take the minimum wage at Walmart/Amazon/Target,,, and subtract from the need as above. The result is our Universal Basic Income number.
Throwing money into a centralized government and eliminating our most valuable tax payers( by dollars) will not lift the middle class out of our struggles.
We have had a huge income/wealth disparity shift for sure, but the amount of total taxes paid by the fortunate winners has risen even higher than the wealth concentration percentages mentioned in this article by a wide margin.
Let us tread carefully or face economic ruin.
5
This is reorganizing 1/5 of our economy. Even someone as smart as Elizabeth Warren will have a tough time planning and implementing that. No one can predict the future and know how this policy will work out. Remember, “If you like your doctor, you can keep yours?” For a lot of people this was not true. Many people no longer get a doctor for primary care. It’s nurse practitioners now to hold down costs and let GPs know they are an extra cost that should have specialized.
It’s possible that this policy could work out better for most people overall. However, many people will be worse off and not just millionaires and billionaires. Some people would get lower quality care. Hospital administrators and insurance middlemen may not easily plug into Medicare bureaucracy.
The eventual raising of taxes on professional and business class Democrats could split the party or send them to the Republicans. For the past 20 years or more the deal with Democrats and these constituents was that as long as your family take home pay was less than $250K, your taxes would not go up. That will not be the case with this plan. But a family on $250K is rich you say. It depends on where they live and if they have a mountain of student loan debt-Warren’s $50K relief each may only make a small dent-to pay down debt that allowed them to earn a high salary.
Finally, would clinicians be allowed to practice privately? There have to be clinicians who will not work for what Medicare pays.
3
It bears repetition: every industrialized country but the US has the equivalent of Medicare for All. They all have it, they all pay for it, they spend less of their GDP than the US does, and not one of them - not one - would choose to get rid of it once they had it, and NONE of them is as wealthy as the US. Dear neighbours: believe, and figure it out.
4
@J Hatcher You seem to be overlooking the fact that many in those countries also buy private insurance to ensure they will actually get to see a doctor. Why do Canadians come here for surgery or to see specialists?
2
@Jackson I'm sorry, this is not truthful: by every measure american health care performs so much worse. Preventable deaths, maternal mortality, organization of care, etc.
1
Santa Barbara already has FREE community college for its residents. The college is ranked #1 or #2, depending on which poll you read, among US community colleges.
After two years, students can then transfer to UCSB to earn a Bachelors, for approximately $12,000 a year.
Two years free tuition followed by two years of a highly affordable, great education.
It can be done. We are doing it here.
Warren plans all have to go through Congress and they will be pared down.
However, nothing is working right now. Healthcare, education, excessive military spending/endless wars, high costs of housing, rampant homelessness, rampant drugs, corrupt prison system, millionaires and billionaires and corporations paying ZERO taxes--it is all out of control and not working.
Time to go in the other direction. We'll land in the middle.
6
If you think capitalism is the be-all and end-all of economic systems, you should want it to work well and when it isn't, you should want to fix it. If most of the money is concentrated more and more in a few hands while too many live paycheck to paycheck with too much debt and no savings, capitalism isn't working well. It would be best if the capitalists themselves fixed it. But if they won't or can't, democratic government can and should. The biggest capitalist economy and wealthiest country in the world has no excuse for the financial insecurity, family stress and low quality of life a large segment of our population contends with even when they have jobs.
2
Warren seems to believe that the power of the federal government to do anything is infinite. Read the Tenth Amendment: it cannot be explained away, and, in due course, the laws enacted which contravene it will be set aside.
1
I am glad Warren have actually put out a real plan. But we all know (even if we don't admit it) that her Medicare for All will need significant middle class taxes.
4
Maybe that is true. Maybe there will be higher taxes on the middle class. But that would be INSTEAD OF (and a lot lower than) the outrageous premiums, copays and deductibles they have to pay now. Wouldn’t people rather pay $500 per month in new taxes, per family, instead of $1200 per month in premiums and a $10,000 per year family deductible? Or for an individual, maybe $200 per month in higher taxes, instead of their $600 or $800 per month premium and $6000 deductible? Many people who have insurance pay outrageous premiums but still can’t get treatment because of the high deductibles. They still can’t afford their prescriptions because of outrageous co-pays. A sizeable percentage of “medical bankruptcy” filings are by people who actually have insurance. This has to stop; it’s both an economic issue as well as a moral issue.
Will the Government assume the medical liability like private insurances do now ?
3
Does Warren understand operating a company efficiently? If anyone think companies will give up half their after tax profits to help Americans, she is crazy. When shareholder profits go down, so does the worth of the company. When companies make less, they reduce labor cost, which means laying off workers and reducing wages. Warren assumes you can pay doctors less, fire millions of workers in private healthcare jobs, energy jobs, raise teachers pay, provide free childcare, and the economy will still grow. Insane. Until Trump lowered corporate tax rates, American companies were merging with foreign companies to dodge taxes. What stops American companies from moving to Ireland, and making profits there, and breaking even on the cost they sell goods to America? Raising the cost of goods to maintain profit margins will cause high inflation, higher interest rates, and lower incomes. The tax base diminishes, while inflation rises. Warren should stick to law, and admit she, nor anyone else can force the companies that stay in America to finance her dreams of successful socialism. Forget the Scandinavian scheme. How many of the largest companies in the world are there? There are good reasons why.
4
Companies in the US benefit from a myriad of public services including police, firefighters, public school teachers, infrastructure like roads and bridges ... without paying nearly their fair share of taxes. End that immediately.
1
Who says Warren will take HALF a company’s after tax profits? Where do you see that in her plan? She says companies would pay extra taxes that are LESS than what they now pay in premiums for their employees’ health insurance. As far as your other comments about companies dodging taxes, why should we arrange our economy in order to disincentivize companies from engaging in tax evasion? Why should we accept a system of capitalism run amok, where more and more of the wealth is concentrated at the very top, the middle class is disappearing, and the bottom huge swath of people cannot make it? If we need stronger laws to prevent tax evasion and tax dodging by our unpatriotic corporations, then that is what we should have. That is not an argument against universal healthcare.
@Jay Do you understand the concept of the common good? What you don't understand is macro-level political economy.
I don't only want to know about the tax bill, I also need to know how much bigger my paycheck would be without employer provided healthcare, You may not think so but that is a kind of tax too, a privately administered one with a middleman getting an extra fee.
4
@Bill H. Warren is taking all the employer money saved in health insurance in higher taxes. Plus even more in new forms of taxes. Just like in a Europe there is no free lunch. We will all pay more . That may be ok, but nothing is somehow free to most of us.
5
@Bill H It’s amusing that you think your employer won’t still be paying for your insurance. Apparently you haven't read THE PLAN.
Democrats have not historically won presidential elections on a platform of increasing tax rates. Taxpayer voters who immensely dislike Trump are not likely to vote for tax increases, particularly since wage rate increases are slow enough as it is. Warren is the tragedy of the commons, she has all kinds of spending programs and forgiving of individuals student loans with funds which are not her own funds. Warren would raise tax rates to pay for her private campaign promises in order to get elected. That is the tragedy of the commons.
4
Warren’s policy proposals seem to have been custom-made by the Republican Party - to run against next November.
Trump needs to be defeated, but introducing massive, new policy ideas is a political mistake since it causes anxiety for voters and creates a massive target for the GOP.
I’m starting to see that for all her virtues, Warren has very little natural political skill - the kind we saw with Bill Clinton, Obama, and, yes, Trump.
This election will not be won by a Democratic candidate proposing seismic changes to every facet of voters’ lives.
I now have a sense of dread that once again, the Democratic Party is seizing defeat from the jaws of victory.
Policy details become easy targets, easily ridiculed, easily characatured.
8
Please point to where this wealth actually is. Answer? On paper. These billionaires own companies and assets valued by other individuals. It is not a tangible asset. These are just paper valuations that can change very quickly. See CA in the last recession for how how fast millionaires and billionaires can disappear in a bear market. Show me a single European country with universal health insurance that pays for it only with a tax on the wealthy. There isn't a single one. tax rates of 40% on the middle class? Easy to find.
Further, taxing capital gains or other income at a higher rate will only result in reduced revenue. The decision to sell a stock is based on after tax earnings and the ability to sell in the first place. If a stock sale that is net profitable at 17% is not profitable at 33% just means the sale won't happen. So, Warren wants to tax unrealized gains meaning one would have to sell at a loss to pay leading to a decrease, on average, of stock prices when taxes are due. This just reduces stock trades and reduces overall tax revenue. Static analysis is used to make these taxes materialize, but anyone who owns stock can see this will fail miserably.
An honest accounting is all that I ask. We have numerous case studies (ie, see European countries) of what tax rates must be to support this spending. Why Warren keeps perpetuating the myth that taxing the wealthy can make this happen is beyond me. It is false.
12
Medicare in Canada used to be excellent but has become dismal. The country is a third larger since the sixties - people are living much longer and there is a large immigrant population. Not having a primary physician is the norm in Quebec. Waiting lists for operations can be for up to a year or more. Many hospital buildings are falling apart or understaffed because there is no money to pay salaries. This is not an exaggeration. Socialized medicine is great when it works, but it doesn't always work, because it's hugely expensive to run.
7
In reality Warren proposals will mean that the nation guarantees that every citizen has access to some reasonable level of health care. Obviously it can be overdone, the body politic shouldn't be paying for buttock shaping surgery, but a level of basic health care is an enormous physical and mental health enhancer, and therefore a major productivity increaser.
As far as paying for it, if we just went back to the income tax structure we had during the Eisenhower era, coupled with treating capital gains like what they are, income, there is no problem.
5
@Paul Can we also go back to the deductions we had in the Eisenhower era? Do you know what effective tax rate means? Warren is only guaranteeing health insurance, not health care.
As hard as it is, let's forget about the absurd amount of taxation that will have to pay for Warren's 'plan' for a minute. Does anyone out there really think that our government could run this massive system with any degree of competency ?
7
They already do. It’s called Medicare. In reality the Number of jobs administering Medicare would go up a lot, somewhat offsetting losses of private insurance company jobs. But the administrative structure is already in place
4
I’m happy with my 10 dollar copay. Have a system of choice. If the government plan is better then what I have then I’ll go with it. If not I will contribute my 585 a month for my municipal coverage.
3
So the government is going to tax unrealized gains? If the stock market goes up, the investor pays a tax even though they haven't sold the stock? If the market goes back down, does the government return the money to the investor?
How would this be implemented? How would gains be measured for assets that are not publicly traded and do not have a readily ascertainable market value?
I don't think Warren has thought this through very well.
11
Fourty years of Reaganism i.e. there is free lunch, is coming home to roost.
2
Free lunch for whom? I pay $15,000 a year for no healthcare to insurance.
written by a hand intent to poke holes
Warren's plan reduces net costs to most American families. And fact is, we won't just throw a switch overnight and force way over 100 million people to switch insurance. It is a target - a blue print to aspire toward. But approached incrementally.
2
“conservative economists who have long argued that tax cuts are the best fuel for economic growth and rising wages”, generally referred to as ‘trickle down economics’.
If this fallacious argument were true, we would have seen this after Trump’s 2017 Tax law. We didn’t. Spreading the wealth more evenly gives many people the opportunity to do better rather than promulgating the Conservative viewpoint that tax cuts are the best approach. Trickle down economics has been disproved many times.
6
With Trump and his cronies rolling back environmental laws to reduce air and water pollution health care costs seem sure to soar in the near future. Trump supporters as a whole should expect to be sicker and to have increased health care expenses. Sadly, so should everyone else. One thing seems sure, whatever plan the Democratic candidates have for health care insurance all of them will have better policies for protecting health than Trump who appears to be completely unconcerned about what the effects of toxic substances released into the environment have on people. He is helping corporations to pollute on a scale that has not been seen in the US for decades. Americans are being poisoned and may even vote for more of the same as they are swept up into the madness known as Trumpism.
2
I was born in 1979 and I have news for the author. My entire life has been an era of wealth redistribution: the gradual elimination of taxes on the wealthy, the consolidation of political power and the subsequent rule making authority to further enrich the wealthy.
Progressive taxation is a form of wealth redistribution too, but to hear the author reduce the Medicare for All proposal to mere wealth redistribution in the midst of what has been the greatest concentration of wealth in the history of humanity shocks and saddens me.
To be clear, the only reason Warren’s plan seems far fetched is because it speaks truth to power and there is a good chance power will squash it. We absolutely can pay for Medicare for All by rolling back previous tax cuts on the wealthy and allowing businesses to focus on their business instead of trying to game the insurance industry and its ever shifting coverage and pricing schemes.
For decades wealth has been redistributed into the hands of the wealthy. Meanwhile, our medical system has become a casino where the rich can play but the poor go bankrupt. Will the Koch brothers and their ilk raise a half billion to prevent someone like Warren from enacting such a proposal? Maybe, but other presidential candidates and journalists shouldn’t be parroting the anti tax ideologues talking points about who is redistributing wealth from who and who is taking medical coverage away from whom.
8
My health coverage from my employer is considered part of my compensation package, so essentially I’m paying $18k/year for a striped down high-deductible plan for my family and I - I just never see the money directly. Presumably in a single payer scenario I’d still be paying the same amount, just in a different way: the $18k still goes “into” my compensation, but leaves in the form of new taxes. The money has to come from somewhere, but at least in the single payer version all the middle men in the insurance game are cut out, so there’s more left on the table for actual benefits, and my employer doesn’t have to shop for insurance every year. Congress decides how the money is spent, not the President, so all these progressive ideas have to be weighed against the likelihood of actually getting through a skeptical Congress - and that’s a question the moderators of the debates should be asking of the candidates : “how are you going to pull that off?”
4
Right, only middle man is now that super competent and efficient entity known as the government. Now a trip to the doctors office can be like going to the DMV.
4
The middlemen may be cut out of the market. But we don’t know if they just transfer to the government- presumably at a lower salary. If you think middlemen and businessmen are bad are you sure they won’t be venal in government? What about when the next Trump gets a hold of this apparatus?
If only, in Washington State I can renew my license online, and last time I went to the DMV office I only waited 5 minutes. Last time I went to my private doctor my already scheduled appointment started 2 hours late. The insurance company disputed the charge, and I had to call and educate the insurance company employee that an “Internal Medicine” doctor is equivalent to a “Family Medicine” doctor. Finding a new doctor I have to wait at least a month for my first appointment. Our current system could hardly get worse for basic care. Try to find a new argument.
1
The universal healthcare systems used by modern European nations cost their inhabitants from $4 - 5,000 per capita per year. At $5K per capita, a similar US universal healthcare system for our 350M inhabitants should cost $1.75 trillion per year.
What is Elizabeth Warren selling? Why would it cost $20.5 trillion, or $58,571.43 per US inhabitant? That is 10 times more than what Europeans pay right now. This math doesn't add up.
4
20 trillion over a decade. Still doubles what the Europeans are paying but hey -- good to get the facts right.
The reality is that we need tax increases and dramatic cuts in Federal spending or this nation will be bankrupt.
All these additional proposed entitlements must be shelved until the deficit is eliminated and the debt is paid back.
3
That train has left the station. The Feds plan is to inflate away our debt instead of paying it, because we can’t. Dollar is heading for a fall. So maybe we will pay back the 21 trillion, but a trillion dollars at that point will be enough to buy a few loaves of bread.
Considering that the super-wealthy comprise only 1% of our population, a tax increase on the would be warmly and enthusiastically welcomed by the other 99% who earn less than $50K/yr. Some others need to pay for our health care, our roads and bridges, and our federal government.
We peons earn just enough to pay for our local schools, state and local government, and police/fire safety. And then we have to buy/rent dwellings, eat, find means to get to work, pay for water/sewerage, elec/gas, communications, and maybe clothing if there's anything left over to spend........
We should all have a $25,000 personal deduction ( $5,000 for each dependent), and pay a reasonable (5%??) on all earnings, with very few deductions.
As a landlord who provides all utilities (I have one system for the building), I would think I could have a deduction for services to my tenants. However, that is offset by a higher than usual rent for my area. One could say I don't really benefit from the deductibles---I trade them off with higher rent receipts.
2
Well,,, I really hope Trumps better in his second term, and that we Democrats get over this silly obsession with identity politics and impractical pseudo-Scandinavian politics that will never happen in most of Europe or any of North America
10
@TJ
Trump's new domicile in 2020 will be Leavenworth, Kansas. Guaranteed.
It is wealthy and corporations that run our government. That is why, irrespective of who wins the elections, there won’t be any changes. To improve the lives of the people, for starter, the tax rates should roll back to pre-Reagan era. After that, we have to wait for couple of years to see how it is working out. Meanwhile, an implementable plan for Medicare for all can be developed. There is nothing wrong to have a dream of medicare for all and work towards achieving that goal. We should have lofty goals but not lofty promises unless those promises meant to win the election. Please save me from the nonsense of working across the aisles. You either have a conviction and fight for it or get out of politics. Don’t be fake, that is all we have so far. Warren has at least have strong convictions and willing to fight for it. I don’t see the difference between Trump and all previous presidents except in flavor. The so called moderates among the democratic candidates will not bring any changes and it is not worth voting for them simply because they have better chance of winning against Trump. In my view, Trump at least has the courage to fight Chinese on trade and more entertaining on a daily basis, instead of reading lofty speeches written by speech writers.
1
The current medical system has holes, is a chaotic mess, and will cost 2.5 times as much as Warren's plan over the same time period.
It's a no-brainer.
9
We can continue with the same wealth care system we've had for decades. It penalizes most those who are in need of regular care due to chronic conditions, those who are not employed because of chronic conditions or other issues such as age discrimination, and those who, while insured, cannot afford the deductibles, the co-pays and the out of network costs that always crop up despite their care. We can watch as more and more of our friends and neighbors lose everything because of one illness or accident. Or we can do something like Medicare for all or copy what works in other countries where people don't have to ration their meds to pay the rent.
All the money we are wasting on premiums could be put into a pool and cover all of us and probably be less expensive than what we're paying now. We could forgive medical school debt. Doctors would be free to be doctors instead of the middlemen between patients and the insurance company. We wouldn't have to fight about claim denials. We wouldn't have to worry about the bills. And we might be healthier and happier.
All too many of us are an accident or an illness away from being medically bankrupt and out of work and then unable to afford insurance or care. Is this our future? I hope not.
11/2/2019 10:46pm first submit
8
A tax on buying and selling stocks is not a tax on the "rich". Such a tax would hurt everyone who is trying to save for the future. Rebalancing is prudent. Instituting disincentives to do so is not.
9
@Daphne
Income tax hurts everyone who has to work for a paycheck too. It is a disincentive to get up every day and go to work.
When saving for the future, you are not constantly buying and selling stocks. Did you know that now “investment” companies use computers to buy and sell stocks in a fraction of a second? This kind of behavior is rigging the stock market against the true investors and SHOULD be taxed.
Are there any studies of a correlation between the income/wealth of economists who opine on tax and fiscal policy and their opinions?
4
This proposal shows that Warren is not ready for prime time. If she’s the nominee, get ready for four more years of Trump.
16
Imagine how silly you would think your neighbor was if you heard him and his wife arguing about which credit card to use to pay for a new Porsche 911 that they couldn’t afford.
How we pay for healthcare is far less important than reducing the costs of healthcare. A 52 Trillion Medicare for all is never going to pass any vote. If you think it will, you are just as much a problem in terms of creating Trump as the average MAGA supporter.
The three leading factors driving healthcare costs are 1) administrative bloat
2) drug costs
3) overuse of medical care in the last 30 days of life
1) Medicare is the main cause of administrative bloat so there is no way this would reduce costs.
2) Medicare is currently the main driver of drug costs currently, it is essentially the benchmark for what other insurance companies agree they will pay. So again, how will government run healthcare reduce costs?
3) Patients and their families are the main drivers of inappropriate care at the end of life, and if Americans were ok with physicians dictating how, and if, they received care (like in England and Europe) then these costs would come down. Otherwise government run healthcare doesn’t address any of these.
To go back to my initial metaphor. We have a couple where the household income is 50k and they are arguing whether or not to put the 200k 911 on the chase or the Amex.
6
@Anil Singh
Medicare covers the people for-profit health insurance industry does not cover because there is no profit to be made. We do have a choice, Medicare or the children provide health care for their parents. Of course, better-off parents can use up all their savings first.
1
@Anil Singh
How in the world is Medicare the main cause of "administrative bloat" when the medicare admin cost is roughly 2% vs over 12% for private insurance?
2
@Jessica They force the provider's staff to pay for the billing and auditing. The rate seems low compared to what insurance companies pay . I hate billing insurance companies, but trying to get Medicaid to pay what they owe is far harder. They say they overpaid you last year. It is simply a tax. Only happens near the end of the year when the budget is over.
I support Sen. Warren but Medicare for all will creates a two tier system. Rich people will pay cash to doctors who will not take medicare patients and the rest of America will go to 2nd rate doctors. Keep your private health insurance or Medicare should start paying doctors more money so they will agree to take Medicare patients.
6
@Julia
Doctors do take Medicare patients, that is not a problem at all. Basic Medicare does not cover everything, that is why people buy additional insurance and pay for Part B, and Part D for prescription drugs. The pharma industry made it a condition to not negotiate lower prices with Medicare, good for the industry and bad for the consumer.
The fact is, we have a lousy health care system, all for the benefit of the industry.
2
A title of an article creates an anticipatory emotional response before the reader even gets down to the task of comprehending the details of an article. It would be interesting to use a similarly provocative title to describe GOP tax cuts as "GOP Tax Plan Ensures Loss of Income for Millions Of Americans" and then the reader could discover that cutting taxes means that essential safety net programs (Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc.) would need to be cut to offset the loss of billions of dollars in income loss from billionaires & large corporations paying less taxes. Another headline during the GOP proposed legislation to overturn the ACA could've read, "GOP Seeks to Kill Millions of Americans by Depriving Them of Right To Preventative Healthcare". Because let's face it, Warren's announced plan to to tax people earning over 1 billion dollars per year which would mean about 205 people in a country with 329.45 million. So really does Warren's plan embrace higher taxes for Americans? Why not also state that the GOP tax cuts embrace tax increases for Americans at the state and local levels since that's what happens when federal service costs/burdens shift to the state and local level. Lot's of times the headlines of an article is all that people remember when perusing a newspaper so it is essential to capture the correct message in that same title.
4
@Dunca
So or so, we have to pay for health care, with taxes or premiums. All I know is that private insurance is the most expensive way to pay for health care.
1
It is insanity. The corporate world is a very competitive place, and massive profits are never guaranteed. Anyone who thinks that policies that so deeply affect the bottom line of companies won’t eventually hurt their rank and file workers is dreaming. Private enterprise is the engine that grows wealth in this country and all western democracies. The government’s role is to provide a safety net and basic needs, but in order to do this the engine needs to fully function and bring in money. Governments do not generate wealth. Warren will be hobbling that engine. And when the engine breaks down, what happens next? Study Venezuela.
Warren’s plan is NOT Scandinavia. In Scandinavia, society accepts very high taxation in return for a very robust safety net. Politically it is acceptable. Warren’s plan is a smokescreen because it is simply deceptive to say that the 52 trillion dollar price tag will not be passed down to our middle class in one form or another. Pray for our economy if she is elected.
12
@Eric
Scandinavian health care is only about half as expensive than ours. Their tax for health care is less than your premiums and deductibles and co-payments. Add it all up and then compare.
The industry is very busy deceiving the people again as they have done before. We pay for health care either in the form of taxes or premiums and deductibles. The taxes would be less than premiums which do include profits for the insurance industry.
The defense budget and Health care together eat up almost half the nation's GDP.
1
@ARL It is half as expensive because they spend far less on end of life care. Do you think they even try to resuscitate cancer patients? Experimental meds? Nope. Most of Medicare spending is in the final 6 months of life. Simply put, savings come from not keeping older, sicker patients alive. That is a tough sell to the public. I do think we should cut some of these costs, but this could be achieved with mandating negotiations for meds rather than eliminating the whole private system.
2
This is maybe the most insane and unrealistic proposal I've ever heard. None of the numbers add up, and some of the ideas are just beyond absurd. Particularly the idea that all cities and states should now turn over all money they pay for healthcare in a lump sum to the federal government, and just hope that some of it is actually spent on healthcare in that state.
The good thing tho is that it definitely weakens the Dems in California, and very substantially. No way people here will vote for any tax increases.
13
You can bet the wealthy will find new ways to avoid paying taxes... just as they have been doing for decades. How does Dr. Warren plan to pay for Medicare For All? By the way, I'm a Democrat and a realist and think that Medicare For All is aspirational, but the majority people voting today will vote against any candidate running on this platform.
The Progressives don't seem to think things through accounting for counter-moves from the other side.
7
"But conservative economists who have long argued that tax cuts are the best fuel for economic growth and rising wages said Friday that Ms. Warren’s planned tax increases on corporations would rebound to hurt the middle class — along with everyone else."
Tax cuts are not the best fuel for economic growth despite the longstanding irrational proclamations of conservative economists. The last thirty years of experiments both at the federal and state level have proven that. Trump's most recent tax cut ONLY benefited corporations and the very wealthy. This makes no sense whatsoever given the economic situation of the USA.
Corporations have been and continue to move manufacturing out of the USA so that they can pay poverty wages to people in Mexico and third world countries and because of this we are primarily a consumer economy. To consume you must actually have consumers! Stifling the growth of the middle class and increasing poverty is not how you make a successful consumer economy. Giving more wealth to the very rich doesn't create more consumption. Conservatives would argue that giving more money to corporations creates jobs, but tax cuts for corporations have never trickled down to workers. Corporations are padding their bottom line with billions of dollars in stock buybacks instead. This focus on investment banking over the needs of the public has to end.
2
@Harvey Tax cuts work when high marginal rates exists. Less so when the rate cut is 2-3%. Small tax cuts don't trickle down, but large ones do. This is proven by Reagan's cuts. I agree that they are less likely to help with current low rates.
If you do not eliminate student loans for physicians and dentists, there will be a long line waiting for whatever health care remains after this reform if reimbursements fall and student loan payments are not adjusted downward. End student loans for medical professionals. We do not meet the income test Senator Warren is suggesting for loan forgiveness. It is a mistake to ignore debt taken for professional graduate school in health sciences.
Cancel any remaining debt for health care professionals and repay those who have paid in that last 2-4 years. Watch burnout disappear overnight.
11
20k in annual premiums vs. Medicare for all? Bring it on!
1
Warren's plan does not expect any decrease in overall US healthcare spending as measured by percent of GDP. She expects an increase of dollar healthcare expenditure in line with inflation. As well known, the US spends 18% in terms of GDP, while most developed countries spend 10-11 %. Other developeds spend about half as much in dollars for healthcare per capita as the US; the lower fraction here is due to lower per capita income. The main exception is Switzerland at 13% for healthcare as % of GDP; and due to Switz's per capita being a bit higher than the US, its dollar expenditures approach 80%.
Whichever of the two measures is more appropriate (I can see arguments for both), the US is spending way too much. Warren's plan includes vast and politically dangerous tax and organizational changes just to keep our healthcare expenditures at the same bloated level.
I realize that getting the % GDP and dollars-per-capita figures down will be difficult to accomplish quickly (consider, for instance, professionals' mortgages and college debt, hospitals' sunken costs, established diagnostic routines). But Warren should be working on a plan to get there also, over a not-too-long time.
4
Does Medicare "for all" mean "unlimited Medicare for all"
There has to be a cap to the benefits or people will not value the worth and have NO skin the game
7
@Longtime Chi -- There don't appear to be any limits or caps of any sort whatsoever in Warren's plan. It provides unlimited care for everybody in the world who wants it, whether they are citizens or not, whether they've ever paid a penny into the system or not. No caps, no limits, no real cost controls of any sort.
13
@Longtime Chi having to have skin in the game is what has led to most of these problems. Here's what we all have to care about: public health which means our own, our family's, our neighbors, and the rest of the country. If we're paying taxes for this all of us have an interest in seeing the system function well. Right now we're fighting alone.
Please explain to me why, if I'm unemployed, I should be unable to receive decent medical care. Explain to me why, if I don't make 6 figures, I should be forced to rely upon the meager kindness of a health insurance company which restricts me to their choice of providers, forces me to pay out of network costs if an expert my physician says I need to see isn't in their network.
Then look at other countries with universal access and see if most of their citizens abuse the availability of medical care to a significant degree. I'd bet they are better patients than we are. They can afford the medications prescribed by their doctors. They can receive the follow up care they need. Their hospitals may not be like 5 star hotels but that's not what hospitals are supposed to be. I'd bet that they get good dental care, good vision care, and aren't forced into bankruptcy when they're ill, can't work, and lose their jobs.
If keeping citizens healthy isn't enough skin in the game I don't know what is.
1
@hen3ry Dont understand how having skin in the game led to these problems . Simple economics , if things do not cost you anything , then most people dont value it and become gluttinuss in consuming it
Y’all better hope the Senate convicts... because Warren is going to be eaten alive by Donnie in any contest!! Clinton was an appetizer compared to Warren!
We are lost to 4 more years of this guy?? We are doomed !!!!!
12
I wonder how many people have thought about the use of the word "taxes" when it comes to health care and how appropriate it is.
Taxes are generally thought of as money we pay to governemnt to run government services like police, traffic lights, roads, customs, defense, etc.
Actually government doesn't "run" health care because health care is delivered by doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc.
Health care isn't provided by insurance companies. Why is there insurance for something you know is going to happen to you? You know you are going to have a flu shot. You know you are going to get married and get pregnant. Where's the casualty. When was the last time you said "oh, gee, my teeth got dirty, I better file a claim for this accident and see a dentist"?
The present insurance system is a big hoax designed to take money out your pocket for nothing. We just need to agree on the best alternative.
8
Your information is conservative talking point and is based on survey of all Americans. A big proportion of those in the survery get their health insurance from where? Medicare!! So actually runs against your argument. You keep Medicare if you are still working and lose or want to keep your job, you can take it with you anywhere in the US. Yes let's have it for all and get rid of the big insurance companies, clamp down on big Pharma and see wages rise when employers pay much less for supplementing the health insurance of their employees.
5
Explain how getting rid of insurance companies will help change the economics of the health care system? Clamp down on Pharma/Medical device manufacturers/Fraud and abuse and you’ll see big savings. Eliminating healthy competition for a government run mess is a huge mistake.
@Brad Here is where market fundamentalism goes wrong. The competition between insurance companies provides zero value to the patient. With one insurer, every medical office can focus on care rather than paperwork.
Providers will still compete.
And then, in addition, we can clamp down on the big pharma profiteering you mention.
1
@Brad You really believe these big insurance want healthy competition in the form of a government option. Sure just like they did when Obama proposed it. Wake up these CEOs are making a fortune and who pays for all the crazy, rules, paper work, and so on to jack up their profits. Healthy competition what a laugh.
1
Consider the specific framing here: "...trying to push the boundaries of how much a country can rely on a sliver of high-end investors and other wealthy citizens to fund widely used social programs and bankroll other services traditionally paid for by individuals."
"Relying" on "investors." Really?
1) A more accurate description: that an entire class of those paying well less in taxes than those on the bottom half will now be taxed closer to parity.
2) But the framing also mis-characterizes single payer as essentially redistribution.
In reality, working people will be paying in some sort of tax revenue to fund the sole, public sector insurer.
Overall, WORKING PEOPLE WILL HOLD ON TO MORE OF THEIR PAYCHECK, with huge efficiencies from having just one insurer. Many doctors and health systems, but just one insurer. No headaches. No deductibles, copays, premiums, etc.
7
Sigh.
This article reflects an unfair characterization that Dems “want” to raise taxes simply to expand entitlements.
They don’t, really. They just recognize that after this last tax code debacle, we’re in a world of hurt, and they’re simply acknowledging reality.
Non Discretionary spending is now what-.$.73/$1.00? THAT’S INSANE. We need to remember it was the wonderful Reagan that began this trajectory, unregulated markets that added debt...
All things certain people have championed.
That number has to drop-fast. It can, if Americans bite the bullet and restructure the US economy. And that’ll cause about 1M really rich Americans to think they’ve been robbed, and a lot of others to reconsider what our American responsibility is.
Probably we should shutter some states-we don’t need postal service in Kansas. It might be your right to live there, but its not viable to provide federal services there. Probably we should close the coasts and stop rebuilding storm hit land, and resettle people in Detroit.
Outrageous, I know. But we gotta cut costs and get ahead of Florida falling into the sea.
Red states that are literally in the red...well, get in the black or shut down. The Blue’s cannot economically float you and prepare for the next 30 years.
Write a fresh, loophole free tax code.
Its gonna get way worse before it gets better.
7
Why does the south end of a north bound horse who wrote this not recognize that what we pay to the insurance companies is also a tax?
8
@whaddoino
It's clear as mud to me but your point was rarely mentioned in the media. What we and business are paying is being considered now when it wasn't a few months ago but it seems Warren and Bernie are admitting taxes on everyone are going to go up.
1
Why the mushy stats on net worth? Why not tell the whole truth, which is not simply that the "top 1% own as much as the middle class," but the disturbing, crazy reality that the top 0.1% of Americans own as much as the bottom 90%. And these people have arrived in force, having bought the government in order to do its bidding so that even now, the wealth gap is continuing to increase.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jan/31/elizabeth-warren/warren-top-01-own-about-much-bottom-90/
This article is written disingenuously and implies that being in favor of health care cost restructuring by government intervention is the same thing as opposing big business. That is simply not true. What we, the people, favor is government intervention in all vital and necessary human services whose delivery systems are now de-facto monopolies and are engaged in price gouging of which the three most predominant quickly come to mind: public utilities, internet service providers, health care.
We pay 80% more for health care now than other nations with similar economies. We pay 60% more for internet. In California, rather than maintain their utility infrastructure, PG&E instead decided to buy back it's stock and give $5 billion to it's board and investor classes -- while they retreated to their private gated communities with private security and private fire departments.
Let's get this straight: Medicare for all will save most Americans huge amounts of money.
13
Once again, health insurance is not health care. If our govt wants to provide free health care, then it can and should. But hijackkng a private industry is crazy, quite frankly, and should cost Warren the nomination. Otherwise, it’s four more years of watching our democracy crumble before our eyes. We have too much at stake for this right now. Let’s get someone rational elected and then have a civil discourse. It won’t get past the house or Senate even if she did get elected, so what’s the point?
3
@Brad -- "Hijacking a private industry," is exactly what the current industrial health care monopoly industry is not. In exact definition terms, the health care industry in America is a Cartel. A cartel is "is a group of independent market participants, whose goal is to improve their profits and/or market position by reducing their mutual competition."
In case you weren't around from 1974 to 1986, you might want to check out the Oil Cartel of that time and review how a Cartel of only seven oil companies, the "Seven Sisters" caused world economic chaos via price manipulation.
Your mislabeling the current Cartel of U.S. Health Insurance and Service Provider businesses as "private industry" bespeaks a first order analytical error. This is a Cartel, plain and simple, wherein certain health care companies have dominance in whole states, regions and giant metropolises. There is no competition, and where there is, all the companies are charging the same high prices.
The reason prices are so high is because no entity has enough bargaining power to resist the dominance of the Cartel. Only the Federal Government has enough power to stop the swindle. The "rational" person in the debate is, despite your inverted sense of reality, Elizabeth Warren. She is the one who speaks clearly on this (as does Sanders).
1
Tough sell, the federal government is already much to bit, runs a deficit every year and does a terrible job of doing much of anything efficiently. Please do not tax anyone more - even the rich are better off having their own money since their accountants have proven to be smart enough to keep them rich. Elizabeth Warren is a long time Senator busy profiting off of government funding herself. She would make a good democratic socialist prime minister in Italy perhaps but her policy ideas are foolhardy, socialist and promote nothing but bigger bills the taxpayers cannot afford.
4
Yeah, Americans love to pay as much as possible for their healthcare that bankrupts them
2
I have a better idea. How about a sugar and fructose tax and a drive thru excise tax? When I see the pathetic obese state of half the country and young teens presenting with metabolic syndrome before they are old enough to vote I have serious reservations about spending another nickel on treating the symptoms of poor diet. Forty years ago there was no type 2. We can get back to that if large food companies are disincentivized through taxation. Good luck with that.
7
I want evolution of choice in health care, I don't want collectivized health care right off the bat.
4
Tone-deafness matches Trump's
preachiness matches Trump's
socialistic vehemence matches Trump's help-the-rich vehemence
yes, Warrenis more moral, less of an embarrassment, but those qualities might not matter.
She doesn't realize that job 1 is to win to election and remove the National Stain (Biden, Buttieg (sp), Harris realize this basic fact)
2
And how they plan to do so? By promise to return to pre-Trump era, despite the fact for many this era was not so great that why we have Trump now
2
@Kekule
Establishment Democrats like Biden will go back and reduce the deficit at the expense of their constituents so that the next Republican can increase the deficit again at the expense of the democratic constituents.
Well, it worked really well for Walter Mondale ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
7
@David
How did you make the face?
1
It worked for FDR very well
1
@rebecca1048 - Google, copy & paste "shrug emoticon". There's a great Atlantic article just on this shrug emoji. From the article: the meaning of “the shruggie” is always two, if not three- or four-, fold. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . It represents nihilism, bemused resignation, and a Zen-like tool to accept the chaos of the universe...In other words... It is Sisyphus in uni code."
Any Democrat who think we are going to choose someone who is going to unite the country has their eyes and their ears closed. We are severely divided and in a modern day civil war. Nicey nice will not cut it! The days of Democrats rolling over are gone. A fighter is the ethos of this next election and if you’re not on board with this, that’s ok. Just watch and learn the hard way.
7
Democrats need to make it clear that the unprecedented enormous tax cuts for the super-rich, which was a major platform component of the Republican Party, tax cuts which are generating huge deficits will for entire nation, will be eliminated to prevent a huge financial catastrophe and to help cover the cost of Medicare for all.
6
Most of us have a difficult time understanding why taxing 3-6% someone's billions would "hinder growth." It's not like the guy is hard up for cash and he won't be able to make that great investment to his city or state that he was planning if you take away a few of his baubles.
These tax cuts for the rich have contributed to increased budget deficits since Reagan years. It's high time we started reversing them. Go Warren and Sanders!
10
I hear a lot of Warren opponents threatening to vote for Trump. Two can play that game!
I'm afraid our current system of crony capitalism needs to be rooted out. It's not working for the majority of Americans. Life is too hard for too many people, and it's going to get worse. The voters who found Trump appealing also found Sanders appealing in 2016. In other words, half measures won't do.
If Biden or some other sellout democrat is nominated to head the democratic ticket, I'm afraid I'll have to vote for Trump and hope he brings the whole system down, even if it means tearing up our mythological "constitutional" framework. He can always declare a national emergency and assume full executive control, just as Lincoln did during the Civil War. A benign dictatorship would be better than this phony consumerism masquerading as democracy.
Campaign finance (legalized bribery) has wholly corrupted the political process. What difference does it matter whether one person or the 0.1 percent make up the rules?
7
@Bill
If our choice is an establishment candidate I stay home or if I vote it will be a write-in but not another Republican light and not Trump.
1
The Democrats, still reeling from the defeat of 2016, have lost their way. They now want to eliminate Americans' private health insurance and "redesign" capitalism. They also want to raise taxes to an astronomical level so that the government can take care of everyone. I cannot believe that a long-established political party is committing suicide in this manner. Anyone with a pension or with retirement savings will be devastated by Warren's proposal. It is the craziest thing I have ever heard.
16
Clearly, you haven’t read the plan, nor have you listened to anything Warren has proposed.
8
If Senator Warren does not revise her programs to the doable and acceptable to voters and she becomes the nominee, be ready for another 4 years of the most dangerous leader we have had in my 80 plus years!
Please, Senator, think about this! Your defeat would be the country's as well!
8
If he is so dangerous, why would anyone vote for him?
3
She’s already doing what is doable and acceptable.
4
@JB
She knows she has to set her goals high. Campaigns are there to tell people what needs to be done and how to do it, the legislators must debate and compromise and write the bill. Health care can't be debated with slogans, it is too important for the welfare of the American people.
But we do need a government that wants to govern and knows how to govern.
@ HMI
“A panderer is someone who tries to please others, not to help them but for an ulterior motive. A panderer kisses up to get something. A panderer is sometimes vulgar. Politicians are often panderers, especially the ones who say or do anything to get a vote or raise money.”
Is this Elizabeth Warren? I think not.
7
Whats not reflected in the article is that although the 1% own 27% of the wealth of the United States, they pay a whopping 31% of the Income Taxes.
And produce close to 42% of the GDP of the United States.
9
It just shows how much more money they have compare to anybody else. And they don't produce anything by themselves, they hire people who produce it for them and they pay them peanuts.
6
@David
In a Communist country, the state produces 100% of the GDP
I don't see you defending them for some reason
1
Taxing the corporations is not a tax on the corporations is NOT a tax on the entity of the corporation -- its a tax on the Owners of the corporation which may be a rich investor or a pension fund holding my pension or a hedge fund which your town's pension fund may have invested in.
So to tax the corporation is not a tax on the corporation but its a tax on you or me that owns stock in the corporation.
The stock market went up after the Trump tax decrease on corporations and corporate taxes,reflecting the increased value of the stock and therefore the stock-holders.
So you and i will be paying more taxes after an increase in corporate taxes.
3
Considering that majority do not have billions in the pension funds, I don't think we are in any danger
5
This is what should be the tax policy in the United States. And it is based on fairness.
1. Tax passive income at the same rate as earned income.
- Why does the U.S. tax code penalize earned income, and favor passive income?
- Tax capital gains, interest, dividends, and passive income at the same rate as earned income (W-2 wages, from a job).
2. Eliminate the step-up basis for inherited assets.
- This policy is worse at propagating income inequality than any provision of the inheritance tax.
- Heirs can inherit shares, and sell them immediately, with no tax penalty (that the original owner would have paid upon a sale the day before he or she died and converted these assets to cash)
- Republicans falsely claim this would destroy small businesses and family farms.
- That is utterly false. Heirs would not pay any capital gains taxes, unless they sell the assets.
- If they choose to keep running the family business or farm, they are not subject to any taxes on their inherited businesses.
4
The US spends so much on healthcare because we pay for all the R&D for life saving drugs.
Tort reform would lower healthcare costs.
2
It never did, never will
1
Why no talk of stopping the crazy sums paid by Doctors -- even the best of Doctors -- to the insurance company's because trial lawyers have been taking advantage of the system and have been suing doctors from here to there ? My wife's obstetrician said that nearly half of her revenue is spent on paying insurance dues despite never having lost a case and the insurance never having had to pay out on her behalf. Is this fair to Doctors, hospitals and patients alike and who can foot the bills ?
But liberals will not hear to change the laws. Tort reform is needed. The campaign cash of the doctors should be bunked.
The trial lawyers have run around the helthcare industry for so many years.
7
Tort reform never decreased the cost of healthcare, and never will. So, it is non consequential
3
Trump introduced a tax on the rich when he eliminated the itemization of state and local taxes, which clearly benefited the rich. They were the main users of itemization. I don’t see the people in the Northeast praising him for this tax on the wealthy.
10
Whats NOT mentioned in this article is the costs that Government Medicare for All would cost.
NEVER has a Government project come in on time and on Budget. Can you imagine that Government would manage actual Healthcare and the costs thereof better than the private Insurance Company can ? I know Liberals believe so but i do not believe it and I dont think the American electorate believes it.
The costs will escalate so much that Doctor's will not be paid (see Illinois as an example) and healthcare (including emergency care) will be rationed. Ms Warren says long term care will be covered under her bill, which would include nursing homes etc and can you imagine what this costs and how the Government bureaucracy would mis-manage such a HUGE program ?
Do you know that many good Doctors already say they would leave the system if Government takes over because the amounts Medicare & Medicaid pay just dont leave them enough to make a Profit ! Private insurance pays more than 40% in some cases to hospitals and doctors than Medicare, and is the financier of most of the existing healthcare -- and destroying private health insurance would absolutely destroy American Hospitals and Doctors as we know them.
Ms Warren this plan makes no sense.
14
Of course everybody knows that the Government can keep cost down
That is how other countries lower their healthcare cost.
6
@yulia if you believe that, then you are severely misinformed. They control costs by rationing care.
@Lyn Robins The private company could not hold the cost down by severely rationing healthcare (denying coverage, high deductibles, high premiums - are the example of rationing)
Large corporations and the very wealthy have gotten away without paying their fair share of taxes for years, even as they co-opt the government to work exclusively for them, for example by negotiating lucrative trade deals. It's long past time for them to pay up and stop mooching from the middle class.
5
I don't recall anyone saying that Ronald Reagan's tax cuts were a fundamental reordering of American capitalism but surely they were every bit as much as Senator Warren's plan.
It's unfortunate that she calls for a wealth tax as opposed to focusing on rolling back all the tax cuts from the past 40 years and increasing the minimum wage so that more people can pay taxes.
I don't think most people want totally free healthcare. A system where everyone pays a x% payroll tax along with a y% contribution from their employer, regardless of income, makes a lot more sense.
1
I have been voting for Democrat presidential candidates since 1960 and had hoped to vote again for a President Hillary this year. There is something about Senator Warren's questionable judgment and over eagerness that I do not trust.
15
Hillary? You do realize that if we do a repeat of 2016 with that kind of candidate we will lose, right? How can you even think that business as usual will result in a win? Get your head out of the sand!
7
For all those saying how great healthcare is in Europethey are right. Europe can afford it because the US pays for Europe's defense. Trump has tried to get Europe to pay us more and to meet their NATO spending targets. And instead of siding with the US the DNC and main stream media attacked Trump.
11
Well, talking about defense. Do we really need to spend so much on that? Nobody forced us to pay for the defence of Europe. Let's them decide and pay for how much defence they need.
1
@Reader In Wash, DC
Well he's still paying
Which is one reason he should not serve a second term
Voting Democrat - thanks for convincing me !
1
@Reader In Wash DC
The US is in Europe to protect American interests. Nobody made them do it. They have a big bloated military budget to defend American interests all over the globe.
Instead of giving a detailed plan on how to pay for a Medicare4All plan, I wish Elizabeth were a bit quicker on her feet. When she was being pummeled by the Democrats at the last debate asking her how to pay for it, she should have smiled at the camera and said, "MEXICO is going to pay for it. Who is going to pay for it? MEXICO is going to pay for it.
It works for Trump and I want to see Trump argue with it if she started claiming it.
But instead, she came up with a plan that doesn't involve giving folks $1,000 a month or a massive tax break and that hurts her chances.
Voters do not want to be told honest plans, they want pie-in-the-sky promises like a wall or closing Gitmo. I'm still waiting for Barry and Uncle Joe to end the war in Afghanistan.
2
Isn't Warren's proposal to "push the boundaries" of taxing corporations and the rich to provide "Medicare for all"-- OR ITS EQUIVALENT, most likely the political outcome --be exactly what is needed? Why should those presumed "boundaries" not be pushed?
3
The more I read Warren's plan and the more I read some of the posts here, I'm reminded of Bill Maher's New Rules rant of 2 weeks ago - [I paraphrase] - If you tried, could you come up with a plan better calculated to repel the Electoral College majority and re-elect Trump?
17
I guess the guy did a lot of good to American people if they are passing the free healthcare. Or the Americans just love to be shackled to their employers.
I'm in favor of universal healthcare. However, I'm not in favor of it now. There is a reason that every Democrat elected president over the past half century has leaned moderate. That is, we live in a county with a large population of right leaning people. As bad as our health care system is currently, it is not the biggest problem we are facing. The biggest risk is the destruction of key democratic rights (e.g., voting) and institutions (e.g., Supreme Court, DOJ). We must first deal with the threats to our democracy before addressing healthcare-and this means winning the next presidential election. Unfortunately, a significant part of our society (especially in key swing states) is not ready for the Warren/Sanders healthcare plan and them pushing that plan risks a Trump reelection - not to mention that the proposed plan would be dead on arrival whether it be from a Republican Senate or the current Supreme Court. The goals should be defeat Trump; remake the Supreme Court; return the DOJ to independence; make our tax system more progressive; invest in education and electoral reform; address climate change-realistic goals. Once our democracy is solidified and changing demographics result in a more progressive voting base, then we have an actual chance of universal healthcare. But we must not ignore that at least 40% of voters don't want universal health care presently. If we push for this now, we risk suffering the horrible consequences of a Trump reelection.
7
If Donald Trump is re-elected BECAUSE a Democrat proposed and advocated for Medicare for All sooner rather than later, then, truly, we would have earned the government we deserve.
6
Why people will for Dems if their only idea to defeat Trump?
@yulia Because the consequences of losing to Trump are too great. It's not my only idea but IMO, it's currently the most critical idea. And pushing for a health plan that currently is not polling well is unintelligent politics. Right or wrong, universal health care at this moment of time will scare away potential Dem voters/push certain swing voters to vote for Trump.
Absolutely nutso, as are the readers who believe that middle class taxes will not skyrocket. Warren thinks she can squeeze trillions from IRS reforms, the CBO says maybe $35B. She imagines that taxing corporations heavily will not be passed on to employees and customers. She thinks that adding huge transactions costs to the stock market will not affect the bedrock 401Ks all invested in stock funds. She thinks hundreds of thousands of people working in health insurance will find jobs in life and auto insurance. She imagines that a wealth tax will not require a constitutional amendment.
This is the purest pie in the sky, concocted from incoherent promises and funding sources that are barely even worth imagining. Be afraid. Actually, be terrified that this panderer might get anywhere near the highest public office.
26
Warren is on the rise. Get on board, and Medicare for all is going to happen at some point in this country.
3
Will see. Coupling the health insurance with employment turned out to be a disaster that drove healthcare cost through the roof and decreased mobility of the workers. We should not support the industry that has no value except driving out healthcare cost up.
3
@Jenn V. No...it won't happen. People do not like the idea of having their choices within the healthcare sector taken away from them.
Just swell. Tax increases (while for them) are not the issue for voters, or truly what is at stake here.
We have the most malignant, hateful, pandering, embarrassing, damaging, ignorant, maleficent man to ever govern this nation... and we're going to declare taxes the driving issue.
This is not a uniting message for the vast plurality of Americans. It will take a House, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic Senate to lift this load.
Jeez! What a facile and divisive way to 'unite' an electorate. Trump is only interested in his base. It seems most Democrat candidates are only interested in theirs, as well.
3
It worked for Trump.
Uh yah so we are not united. That’s the point of her message. If you think someone is going to suddenly unite us, you better take a closer look and do some soul searching.
1
@yulia
Exactly my point! And I meant to say ‘House, Democrat Senate and Democrat President
Does this mean no more Medicare Part B premium?
No more IRMAA for Part B or Part D
No more Part B deductibles?
No more Medigap insurance?
1
Could Ben Sasse provide a response that is s little more articulate and nuanced than the word span hahaha and bonkers? Or has he been reading too many twitter dispatches ?
3
“Supporters say the candidates are reacting to voter frustration over sluggish wage growth and spiking costs across working families’ lives, including housing, child care, schools and health care, along with concerns about inaction toward climate change.” All of these concerns are big government creations through taxation and regulations from the federal government down to municipal government. If we had a real media in this country reporting real facts, we would be no where near socialism. These people are putting their faith in the same entity that created the problems they are concerned with today. Every single government policy, on its face, seemed like a good idea and even functioned well in its first few years in existence. Over time, problems began developing but when those problems surfaced, the politicians who proposed those policies were long gone. I am still a believer in the free market and the free market is better equipped to efficiently distribute resources to where they need to be. It has always been when big government nanny state types have tried to Interfere, is when we saw our problems. Also equality doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist in nature and will never exist in the economy.
2
@ E Robichaux
“... and Boeing, left to their own devices ensured the efficacy of the 737 Max.”
Let’s privatize it all, and thank god that captains of industry always work in the best interest of their customers.
2
So a janitor will have the same healthcare as the CEO...?!
Wow
2
What’s wrong with that?
5
@ Sallow Did Morning
Probably not. But ask yourself, “Why not?”
3
Elizabeth Warren's plan would redirect the money currently flowing from employers to private insurers for employee health insurance into the public fund to cover all citizens. That alone, together with the economies of scale in a consolidated system and the leverage that a national system would have to bargain for drug and procedure prices, would probably be enough to pay for the plan. As we already know, the US spends about twice as much on healthcare as do other industrialized nations, and even with that the outcomes are not as good.
There is a lot of propaganda already smearing Warren as a radical, and you can expect to see a tsunami of it when (as I hope) she becomes the Democratic nominee. But in fact, she is really a conservative (in the true sense of the word) seeking to achieve the best healthcare return on dollars spent.
7
Warren has just self-immolated.
Biden is done.
Sanders is too ill.
Buttigieg will be the nominee.
11
" ... as the economy tilted in recent decades to favor the very rich."
"The top 1 percent of Americans held 29 percent of the nation’s wealth in 2016, according to the Federal Reserve, more than the combined wealth of the entire American middle class."
Look at those two excerpts; "tilted", the leaning tower of Pisa tilts, the American economy is upside down insofar as inequality goes, as is described in the second excerpt.
So, let's all have a real honest-to-goodness truthful discussion for a moment -
Here is the reality - I've been talking to eternal Trumpers, and never Trumpers, for the last three years, and consequently can say the following -
The impeachment inquiry will wither and die.
If by some miracle he is impeached, Pence will be the nominee, and that will be exponentially worse.
While I have this hope, in my soul, that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders becomes the Democratic Party nominee, I know that the Republican-Lite Pelosi Schumer Democratic Party will move Heaven and earth to prevent such from occurring, simply because they, along wirh their Republican Party partners, are wholly owned by corporate America.
If the Democratic Party fix fails, and Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders is the nominee, corporate America and the wealthiest elites, along with the Pelosi Schumer democrats, will covertly undermine their own nominee and insure a Trump or Pence Republican Party win.
Corporate America is in the cockpit, and will never relinquish control.
6
There is $314 Trillion dollars of wealth in the world.
The United States has $98 Trillion dollars of that total which is about 31 percent of the total world wealth.
With 31 percent of the world's wealth, we are four percent of the world's population. That is a uuuuuuge gap!
We pay twice what other well off countries pay with poorer outcomes. The U.S. has a uuuuuge number of people who are uninsured or underinsured whereas those well off countries insure all of their people with much better outcomes.
Even our dear progressive guru, Dr. Krugman, hedges on Ms. Warren's plan. I feel Dr. Krugman needs to explain the discrepancy between 31 percent of the world's wealth with only 4 percent of the world's population and our terrible health care outcomes. Simple math!
What a shame!
How do we as Americans, with any conscious at all, justify our terrible health care system? Our homeless people? Our poor educational systems?
Carry on, Bernie!
Carry on, Elizebeth!
Wake up, Paul!
Wake up America!
4
This article has some majors flaws in it that have been pointed out. Warren’s plan taxes the wealthy and Wall Street- simple. I’d bet there are a lot more people who don’t like their insurance than do. It’s open enrollment now, and I just got a notice that my coverage benefits went down a bit, yet cost of coverage went up- yeah.
When will people realize that health shouldn’t be a business for profit? One day, I hope, our kids will sit around telling stories about the age when America allowed corporations to make billions off of the death of millions.
8
I wish she had never gotten into details of a plan that will never pass. All this will do is doom her candidacy as it will anchor her to a tax increase.
This is a shame as I liker her and despite some of her policies being a little to far left me, I will take those just to get her common sense into the white house. I know that these policies will never pass congress not just because of the republicans, but even a lot of Democrats in moderate districts will be opposed to this.
Regarding the plan itself, A straight up tax is better than all these schemes of taxing stock value increases or stock transactions. This will not just hit the rich but complicate the lives of middle class folks as well.
5
Taxes should be raised on the top-tier "classes" to provide revenue for infrastructure, education, etc. However, doing so to provide for Medicare-For-All and in the process eliminating employer-based regular and Cadillac insurance plans (offered by GM among others) is a loser for Warren/Dems.
Republican talk about cutting taxes to “put more money in the middle class folks” pocket only sparks inflation and higher prices on clothes, menu items, etc - a zero-sum game. Insurance plans offered by companies provide such coverage that there is no out-of-pocket even for the most expensive procedures and offer these insurance plans as an incentive to attract employees and provide the same amount of care that the 1% receive. They essentially level the economic playing field the way decreasing taxes can never provide.
Often the argument for "medicare-for-all" is to look at Europe. However, the QUALITY of health-care in the US is the best in the world - friends of mine from UK marveled at the level of care they received when having their first child in the US; made their decision easier to have their second here, too - and is available for everyone at different levels: Medicare/lower premium "internet" plans for those who do not take advantage of employer-based plans, and the ACA.
Employer-provided health insurance is a good thing. Warren/Dems need to stop demonizing it.
2
@Citizen it’s not just a good thing, it’s really the best thing money can buy. Once healthcare is no longer a “business” it will cease to wow your UK friends, because the best and the brightest in the field will simply move on to more lucrative sectors. The few that don’t leave will certainly be overburdened by the scarcity of resources Warrens plan will create.
You’re right, employer based health insurance is a great thing and the reason why great doctors are still able to make a living.
1
Where are the centrist Democrats? Most people are neither left nor right; they are in the center. The Democratic field, sans Biden, has gone so far to the left that they are not electable. Policies like Warren's will reelect Trump.
4
All democrat candidates should endorse Warren's plan. Your headline should read that the plan embraces taxing corporations and the super wealthy to benefit the general population. It's time we all get out from under the right wing thumbs of big business. It is supposed to be government for the people and Elizabeth's plan will bring this about.
7
When I was child, I believed in fairy tales. as an adult, not so much. Part of the Warren fair tale on paying for everyone's health care is that the number billionaires whose wealth she plans on pillaging, will remain billionaires a year after her first theft. Not likely. Even confiscating newly minted Chinese billionaires who incautiously left some money in the US on their haste to get out, are still not enough. And, when some billionaires living off-shore are considering a place to live? the USA would not be high on their list with the high tax burden imposed. So, after all the US billionaires have been ravaged, next will come the millionaires fortunes, and then, when these monies are gone, then come the savings of auto workers; carpenters, plumbers; local, state and Federal government employees; and these are "middle class" workers.
After all those who were planned and not planned to pay for single payer health care, they will be the recipients of the health care they contribute to. Kinda of like the "Non-Accountable Health Case System, meaning you don't get to keep your doctor; if you need a procedure, drug, or special care, you get to stand in line and wait, and wait, and...because, your care is in the hands of the collective which means, every priority regresses to the mean. You, as an individual don't count. Congratulations. You get what the previously "rich" are paying for, only they are no longer rich, and you know, we have lots of priorities and health care is..
4
If Warren keeps pushing her Medicare for All plan, we'll get another 4 years of Trump and Medicare for None. Let's take some small steps instead like Medicare for Children and Medicare Buy In for 50+ year olds. She's going to blow this election unless she compromises. Listen to Buttigig please!
11
In the UK, the ultra wealthy have already indicated they will leave the country if Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party wins the December election. They threaten to park their money in off-sure tax havens (where they already have it), just like the US wealthy. How I wish all these wealthy tax scoundrels would finally leave back to those islands where their wealth and shill companies are registered. Imagine no more Russian and middle Eastern oligarchs greasing the system in their favor, plus our own brand of financial crooks finally hitting the road or being jailed.
3
Liz’s plan is financial insanity. We Democrats support this might as well mail in 2020 now.
8
Warren wants to re-invent the wheel when only a couple of spokes are broken. Perhaps, down the road, a Remove and Replace health care system will be necessary. Right now it is a road with washboard effects in place and needs to be smoothed out. To jump at a multi trillion dollar overhaul does not make sense, nor can we afford the consequences if it doesn't work out as planned. I am not in favor of betting the ranch.
12
I’ve been traveling in Europe, and friends from the United States invariably ask me what people from other countries think about what’s going on here. Most non-Americans I encounter don’t have a lot to say about Trump these days. But the one thing that baffles just about everyone is our healthcare system. Others just can’t wrap their heads around the idea that a wealthy, relatively progressive (and we are in many ways) nation doesn’t provide healthcare for every citizen. Neither can I.
I’m middle-class and have worked hard for what I have, but I will gladly pay higher taxes. Moreover, as another commenter pointed out, any increase in taxes to the middle class will likely be offset by the decrease in what we pay for healthcare. Warren’s courage on this issue is why she has my vote.
9
@Katie not quite. Only the sickest of us heavily utilize healthcare resources. When we are all pooled together whatever savings you’ve offset will be brought back by those that rely heavily on the system. The consequence is an immediate increase in your share of taxes regardless of what magic math is done today.
Of course, if this is what you fundamentally want— more money spent so everyone gets some level of “equal” healthcare— then vote for it. Just don’t be fooled that this won’t increase your costs or your wait times to see a physician.
1
@Homer I'm talking about the money we spend on private insurance, whether or not we utilize healthcare resources. Risk pooling is fundamental to insurance. Insurance companies do it, and they do it in a way that allows them to make huge profits. If you get insurance through your employer, take a look at Box 12, Code DD, of your W-2.
But - yes - I would also be willing to pay a premium for a society that's more fair and equal.
1
If Democrats want people to have Obamacare or other insurance they can put forward a plan that ends the requirement that hospitals must treat anyone who shows up at their emergency room, whether or not they can pay. Then the choice for someone needing care is easy. Have insurance, pay cash, go to a charity hospital, or be denied care and possibly die.
1
It would be nice if, at this point, the “moderate” candidates would respond carefully to Warren’s health financing proposal. It has been pointed out that, across the board, Warren’s proposals are far more detailed than is typical in primary campaigns. Nobody is above criticism, but let’s not give the Republicans talking points. Progressives are constantly told to restrain their words for the sake of party unity, now we need this from the moderates. Democrats will need every vote they can get to defeat Trump’s monster truck machine, trashing Medicare for All is not the road to get there.
2
@Walker 77
I think this is an interesting point. If Buttigieg and Klobuchar keep attacking Warren, they could end up splitting the party. The way in which they express their disagreement with her proposals will be important.
2
Several commenters have said that the US has one of the worst health "outcomes" in the world. We do NOT. In effect, when diagnosed with any life- threatening illness like cancer, your five-year odds of survival are about 20% higher than in UK and Canada. See official cancer survival statistics here https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/concord-2.htm
People are confusing longevity--which is affected by factors like obesity, drug use, guns, etc.--with quality of healthcare. If UK government provided health insurance was so good, you wouldn't have 15% of the population with private insurance.
There are lot of things wrong with the US medical system, but those should be fixed without taking away the good, and without nationalizing health insurance -- drug prices at par with those internationally alone would reduce healthcare costs by 10%. This is also not a topic that should be front and center in the Presidential elections, as this will doom Democrats.
3
@RSSF A public option, emphasize option, is what we need.
1
The fact that health care costs are out of control just does not seem to be part of this dialog. Instead the discussion is about "free stuff" and not the negotiating leverage an overhaul would bring. Meanwhile I see my employer's plan chipped away a bit each year. Strange
1
Access to proper healthcare should definitely be our main national goal. However, I think Warren is being somewhat unilateral as she is touting the high tax based “Medicare for All” and the eradication of private insurance as a panacea. I wonder if there is an underlying tinge of political expediency in her proposal!
Providing national healthcare is a very complex, cross-functional, collaborative and incremental process. Ergo, she should explore the concept of “Managed Competition” like Bill Clinton as well as augmenting Obama’s “Affordable Care Act”. She may also consider conferring with the current healthcare experts like Dr. Gawande. He is leading a healthcare venture funded by JP Morgan Chase, Berkshire Hathaway and Amazon.
Let’s also not forget the high “Aging” phenomenon of the Americans. According to actuarial methodology, this translates into high risk factor of the national healthcare risk pool resulting in high cost.
State sponsored healthcare plans in the U.K. and in Canada also have very serious issues. The wait time to see a doctor in UK is determined by the degree of severity of the patients’ illness. There is also the factor of healthcare “rationing” like an older patient with a heart problem may not receive a bypass surgery because his or her life expectancy is low anyway. In Canada, the patients wait inordinately long time to see the doctors. Therefore, private health insurance is very popular as supplemental plans in these countries.
More Research!
1
@Raj Sinha
There is no private health insurance in Canada (basic healthcare)
1
@Jeremy Coney yes there is. They come south of their border to pay cash at US facilities to avoid waiting months for basic service.
A lot of people in the comments are cheering the taxing of the "super rich," ignoring the fact that that term will need to be defined in some way in the tax code, inevitably raising taxes not on people who own yachts and fifteen mansions (they will strategically re-locate to avoid paying taxes, as they always have) but rather on the ever-weakening middle class, who may make six figures on paper, but in reality end up paying a third in taxes and most of the rest just to be able to afford to live in a location where one can make a decent living (see: families living in the Bay Area, making $300,000 a year, and barely getting by - relative to the cost of living, they are not "super rich" but they most certainly ARE the people who will bear the brunt of any tax increase.)
2
@Jeff
Sanders and Warren have already provided the income levels at which taxes will increase. They haven’t just referred to the “super rich” when discussing their proposals.
In addition, they’ve discussed raising income taxes on the top one percent of income earners. Your $300K hypothetical is well below that threshold.
Finally, no one is forced to live in the Bay Area or NYC.
2
@BK For now....until the until the "rich" flee.
Taxes in the US are way too high already. It would be better if military budget were smaller than taxes even higher. And the wealth tax would just dump holdings of the billionaires to the market, crashing it.
1
@natan Please don't reduce the military budget. I like the job that our fine men and women in the armed services are doing.
What Warren and Sanders are proposing is really a massive tax cut for the middle class that is actually better than a tax cut. In 2018, a typical family of four with large employer coverage spent $4,706 on their share of health premiums and $3,020 on cost sharing (such as deductibles, copayments and coinsurance) for a combined cost to the family of $7,726, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Over the last decade those costs have risen twice as fast as wages and three times as fast as inflation. Does any middle-income taxpayer believe that any candidate of either party will cut their federal income taxes by $7,726 a year or anything close? But they could have their health insurance paid for, if not totally tax-free (maybe), then a whole lot cheaper than the $7,726 they're paying not. Who wouldn't want a "tax cut" like that?
7
More taxes in exchange for a promise from the government. That sounds like a deal people are going to like. A lot!
7
@Bob
That’s great that Trump took away that state and local tax deduction. All the people here from NYC complaining about taxes deserved it.
1
Well, if Corporate America and the 1% don't like this approach, then they should've been more willing to share their massive profits with the working and middle class. In short, they should've ended "trickle down", instead of gorging at the trough of money that was siphoned upwards. Of course this would've gone against their inherent greedy natures, but if they chose instead to look at the Big Picture, the raising of taxes, and artificial redistribution, wouldn't be necessary. The old saying: "Pay me now, or pay me later" applies even to the oligarchy. So now the "bill" has come due.
And as long as the "trickle down" economic system we live in continues to operate, we'll have to artificially force redistribution of wealth via taxation. But the better, more holistic approach would be to roll back the changes to our tax laws, and other economic mechanisms (trade, monetary policy, etc.) that were put in effect ever since Reagan. We need to restore unions and collective bargaining to ensure that worker can command a share of profits. Capitalism CAN work for the greater good, its just that "trickle down" capitalism only woulds for the very small minority.
In the short term, we need to do what Bernie and Liz are pushing for: radically increasing taxes on the ultra rich and Corporate America since the're the ones who gain the most from the system. They've gotten a virtual free ride for decades. Now they need to pay their bill.
6
@Kingfish52 People like to throw around the term "1%" as if that's some indication of aristocratic levels of fortune. The top 1% of earners make around $400,000 a year. Now, look at the cost of living in places where you can earn that kind of money in this country - San Francisco, New York (spoiler alert: with a salary like that in those locales, you are in the middle class). I invite the other commenters to look up housing costs in those areas, and then engage in a more nuanced, better informed discussion of what a more accurate measure of true wealth, that should actually be the subject of tax increases, is.
3
The headline of this article underlines why Warren was reluctant to say that Medicare for All will require tax increases, even as it lowers the total cost of healthcare for the vast majority of Americans by eliminating health insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays. The corporate media simply blast out the first part of the equation, that taxes will go up, without even mentioning the second part, that the cost of healthcare will go down. Every other industrialized country in the world has some form of universal healthcare and spends half or less per capita on healthcare than America. There's no reason on God's green earth why we can't do the same for our people. The transition from our current hodge-podge, wasteful, non-system, on which so many executives and others make so much money, to universal healthcare, might present some challenges, but I thought Americans could do anything if they set their minds to it. Let's start figuring out how to accomplish it instead of talking about how impossible it is.
8
The first thing one needs to do is sit on the outfits and doctors overcharging. Return medicine to the noble profession it once was, where doctors cared more about people than profits.
1
I support Elizabeth and Bernie's position, but we can't lose our focus on winning in Nov. 2020. It might be wiser to stay toward the center rhetorically, with a wink and a nod to the liberal base, so that we can win it all, the presidency and both houses of Congress, then bring down the hammer on the wealthy when we take over in 2021. Whatever works - a utilitarian approach is called for.
5
@Paul
In other words you think the Democrats should misrepresent their plans to the American public so as to get elected and then do something other than than they promised.
3
I think the middle class should pay more in taxes for universal health insurance. We already pay for Medicare through payroll taxes. Most people would pay less than they now pay for premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The tax revenue would allow MFA to be fully funded.
Warren was forced to create a plan without taxing the middle class because a) Republicans would pummel her and b) many Americans don't understand the math.
Too bad Republicans are such a despicable lot, but for now we're stuck with them.
6
No, Warren is stuck with her plan. Republicans can correctly say, Democrats want to get rid of your employer provided healthcare insurance. Democrats will eliminate Obamacare. Democrats say that you will pay less than you now pay. But we all see how that promise worked out with Obamacare. Democrats don’t have a real plan. It took them a year in secret meetings, closed to Republicans, to take care of most of their special interests in a 3000 page document. Next Democrats will change the rules for Medicare and social security. How much will YOU lose this time?
2
And what exactly have the Republicans done so far to make more Americans insured??
4
Ha! Republicans are responsible for the Democrats having to lie. I’m sure a lot of people think this on some level but am impressed with the transparency!
2
No country had spent more than 10% GDP on health care except the US. The US already spent 15% of GDP on medical service- the highest among all industrial nations with one of the worst health outcomes except Russia. Medicare service is a tax on productive economic surplus and when the medical service becomes the economy, there will be no medical service for anyone. The better approach is to reduce the cost by reducing the care for the last 6 months of a person’s life which comprises 50% of medical expenditure and open up the competition in drug and hospital industries by rooting out scarcely utilized facilities, etc.
Neither the voters from the left nor the right elected the president and it is the people in the middle vote the winner. Warren may be the favorite candidate for the left but it also provides the opportunity for Trump to win the second term despite his ignominy because people will vote by holding their nose. When the government spends other people’s money carelessly and needlessly that is the time taxpayers have the responsibility to stop it by voting.
Democrats and many below may want to remember what happened to a Democrat - who spilled the tax beans during a presidential debate.
And this was also after a massive tax cuts that Democrats claimed favored the rich.
Tax cuts - Reagan tax cuts.
And the Democrat - Walter Mondale.
If I remember right, Mr. Mondale even lost Minnesota.
So, as a Republican - I rejoice this taxing every billionaire out of existence.
Tax every corporation whether it has anything to do with a massive social program.
This is America - and not jolly old England or what used to be great britain where it's citizens have been buying this myth of NHS - it's Medicare for all.
Americans are wise enough to know that when Congress is tasked with writing new taxes - everybody's taxes goes up.
When Congress is at work - it lifts tax boats of all.
2
@Neil
No, Minnesota was the one state Mondale won.
3
Democrats and many below may want to remember what happened to a Democrat - who spilled the tax beans during a presidential debate.
And this was also after a massive tax cuts that Democrats claimed favored the rich.
Tax cuts - Reagan tax cuts.
And the Democrat - Walter Mondale.
If I remember right, Mr. Mondale even lost Minnesota.
So, as a Republican - I rejoice this taxing every billionaire out of existence.
Tax every corporation whether it has anything to do with a massive social program.
This is America - and not jolly old England or what used to be great britain where it's citizens have been buying this myth of NHS - it's Medicare for all.
Americans are wise enough to know that when Congress is tasked with writing new taxes - everybody's taxes goes up.
When Congress is at work - it lifts tax boats of all.
It's clear that Medicare for all is the only just solution to what is an otherwise racist and unjust healthcare system. Think about it: Since the elderly have a higher proportion of white people than those who are in their 20s and 30s, more white people qualify for medicare than people of color. A combination of open borders to redistribute global wealth, along with Medicare for all won't totally rectify the harms caused by colonialism and racism, but it would make a dent.
3
@Middleman MD Redistribute global wealth....who ARE you and why do you think it I'd o.k. to steal what does not belong to you?
Even though the price tag of $20.5 trillion is stupendous, Warren and any other democrat advancing single-payer healthcare should juxtapose that cost against what the system is costing without it— I imagine a lot more! Single payer will dramatically reduce prescription drug costs, eliminate healthcare marketing and all the wasted time wrangling benefits with insurers, and drive efficiencies. Even so, the system should not pay for everything: elective plastic surgery, crazy end-of life spending, etc.
8
Elizabeth Warren says her health care for all plan would not tax the middle class. Yet, we are members of the middle class and by taxing unrealized capital gains, we would have to write a check for about $100,000 just as I would become eligible for Medicare. We have accrued decent-sized profits, on paper, by investing in the stock market, through thick and thin, and living frugally. I hate Trump, and would never vote for him. But I don't think I would vote for Elizabeth Warren, either.
7
@John
The tax on unrealized capital gains would only apply to the top one percent of income earners. Why do people keep lying about her plan?
4
You would rather pay thousands to insurance companies that might kick you off if you actually need healthcare?
2
@BK The article didn't say the tax on unrealized gain would only apply to the top 1%. She is proposing a tax on the assets of the super-rich, which appears separate from the tax on unrealized capital gains.
Regarding tax policy, Republicans should take a victory lap. Tax rates have steadily come down over the last 35+ years.
I would argue that the most fortunate among us should pay more in taxes. There are ways to make this happen that most Americans will perceive as fair.
For one, why does the American tax code penalize earned income and reward passive income? Why do W-2 workers pay higher tax rates than those who live off of trust funds and inherited wealth?
We should tax all income as the same rates. Tax capital gains, dividends, interest, and carried interest (passive income) at the same rates as earned income. This is fundamentally fair.
I am fortunate to make an upper middle class income. I also own stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. I'm willing to pay higher taxes, and pay my fair share.
Furthermore, we should end the step-up basis for inherited wealth. Why should capital gains be erased from taxable income the day that someone dies and passes these assets to heirs? Furthermore, if the assets are business shares or a family farm, there is no tax penalty on capital gains unless the heirs choose to sell.
===
I'm not so sure about an explicit wealth tax. It will face constitutional challenges. And most inherited family fortunes are spent down within two or three generations anyway. Furthermore, the idle rich with no jobs who live off of passive income would be taxed appropriately by my above proposal --- which I believe is cleaner and more fair than a wealth tax.
4
So is a government funded Malpractice Program part of Warren’s program? That would eliminate another for profit insurance operation associated with healthcare. Funny I never hear this mentioned by Democrats or the Trial Lawyers.
My impression is that other countries with lower healthcare costs are not as litigation happy as are citizens of the US.
2
@Robert Broun : Malpractice claims against physicians and providers should be banned and they should enjoy legal immunity. Create another method of dealing with bad medical outcomes. The elimination of malpractice insurance should reduce a lot of physician charges.
The thing that never gets discussed in this Medicare for all discussion is who is going to tell the doctors and hospitals how much they can charge? In other words determine the reasonable value of the services they provide. And what is going to prevent doctors from opting out of government payments and accepting only private (likely wealthy) clients? How do you resolve the disputes between doctors and the government over fees and billings? We could end up with two systems of health care...one for those with ability to pay cash for services and the other for everyone else.
1
Warren is an example of "...efforts to redistribute wealth and expand the government’s role in the economy."
Where is the sentence that puts this in perspective?
For the past 40 years economic policies and corporate disregard for its workers have brought us to this point. "Redistribution" is not only fair but the socially responsible thing to do. Otherwise, we face a wealth gap that will create deep social divisions and ultimately civil unrest.
7
Ambitious idea to create a society where no one has to worry about anything from cradle to grave. The United States is the richest country in the world, and in the history of the world. But, we have the most people per capita in jail, have nearly 1/5 of the population living in poverty, we have millions of people who do not have access to heath care, decent housing or even a good diet. And, we have a huge homeless population Meanwhile we have a very small group of people controlling 29% of the nation's wealth.
What Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders is proposing is doing in the US, what have been very succeeded in Norway, Swede, Denmark and Finland. All considered the "happiest" countries to live in.
I would not paying more taxes, even on my fixed income, if I did not have to worry about losing my home, going bankrupt over health care, have to figure out how to cut expenses, as they rise much faster than the reported level of inflation. And, living in a nation where we do not have people going hungry, sick, homeless, too cold in winter, too hot in summer, having to amass debt to survive or to attend college, etc.
The unfortunate thing, about all this, the wealthy, companies, for profit health care, defense contractors, lobbyists, et. al. profit and enjoy the status quo.
We f finally reached the point that the 99% has finally had enough and want systemic change. And, the i want and desire l for change has gone mainstream.
7
If Warren becomes the nominee..it perhaps can be certain the guy presently occupying the White House would prevail.
Medicare for all is a proposition most people do not trust. It is a form that many western countries use with some degree of dissatisfaction. Many who can afford it..just go outside the system for specialized health care needs...so that means..those who have will get the best care. The Affordable Health Care plan had the right metrics..but, needed some refinement to work out the issues. Medicare still changes it rules and such..and M-Care was implemented during the Roosevelt era.
How can people get around the $20.5 trillion price tag...and how did one come to that figure..a trillion is a thousand billion.
3
And that’s how much the point zero zero one percent is syphoning out of the middle class, even when we are deathly ill.
2
The reality here is different than the idea. Everyone deserves decent and affordable health care.
The reality is corporations would fight the tax to pay for it, and many workers who like their insurance won't be on board. Look at the problem the ACA had, a brilliant idea to cover only those without coverage getting through Congress. Speaker Pelosi won't be there to make it happen.
I know Senator Warren thinks we need big ideas and we probably do. But I also know in a year when beating Donald Trump is about saving Democracy that big idea is not a winner.
First, we need to reshape the world for the not-one-percent. Her other ideas, of reining in corporations has a better resonance. Get elected on righting Donald Trump's wrongs, especially the environmental, educational and immigration disasters he's created, then in second term try to drag it across the finish line. It's called get elected first.
1
Well, she should go for much better plan, because after this hard-fought battle she has nothing to show. The healthcare was unaffordable and reminds to be such.
Corporations don't pay taxes. Taxes are overhead and get added to the price of every loaf of bread, pair of shoes, gallon of milk or gas and will cause inflation. Warren is either woefully ingorant or more likely lying through her teeth that her proposed spending will not cause middle class tax increases. Inflation is a tax.
4
@Reader In Wash, DC Math is like a poll, the results can say what you put in. Elizabeth Warren says corporations would pay the tab. Sure they will, can hardly see beyond all their hands going up to volunteer. Those regulations have to get through a Congress that loves those donations. Her air time could be spent on winning ideas, like not caging kids or letting toxins into the air and water. Sure, take on corporations but don't slap their face to do it.
I thought the price is actually the product of demands and supply. Seems to me taxes do not diminish the supply, but high priced can diminish the demand, so corporations may think hard what they want: low profit or higher profit from which they have to pay tax.
@yulia
Yulia you are forgeting about ROI. More taxes will decrease it and cause businesses to close.
At least Elizabeth Warren didn't say that Mexico was going to pay for it.
10
@MidtownATL
Maybe she should have. Sad to say, but look at the hopelessness of the public's reaction to anything rational.
I'm getting old and I'm beginning to see why great civilizations fail and are replaced by something better. We are in a state of decay, unable to overcome even the most obvious obstacle to progress.
3
According to a June 2017 report by the Boston Consulting Group, around 70% of the nation's wealth will be in the hands of millionaires and billionaires by 2021.
We have a major healthcare problem in this country on all sides. Doctors hate dealing with it, employers hate dealing with it, employees hate dealing with it and everyone knows it's time to fix it.
Why is taxing the wealthy to solve one of the most important issues in our country so untenable?
Why do people insist on voting against something like this and ultimately against their own best interest?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-16/the-u-s-is-where-the-rich-are-the-richest
9
Brainwashing in action. It’s sad. I can’t be the only one who knows Americans who have moved to other countries so they could get healthcare. I know a family that moved to South Korea. They have never paid more than a couple hundred for weeks of hospital care. I know another family that moved to Australia, so they could send their five children to college for almost free and get great healthcare or almost free. Their quality of life is great now, no stress and they will never move back...unless we join the rest of civil society.
6
My guess is that the cost of M4A will be much higher than Warren forecasts. She has every incentive to underestimate the cost and over estimate the savings. With respect to taxes, she is over estimating what she can collect.
In the end the taxpayers will have M4A and also the bill for the true cost of M4A.
6
And does that factor in her plan to cancel all student debt and pay for free college for everyone?
I'm a Warren supporter, but will wait for the GAO to weigh in on all these schemes if she becomes President and these become legislation under consideration.
2
@John Unlikely any will become legislation any time soon. Maybe some watered down bits will but those ideas are to get the youth vote in primaries. Her ideas on leveling the playing field is a winner, giving away the store is not.
Trump’s ideas about the need to control immigration are good. A wall is not.
@John
She did not propose forgiving all student debt. That was Sanders. Her plan is for a limited amount which phases out beyond a certain income level. Are people intentionally distorting what she stated or are they too lazy to read?
2
From each according to their ability.
To each according to their needs.
5
Yes. And that could easily mean eighty percent tax above 100 million...
@Lilly
and a 42% tax above 100 thousand ...
(in addition to state and local taxes)
Warrens opening up of her payment plan is like her taking a DNA ancestry test, we all know how that played out for her.
She may have just lost the primary.
7
And DNA ancestry test turned out just fine. She’s the front runner, after all.
7
You are so very wrong.
6
Dear Ms. Warren (and other Democrats),
Your messaging is all wrong about healthcare.
1. Let's end medical bankruptcy.
2. Let's stop using the Emergency Room as an urgent care clinic -- the most expensive and least effective solution. (And we all pay for this already.)
3. Let's unshackle American workers -- who are tied to their current jobs just to keep health coverage.
4. Let's give Americans the freedom to find a better job, work for a small company, or start our own businesses -- without the threat of losing our health coverage.
Pete Buttigieg comes the closest to getting the story right.
5
Zuckerberg is choosing Pete’s cabinet. Why do you think that might be? What does Zuckerberg think he’s going to get for his investment in Pete? Not that he’s going to represent the ninety nine percent of the country’s interests.
3
Unfortunately, Pete doesn't provide much details to his plan, so difficult to see how he is going to achieve the goal
3
@Lilly
Please try to stay on point.
"Zuckerberg is choosing Pete’s cabinet."
- I haven't read that. But let's assume it is true, for the sake of argument.
- I will vote for the Democratic nominee on Nov 3, 2020, whomever it is. Will you?
1
First move should be to allow those without insurance to enroll in the plans offered by government employees.
The unfortunate reality is that all companies would ditch health insurance for their if they could. The Fortune 500 does not buy health insurance for their employees. They instead set aside a pile of cash and then hire an insurance company to manage it. They have an emergency fund (for lack of a better phrase) And purchase an insurance policy to cover any amount the planned amount and the emergency fund.
Getting out this would be a great relief to any company as the cost would be fixed.
4
Boy do I think Warren blew it with this proposal. Soaking the rich may play well with a portion of the population but it is not a good strategy for winning an election. Nor should it be.
Yes, the rich should pay more in taxes. But EVERYONE should contribute to a government run health care system, except the truly poor, like Medicaid. The surest way to kill a government run health care system is to limit the number of voters who contribute to it.
The brilliance of FDR and social security is that all workers pay into the system. And for 80 years it has remained the 3rd rail of American politics.
Yes, the word “tax” has been branded a dirty word by the GOP. I’m sure more brilliant minds than mine could come up with a term for the amounts collected to fund an expanded Medicare. Tax haters don’t realize how often their taxes go up when a government raises its fees for services....
6
We do contribute to it through Medicare tax
1
Didn't FDR introduce the Wealth tax in 1935?
2
Right. And it should continue if Warren’s plan becomes a reality.
2
The problem is, people don't care about other people in this country anymore. I can't even get anyone to let me merge in on the highway - suddenly they will want to pay more in taxes for everyone's benefit? I think this is a losing plan.
4
Considering that we all use healthcare, it will be more like paying for themselves, at least for overwhelming majority
4
Ours is the only advanced country where every election cycle is dominated by complaints about the state of healthcare from both sides
Ours is also the only advanced country where we've left healthcare to the private sector to handle
Perhaps there's a connection between the two
7
I can’t be the only one who knows Americans who have moved to other countries so they could get healthcare. I know a family that moved to South Korea. They have never paid more than a couple hundred for weeks of hospital care. I know another family that moved to Australia, so they could send their five children to college for almost free and get great healthcare or almost free. Their quality of life is great now, no stress and they will never move back...unless we join the rest of civil society.
7
Warren's plan for improving and expanding health care may be all that she says, but as soon as the discussion turns to taxation it becomes too complex an issue for most voters to undertand, and certainly not explicable on the debate stage or during the campaign. It would be better to focus on the actual impending threat to the ACA as a result of this administration's challenge to it in the Supreme Court.
2
What is democracy for if it is not for redistributing wealth?
If not redistributing wealth, would not an open-minded monarch who allows free speech be enough?
USE democracy.
The people who would pay for under Warren and Sanders' plans are ONLY the ultra wealthy. Even upper middle class will be more financially secure under their 'radical' policies.
5
Truth. Besides, I can’t be the only one who knows Americans who have moved to other countries so they could get healthcare. I know a family that moved to South Korea. They have never paid more than a couple hundred for weeks of hospital care. I know another family that moved to Australia, so they could send their five children to college for almost free and get great healthcare or almost free. Their quality of life is great now, no stress and they will never move back...unless we join the rest of civil society. Don’t believe the fear tactics to keep us down.
4
Apparently, Elizabeth Warren intends to pay for her "Medicare for All," in part, by taxing "paper profits" on stocks and bonds that increase in value, not merely when these assets are sold. This could amount to an annual tax on ordinary Americans who have assets in 401(K) retirement plans. Since 55% of Americans own stocks and bonds -- mostly in retirement accounts -- she should dispense with her argument that her plan will not tax the Middle Class.
7
I doubt that many Americans have billions in stocks
4
@yulia But some have a few million and that would be impacted. Hard saved, too, would not go down well. She didn't really spell that out.
@Kathy But they will have low rate, plus more money from premiums to safe.
In 2017, total healthcare spending in the US was $3,500,000,000,000 (as in $3.5 trillion).
There is around $90,000,000,000 in unpaid medical bills every year - bad debt
That is around $10400 for every single person in medical costs per year
If you have a household of 2, you need to put $20800 into the system
If you have a family of 4, it is $41,600 from you
And no - the employer premiums (ones Warren wants to make them keep paying in) from your health insurance of even $20000 for 'family' coverage won't cover the amount a household of 2, 3 , 4 or more have to kick in.
YOU have to come up with the difference -either through taxes or paying more for goods and services
Then someone has to pick up the bill for Medicaid bunch and those on the ACA welfare-subsidy-gravy-train who are not paying even close to what those paying sticker price put in $10,400 PER PERSON - and it comes from were?
5
I had to write checks for $25,000 this year for me, and I wasn’t even sick. I had to pay $52,000 for my son for two days in hospital. I can’t be the only one who is paying this much. I would LOVE to pay only a fraction of that.
5
If you are going to talk about tax rates in the Scandinavian countries, why not tell readers what that really means. It is mot tX the superrich but not me, but rather the middle class pays.
In Denmark, for example, the top marginal tax rate of 60% applies to income about 120% of the average income. In the US, this would mean a tax rate for any income over about $70k, which would hit a third of taxpayers. In Sweden, the top tax rate of 57% applies to income above 150% of average, which would mean income above $80-90k. In Norway, it is only 39% for income above 160%, or about $90-95k.
And this does not include their high VAT tax rates. Are Americans prepared to pay these type of rates, or do they prefer to listen to the false claims of free for almost all?
6
@luxembourg You bring up a very interesting point and it's hard to disagree with on a purely fiscal level.
However, the Scandinavian countries also rank as the most happy. People are happy... Isn't that the only goal?
9
@Brandon
Sweden has one of the best heathcare systems and longest living populations on the planet
They don't spend every single election cycle decrying the faults in their healthcare system and blaming the other side
Ever wonder why that might be ?
8
@Marion Grace Merriweather I obviously agree.
If I were trying to figure out how to improve our country I would start by looking at which countries were the happiest and then borrow some ideas.
6
“Democrats are trying to push the boundaries of how much a country can rely on a sliver of high-end investors and other wealthy citizens to fund widely used social programs and bankroll other services traditionally paid for by individuals.”
Yes, traditionally, in the US, our particularly brutal form of capitalism has forced individuals to shoulder particularly high healthcare costs, even if this results in extreme poverty.
But the “boundaries” Dems are “pushing” have been long surpassed by other western democracies, who realized a century ago that post-industrial society was going to pose social problems that gilded age economics couldn’t handle. Only the US among major industrial countries has been slow coming to this realization.
Who’s pushing boundaries? By forcing the ill into extreme poverty, and having no compunction about it, the US is pushing a boundary. Shame on the apologists.
6
The Middle Class Always Pay for Government run Programs.
E. W. health tax on the wealthy will have a significant impact on all Americans - poor, middle class, wealthy, with maybe an exception for FEDERAL EMPLOYEE, and CONGRESS, like what happened with OBAMACARE, REMEMBER?
Under E.W. Tax plan the wealthy get hammered and all Americans will loose their current health coverage as they know it.
Does E.W. really think that the wealthy will just sit back an accept her extreme proposal. While E.W. says the MIDDLE class won’t be taxed, what she does not say is that much of the cost will simple be passed on by those holding the wealth to the Middle Class. It will all roll downhill and land in the laps of the Middle Class.
2
The middle class is already tax through premium and deductions that are growing every year. Of taxes were growing at the same speed as the premiums, everybody would scream bloody murder.
1
I can’t be the only one who paid more than $15000 in premiums to the insurance company for zero healthcare. What I wouldn’t give to only pay $3,000 even, in taxes instead...!!!
1
@Lilly
$3,000 only in your dreams; and even that might be too optimistic!
I am disappointed that Warren went on the defensive and apparently felt she had to come up with a price tag on her health care proposal. And to appease who? First, it’s speculative and meaningless. Any reasonable certainty is impossible. And it freaks-out more people than it calms. It makes her look weaker, imho.
The response of a solid leader could have been that the current system has to change, it’s unsustainable, it can be made infinitely better and with gradual change we can make this work. It just takes time, maybe even years. We take the best characteristics from the best systems in the world and incorporate them. This doesn’t have to be a one time, complete, overnight overhaul to perfection which, of course, is impossible. We will work together, implementing gradual change to make a more equitable and efficient system. We can do this. And as your candidate, I won’t insult you by placing a meaningless price tag on it.
1
Every interview that Omni attended: when I said gradual change, I didn’t get the job.
People want to hear messianic vision with little mooring to reality. Someone who says I can and I will.
How very impractical.
I find it odd how this rollout is being framed. The “beloved” health insurance that I have through my job....and considered as a “benefit”...is hardly “free”. It won’t follow me if I decide to strike out for greener pastures. And even if I don’t change jobs, my insurance provider will change every year and I will have to renegotiate prescription drug coverage to accommodate a medication profile that has been painstakingly worked out between my family members and our insurance provider. I am so so tired of this routine that takes place EVERY year.
Will the overall national price tag for health care be more...or less? Will costs be equitably distributed? Will me and my family have flexibility. A lot of my peers who are in their 60s and don’t have gold plated insurance are very much looking forward to going on Medicare.
4
In Australia, the singer payer health care system is imploding. Not enough public money to fund it, so private insurance became a mandatory add-on. Private insurance rates are now rising off the charts.
7
Australia spends 7.5K per person and everybody has access to affordable healthcare. The US spends 10.7K and not everybody is covered. If Australian healthcare is imploding, ours is in full atomic blast.
3
If it is a choice between a tax and the GOP's method of just putting it on the national credit card (budget deficit), I'll take the tax.
At least a MC4all tax would provide a social good. The $1.5 trillion dollar tax cut for the ultra wealthy didn't help anyone but a handful of very greedy egomaniacs.
3
@The Poet McTeagle
And you personally will need to pay in $10400 PER PERSON in your household
THat is what it takes to cover the total healthcare spending in the US in 2017
BTW tax cuts don't "give" anyone to anything. All it means is that you stopped taking their money.
1
Private Equity/Hedge Funds have bought our health care system and fleece Americans daily. Elizabeth Warren could fix that.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-deep-pocket-push-to-preserve-surprise-medical-billing?ref=home
1
I met someone the other day, who was retired. He explained medicare to me simply. He said... you get medicare at age 65, Part A is free, that is what you use when you go to the hospital, but you also need to go to the doctor, so you have to get the other medicare part ... which costs him more than he was paying for obamacare.
So, could it be true, that medicare for all would be cheaper than obamacare (for the govt) , since the covered person would be paying more.
1
The person must be lying to you, or he never had Obamacare. Even cheapest plan in Obamacare for people over 50 is much more expensive than Medicare, and that just premium, not counting deductibles, that are usually several thousands
1
So the GM workers in the Midwest are just going to rollover and accept national healthcare? Ha Ha Ha! Doubt it!
6
Trump a confirmed racist and liar, being impeached, majority of country against him...hmmm, how can the Dems mess this up?
Answer: MASSIVE GOVERNMENT OVER-REACH.
No way independents will vote for this. Let's consider reality.
I was beginning to like her, but she just pushed me back to Biden or over to Mayor B.
Why risk alarming the electorate with such uncertainty in this time of opportunity? C'mon Ms. Warren, I know you want to think big, but I think you know better. If you're the nominee with this platform, you're gonna lose.
It depends on independent. Some won't and some will vote with both hands.
For those of you who gladly support a tax on somebody else, just remember that “somebody else” may someday be you. And nobody will come to your defense.
2
Nope. Not interested in giving away more of my money to millennials who expect to get everything for free, want their $100k student loans forgiven after securing their $150k jobs at 25 years old, maxing out their credit cards, driving a new leased BMW M5. Not going to pay more out of my paycheck for the sick who smoke, are obese then end up in the emergency room and ask the attending doctor what’s wrong with them. Not going to pay more out of my paycheck for the single women who refuse birth control, the ones who have 4 different kids by 4 different men because their welfare checks are higher with each kid. Nope. Never going to happen.
10
@Tiredofwaiting
But you would never vote for any Democrat, regardless of policy.
2
Wouldn't they pay more taxes on their 150K job that will go to fund their student loan forgiveness?
@MidtownATL
Didn’t say that did I? Read...
I’m not a socialist.
Putting all complex details of the cost on the table now is essential for such a complex proposal. Leaving them out now would surely bite the democratic candidate later in general. Let the public see details, let the conservatives have their saying, let Sen. Warren defend it, and see how the public responds.
I think it is a brilliant preemptive move.
If the public gets scared of the overall costs then obviously Sen. Warren will make major adjustments to her plan. Nothing wrong with that.
3
i’m all for eventually having medicare for all, but switching all of sudden, 200 million people or so (I don’t know the exact number) in one shot is insane.
remember how difficult it was for obamacare to get started? multiply that by a million and imagine the chaos that a sudden switch to medicare for all would be.
plus it is politically dumb —millions or families, with kids and stuff, are happy with their employer provided insurance. they will be scared of being forced to switch to a new an untested thing. they will be driven to even more fear by trump and the republican machine should Warren or Bernie be the nominee.
Obamacare with a public option seems the best thing to me. the public option can start little by little and consolidate itself. if it works well, people will switch gradually and one day we’ll have medicare for all. and it won’t scare millions of people into voting for trump.
i hope progressive democrats come to their senses. if you guys lose the election to trump, instead of achieving your ideals now, without any transition to them, you will set them back another 30 years.
3
That’s why every Frenchman puts his money next door in Switzerland, and why Italians and Greeks bribe tax collectors, and why European semi socialism depends on the VAT, etc. and really how do you measure wealth? Some who flaunt wealth really are in constant debt ( example:the Donald) and others quietly buy land, houses, companies all over the world with strange holding companies and a very large bevy of lawyers. . You can’t pin them down. Well , Trump is one kind of insane, while Warren and Sanders are another.
7
I’m a dyed in the wool Democrat and even I don’t want Medicare for all...and I’m on Medicare! It’s a losing proposition. Medicare for all will require that all medical providers...doctors and hospitals...will be paid what Medicare now pays them. That dog don’t hunt folks. How about we start with a public option and just see how that works. stop with the purity test folks. My first active election was working for George McGovern. We see in retrospect what happened to his campaign by running...I’d be the first to admit...a campaign too far outside where the electorate was at the time. 50%+ of today’s electorate does not want to give up their private health plans. That’s where they are. I’ll repeat...that’s where they are! How about meeting them where they ARE and move them along in small steps. or heck, just go ahead and give Trump four more years.
2
@Cody
1) I doubt you're a Democrat
2) Medicare for you, but not for others ? Excuse me if I don't take the advice from the greedy double standard coalition
1
The way to clear your mind of all the special interest confusion is to consider that health spending in USA is just under 20% of GNP.
Very roughly, if we each paid a tax of 20% on our income for health services, we would have cradle to grave health care but that would include everything. No dentist bill, no nursing home bill - everything would be paid for.
Now consider that in some developed countries the amount spent on health care is closer to 10%. Look at your salary, multiply it by 10% and ask yourself if you would pay that and never get a bill for any health services.
These are rough figures but what stands out in the end is the concept of not having co-pays, deductibles, coverage for things like hearing aids, glasses, etc.
Remember, that 20% of GNP you are buying includes all those ads for medicine and insurance you see on corporate media.
It's out of control and they would have you believe it is Warren who is the crazy one.
4
I’m a moderate to liberal Democrat. This proposal will destroy our economy and the jobs that came with Obama’s 8 year victory lap. In no way possible would I vote for Warren. I gather the Rust Belt won’t either.
4
@Michael
What do you think the likelihood is of this being implemented? Probably low, right? So what’s the point of freaking out about it?
1
Of course taxes will have to go up substantially to implement unversal, single payer health care. Democrats should be open about that. But people (and their employers) won't have to pay insurance premiums any more. Since overall costs of a single payer ststem, once implemented. will be hugely less costly than the current sytem (no insurance company admin costs and profits) almost everyone should experience a financial gain. I once asked a staunch Republican if she would rather pay $8,000 a year to an insurance company than $3,000 extra in taxes instead. She said yes. With that mentality, it's no wonder there's a problem.
6
The Dems pretty much laid out their carrots for our votes, and we're impressed because it centers around the central theme of more gov't handouts and services. It will be funded by tacking additional taxes to business and the wealthy. The largest is Medicare, may involve increases in taxes to the middle class. Maybe I missed it, but where do I read where a top priority is to raise the tax rates that Trump lowered in 2017 that resulted in billions of less taxes the wealthy have to pay? Where is the talk on that subject. Are the Dems saying the lower tax rates given businesses and the wealthy are okay, because all the free programs the Dems offer in 2020 will be paid for by levying special taxes on the wealthy and businesses. Sounds to me that is a fast track to another gutter, to another swamp that just increases gov't spending. Pretty soon D.C. is going to have to annex some land in Maryland to handle the land purchases needed for more gov't office buildings. Pitiful.
1
This is an easy win for Trump. If that is the sacrifice in selling this - it isn't worth it.
5
Why are health care proposals framed around whether they increase taxes? Why are they not discussed in terms of how they will change health care coverage in this country?
Tax issues are one implication, but the Times and other media treat taxes as the primary issue with regard to health care proposals.
These one-sided discussions of tax increases in isolation only make sense if you start out completely uninterested in what the health care plans are actually trying to achieve.
3
@Bear
The press' one-sided framing of this debate ( only concentrated on the costs and ignoring the benefits ) is rotten
I'd check to see how many pharmaceutical companies buy ads with them
1
@Bear
Because our lame politicians can’t think like that, much too logical. Why would they involve healthcare policy experts in discussions, healthcare experts know too much and might make them look foolish.
Same reason they don’t involve tech experts to fight cyber crime. (Ghoulianni was Trump’s cyber expert!) Same reason they don’t involve education experts in our failing education system. (Betsy DeVos) Same reason a retired brain surgeon heads up HUD, in his spare time he became an expert on low income housing? Sure okay. Same reason the President is an ex TV reality marketing conman. There got it now? Merica.
This headline is misleading and, frankly, should never have been published. Much of Warren's plan is just a recategorization (and some redistribution) of the money that we already pay for an overpriced healthcare system that fails to cover all Americans and has lower quality outcomes overall than countries that spend less person, but have universal care. This and other headlines and articles on the plan makes it sound like we will taxed over and above what we already pay, but that is not the case. I applaud Warren for putting out a detailed plan. Even if flawed, it is a start at something concrete that can be debated and changed. Compare her plan to the GOP plan which is basically to deny any form of healthcare to as many people as possible, since they really have no plan.
6
For all of those against Medicare for All, you come up with a solution to give us universal coverage.
All the other first world countries get some form of universal healthcare, why can't we.
We are the richest industrial country on the planet GDP / capita.
But we have parts of the US with infant mortality rates of a second world country.
In addition, we spend twice as much per capita and twice as much percent GDP for healthcare as the other countries.
So while you are at it, if you can get lower our cost, that is welcome, too.
Instead, all we get are excuses.
And I have not heard any Republican voter, Tea Party person, or evangelical who wants to give up their Medicare.
2
Corporation, per se , do pay taxes. Corporate taxes are paid by
1. Stock holders in form of a lower dividend (that
might by you through your pension plan)
2. Consumers in form of higher prices (that might be you)
3. Employees in form of lower wages (again it might be you
How this falls on the three group is debated amongst economists but the majority believes employees pay more than 50%
Why ? It is a power struggle
1.Stock holders , i.e. , the rich, have the most power. They finance the campaigns of politicians. Second , they
may dump the stock and move to e.g. buy Nestle stock, of a corporation in a lower taxed country
2. Consumers have less power, but if a US corporation increases prices they may respond by buying more imports.
In a global economy. it is difficult to raise prices for a US
company as it competes with corporation in low wage countries
3. The employees are the least powerful in the global economy. Since NAFTA was signed, and China admitted to the WTO the answer to wage demands was : Well if you are not willing to work for what we offer, we will move the company to Mexico - or China
And so the burden of corporate taxes falls mostly on the workers -- in form of lower wages
1
To be clear for those who think taxing corporations is a penalty free option are gravely mistaken. Taxes are an operating expense like utilities, supplies, insurance, rent, etc. and they are all factored into the final product or service price. Tax away and everyone will pay.
1
@Jim
And if they keep raising their prices, demand will decrease. They will lose customers,
1
Would it come as a surprise that the cost of "medicare for all" would be passed from the taxed corporations to the purchaser of the products involved? People seem not to realize that cost is not the price.....it is the cost, price is the attempt to recover the cost and somebody must pay the price if the price is to be paid. From the way this is going, it seems to be just another deficit item to add to the county's national debt unless the cost is actually recovered.
4
I like Elizabeth Warren. But perhaps the release of the plan, with its multi-trillion dollar price tag, just might prove fatal to her campaign. She’s basically published an essay full of talking points for her opponents to dig into, while effectively pigeonholing herself with said document.
It would’ve been wiser for her remain mum on the specifics to give herself more wiggle room in the actual drafting of policy, than to have essentially guaranteed that she won’t fulfill her campaign promise of a highly specific, contentious Medicare-for-all plan. I thought she was being expertly slippery when Buttigieg pressed her on the issue of a tax hike for the middle class at the last debate - it turns out that she simply didn’t have a suitable response and is more susceptible to baiting by other candidates than we thought...
Bad move.
I’m totally for Universal Healthcare, for the record.
@Connor
Completely disagree. We need to know how the public reacts to fully detailed Medicare for all before primaries. Based on that Warren can make adjustments. Leaving all details out of such complex proposal would be mortal in general. We need to know that NOW.
4
Didn’t Obama walk to the presidency by being erudite, slippery, and generally evasive?
Didn't someone else just lose a presidential election promising to put an entire industry out of business? This leaves Sanders as the Democrat nominee
2
@Mark
Sanders is in the same boat.
Now, if this proposal scares people, and we’ll see that in few weeks, Warren can make major adjustments, and propose a two step implementation with Public Option as a first step.
2
There's nothing wrong with taxes. We all expect our government to work for us but do we really expect it to work for free? What we want costs money.
There's no such thing as a free ride, something conservatives want most.
We need a progressive tax structure where people pay according to their abilities to pay. Guess what? This means the wealthy pay proportionately more. They'll still have more money than the rest of us but they will have given back to a country that has made them filthy rich.
The reason Medicare for All won't work is the insurance and medical industries. They want profits.
I was recently bill $5,100+ for a 20 second eye laser procedure in the doctor's office. Medicare allowed $288 and my co-pay was $50. If we had Medicare for All, providers could never get away with charging the full price.
No insurance or Medicare? Then the poor patient pays the full amount.
1
Asking about taxing the middle class to pay for universal health insurance is asking a gottcha question, not a serious one. I'm middle class with good health insurance (medicare plus supplemental), and I still pay a fair amount out of pocket for medical and dental care. If that money went to taxes for universal health insurance instead, I would come out financially even, and emotionally ahead, knowing that others can also get the care they need.
2
I never support a tax increase on somebody else.
I live in a retirement community near Palm Springs, CA. We enjoy a warm climate, incredible scenery, amenities such as a clubhouse, pool , and fitness center. It is solidly middle class. Most of us have worked all our lives to get our slice of the so called “ American Dream”. We are very fortunate.
Someday, someone may look at us and decide we need to pay more tax than others. Say, an “amenities” tax on the value of the clubhouse gym or swimming pool? Who will defend me? Why should anybody support me?
After all, it is OK to tax somebody else, and now I am somebody else.
4
Obviously the GOP tax cuts on the wealthy and corporations aren't helping the middle class or their healthcare situation at all. So why not try a different approach? I sense most of the anxiety towards Warren's proposal is good old fashioned fear of change. Well too bad. Something HAS to change or the GOP will make sure there is no more middle class.
Boo hoo for the poor Billionaires asked to pay 6% on wealth assets (not even income).
3
We need Medicare for All. My issue is that Warren started off by saying she would implement a 3% tax rate on the wealthy, which is fine. But now she's doubled that to 6% and she hasn't even been elected yet.
I seriously doubt that if it comes to fruition, the middle class won't be taxed. Which, again, is fine. but a little transparency and sticking to the figures once they've been presented would be nice.
4
As I Recall correctly Candidate Trump promises health care for all at a great savings to Everyone. Let’s not forget to state that every singles time we discuss any Democratic proposal. And Republicans tried to kill the Affordable Health Care Act without any cost savings to anyone. So let’s please keep Democratic plans in proper perspective.
Who knew health care could be so complicated? Democrats have ideas. Let’s all work to improve them, not dismiss them because they aren’t perfect
2
Let’s be honest about taxes. In Canadian and European systems, universal primary health coverage is achieved only by (universal) income taxation.
In Canada for example, depending on income level, most Canadians pay about 8-12 of their income in taxes towards primary health costs. Even at lower income levels, you are expected to have some significant “skin in the game”.
If it can be shown by Republicans that millions more Americans will start to get nearly free health coverage under the Bernie or EW plans, the Democrats will have a losing message.
3
I’ve seen several comments here state that the tax on unrealized capital gains in invest accounts will apply to everyone under Warren’s plan. The truth is that this would only apply to the top one percent of income earners. Why can’t people be honest about this?
5
Taxing unrealized gains is absurd. Will those being taxed get refunds when their investments lose value.
3
@Jim
Keep shilling for the top one percent. That’s why there is such a political divide right now.
1
@Lyn
I have a bronze insurance plan for my family of four. (It used to be silver but we took higher deductibles and copays to try to save money)
It has costs me 24-26 thousand dollars each of the last eight years.
This is for premiums, copays, doctor visits, prescriptions and deductibles we have never met.
And my family is healthy.
This is a rip off and unsustainable.
I Know there are some impoverished immigrant drug addicts out there. I know that some of them would not be impoverished or addicted with better health care.
Cutting off your nose to make sure nobody gets anything they don’t deserve is a tough way to go through life.
Give us all a break. Don’t be afraid of change. If we can’t get Medicare for All to work as well as it has already worked for my parents we can figure something else out that doesn’t rely on propaganda spewing pharmaceutical corporations.
3
Anyone commenting on any type of Medicare expansion should first give their opinion on Medicare as it exists today
Personally, I am for Medicare and for some kind of expansion
As a starting point in a negotiation, I think this proposal is fine and expect it to be scaled back over time
If you are here saying you're against Medicare For All but you're not admitting that you also want today's Medicare completely abolished, you're misleading people
2
Medicare for those who want it.
Medicare for all without premiums, copays and deductibles is a pipe dream.
Get rid of all private insurance?What happens to the employees of that industry? Where do they go? Massive unemployment !
The feds managing this?
I don't think so.
2
@Marathoner
Pity the switchboard operators !!
Industries come and go
I expect many of these people to end up working for the United States, with much better benefits and job security than they had under their previous employers
1
@MGN, great, so our USA government is going to absorb the 2,000,000 new unemployed and guess who will pay their government salaries, I bet it will be the “middle class” with much higher tax rates.
1
@Jerry Davenport
1) The entire industry will not be absorbed - and most of the work will be sub-contracted to privately run firms.
2) You pay for military salaries. So do I. Feds manage them. If you have a problem with the Army or the Marines and want to withhold their funding so you can buy a nicer car, feel free to speak up.
I am for taxing the rich, but the economic fact is that a wealth tax cannot be collected
For that reason
1. Sweden abolished the wealth tax in 2007
2. France abolished the wealth tax under Macron, with
the sole exception on assets that can not move - lavish
homes
In a global economy, wealth flows to where it is taxed least.
Unfortunate, but true.
3
AS Biden says Warren is lying about her Medicare for all ages insurance plan being paid exclusively by the rich.
Taxing the rich may seem like no skin off the backs of average Americans but when the rich realize they are unfairly picking up the burden they will exit the US with their wealth just as those rich leaving NY and California.
If Democrats want to embrace Tax increases and big government, they will find it hard to prevent Trump from reelection. In fact, I will not be surprised if the scared wealthy people donate heavily to the Trump campaign.
4
We're missing the point . . . This isn't about how much we pay in taxes for healthcare. It's about the total cost of healthcare for what we get in return.
Right now we're paying a ton of money to corporations for healthcare. Single payer will reduce the overall cost of healthcare for all.
4
I love Warren’s anti-corruption, detailed-driven approach to politics. But Medicare for all is simply impractical, even if it is a laudable goal.
There is zero chance a plan like this would ever make it though Congress. A move like this would put billion dollar companies and an entire industry out of business, forcing thousands of layoffs. They will never let this happen. Even if the private insurance industry is a bloated money drain on the American people and a vestigial product of a broken health care system, it cannot be summarily abolished through the passage of law.
Warren needs to 1) come up with a plan B compromise on health care that states “if we can’t get Medicare for all done, then this is what we’ll do instead- a plan that allows for private insurance companies to remain in existence. 2) Focus on contrasting herself with DT as the anti-corruption candidate. 3)Figure out how to win Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. All Democratic candidates will win all states Hillary won. Focus on winning the few states she didn’t. Which means- motivating minorities and working class whites. End of story.
2
Warren needs to announce the truth. “Your employer provided insurance will be canceled. Obamacare will be cancelled. We will replace it with something else but we haven’t worked out the details but someone else will pay for it. Since it will be like Medicare, it will not provide much coverage for nursing homes and long term care”.
2
Or instead of raising taxes, we could fund things with deficit spending like the current administration.
A majority of Trump voters voted for him because they wanted change and thought he was more likely to be an agent for change than the Establishment's Hillary. They were right about that. But Trump's promises were never kept and his brand of change was not what they voted for. Now Elizabeth Warren promises real change and if she gets a Democratic Congress her brand of change will bring about a reversal of the inequality of wealth distribution that the American middle class voters have been hoping for. Those who say she could never do what she proposes are the same naysayers who ignored Bernie Sanders in 2016 and gave us the "Establishment" choice of Hillary. Hillary would have been at least a competent POTUS, but she was still too much aligned with corporate America to represent change. Ms Warren on the other hand has already shown her meddle and will reverse the inequality making being in the middle class affordable as it was in the 50s and 60s.
2
I and everyone I know has gotten exactly what we voted for. It is only those who voted for the other candidate think that we are disappointed. The holdup to him getting more things done are the obstructionist Democrats d SDC one of whom are still in denial.
1
@Jim Trump had a Republican House and Senate for the first 2 years and still was too inept to accomplish much of anything of value. Sorry we don't know the same people, or maybe I should be glad I don't know the same people @Jim interacts with.
1
Warren’s plan is unrealistic. Period. While New England and the West coast are reliably liberal, the vast majority of the country is not. The South, The Midwest, and the West are reliable votes for extreme right-wing conservatives and this will not change any time soon so taxing corporations and billionaires isn’t going to fly. So, if these pie-in-the-sky “free everything” policies are somehow put into place, the middle class will be saddled with a crushing tax burden and most thinking Americans understand that. Warren and Sanders and all the other “progressives” can spout all the fairy tales they want but in reality their plans are unworkable in our extremely divided nation. If we Dems insist on nominating a progressive as our presidential candidate, we will surely have our national Trump nightmare extended for another 4 years.
12
You keep telling yourself that. Bernie would have beaten Trump. That narrative your repeating supported the one who lost! It’s not accurate. Please stop repeating it.
@Ajvan1
That's exactly what they said about the original Medicare, now not even your President would dare suggest getting rid of it
@Ajvan1
"The South, The Midwest, and the West are reliable votes for extreme right-wing conservatives and this will not change any time soon...".
Pro tip #1: Stereotyping breeds stereotyping.
#2: For some truth at the ballot box in the regions you mentioned, check out NYT's interactive map tool from the 2016 election. G'head.
#3: Think there aren't "right-wing conservatives" in dear old Montpelier, think again.
2
What about the 401K's that have been pushed onto employees in lieu of the pensions of yesteryear? If I have to pay this kind of tax when I cash in my account I'll be left with nothing!
5
@Roberta
Only unrealized capital gains for the top one percent of income earners will be taxed. Facts matter.
1
If you get sick in America, you might be living in your car before you retire... It’s like the lottery. You never know.
Under the Warren plan stock increases are taxed regardless of wether the stock is sold.
So let’s say I own a stock worth $100, it goes up 10$ a year for 5 years and in the 6th year falls back to $100.
Under Ms. Warren’s plan, I am paying taxes each year on the $10 increase even though the stock is worth the same on year 6 as in year 1?
If that’s the plan, why would I risk ever investing in a stock? Does thus apply to retirement accounts (401k)?
14
@Steven Roth
Is that for everyone or just billionaires? Maybe you can provide the link showing that middle and upper middle class people will pay taxes on unrealized gains under her plan.
2
It’s in her plan. The taxes on paper gains apply to all investors, not simply those above a net worth threshold.
7
@Nicholas Conservative
I just checked. It’s only for the top 1%. What you stated is not true.
3
I prefer donations to the needy at the end of one's life, but, because the wealth inequality has gotten so egregious given estate tax loopholes, I support the Sanders/Warren plans.
The root cause of the wealth inequality is the fixed pattern of rich get richer while the poor stay poor. Why is it fixed? Because a vast majority of the wealthy parents pass on the wealth to their children.
Our current system rewards even those who are less productive as long as their parents are wealthy. On the contrary, children of the less fortunate families can only hope to inherit something let alone be left behind a heavy debt burden due to debts racked up such as student loans. This isn't capitalism as originally intended. The fixed pattern of poor stay poor is so rigid that most children of less fortunate families can’t dig themselves out of the hole.
Loving your child is indeed a wonderful feeling. However, if that love is reserved only for your child without regard to others, then it'll shape itself into an act of selfishness.
In lieu of monetary wealth, leave your child a wealth of heartful memories from the highs and lows of life shared together. And then, as for the monetary wealth that remains even at the end of your life, return it to the wider society for the benefit of those who are less fortunate. In the form of estate tax or, even better, donation to those who need it the most.
6
How about keeping your estate planning ideas to yourself? You are welcome to do whatever you want with your money and I’ll decide what to do with mine.
1
@Jim Under your idea, who'll help children of less fortunate families?
1
newsflash to Democrats: campaigning on a platform of raising taxes by trillions of dollars is not a way to win American elections.
25
@Asher
Totally. Let’s continue to incur annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion and do nothing about it.
2
@BK far better national deficits than personal deficits.
Repealing the Republican cap on SALT deduction will help her with Blue state sceptics.
1
@BKNY
Most of the skeptics here are from NYC. It’s not going to make any difference.
1
The Republicans who accuse Warren of make-believe math should have thought about their own make-believe math when they handed out huge tax cuts to the 400 wealthiest in the US.
Senator Joni Ernest is now talking cuts to Social Security at town halls due to our trillion dollar deficient caused, in part, by those huge tax cuts which provided no trickle down and no increased growth in the economy. Make-believe math indeed.
7
Hillary lost in no small part because she moved too far left for many moderate Democrats and independents, offering what they regarded as pie-in-the-sky instead of pie-on-the-table. In effect, she failed to connect with their real economic concerns.
By contrast, the Democrats flipped 40 Republican seats in 2018, and won the House, by focusing precisely on those pocketbook issues—jobs, income gap, healthcare and Social Security.
Now we’ve come full circle, and the Democrats are once again offering pie-in-the-sky—grandiose schemes promising free this and free that. Some 6 million Obama voters turned to Trump because they had lost faith in the Democratic Party. What are Democrats offering to lure them back?
Warren, the poll leader in Iowa, whose grandiose schemes have made her a darling of the Left, has little support among black Americans, and little among non-college whites in the battleground states where the Electoral College will be decided. Whence comes her winning coalition?
There is a vast, moderate middle in this country, but most on the Left are either in denial or intolerant of majority views, and seem intent on giving Trump another four years. The Dems' only hope is that voters in Iowa and other early primary states will inject some common sense into this race.
6
Push the boundaries my foot. The top income tax rate used to be well above 80 percent. This looks like nothing compared to Eisenhower.
5
Would be good if the article could point out that the conservative contentions - that proposes taxes “would cripple business investment, slow economic growth and dissuade future entrepreneurs” are provably false. This isn’t a matter for debate. We know from historical and international experience that investment, growth, and innovation are very much compatible with extremely high taxes on corporations and the rich.
2
@Christian Haesemeyer Provably false? Prove it then.
I’ve been a freelancer all my career, with no employee retirement plan. The way I’m going to retire is through stock investments with my savings. First, if Warren wants to tax those every year, is there going to be a refund when the market falls? Second, if she wants to tax my unrealized gain, she just lost my vote, and I’m about as liberal as they come. I invested with money that was already taxed, and there will be taxes when I sell. Taxing gains yearly is insane.
27
That is the problem with grand taxation plans. They ensnare unintended victims as collateral damage for doing the right thing.
1
Well, you will not tax on whole amount when you realise your gain. Of course, it affects only billionaires, and if you are one of them I wonder what kind of freelancer you are, considering that you don't have the employer contribution.
1
From my personal experience ...
It is a complicated balancing act. Employed people should pay into the plan, and those on Social Security still need to pay for more than just the baseline if they want "more". Like designer glasses and total dental implants?
Between the business side of the "benefit" and what an employee pays, a policy can cost $12,000 a year for one single person. $18,00 - $22,000 for a family.
And of course all of that affects what their take home pay is.
I went on Medicare, with a Supplement G plan March 1, and since then even with the deduction from my Social Security and the $123 a month for G and the $16 or so for prescriptions, I have probably used up all of what I paid into Medicare for the previous 45 years.
Which is not something that I really wanted, but ...
Indeed, a very complicated issue.
1
@jhanzel How could you possibly use up all that in less than a year?
One medical disaster can eat it up in an instant. Heart attacks and cancer can devour up a lifetimes worth of contributions. Luckily everyone is paying in so the weight is not on the individual.
2
Why does the fact that a democrat puts forth a proposal suddenly makes it the position of the entire party? Frankly, if we are going to tax the rich and corporations I would rather use those funds to payoff the $23 trillion dollar debt that the rich and corporations have benefited from by republican tax cuts. Obamacare got 23 million people healthcare and at its inception there was an estimated 47 million without healthcare--some 24 million or so were not covered. Why not expand and fund the ACA to cover the 24 million remaining and payoff our debt and free us from China's control of our national debt rather than commit 23 trillion to this plan?
4
Because ACA insurances are home with high deductibles, that make them unusable.
Warren and Sanders just re-elected Trump - Medicare for All and raising taxes will define the election and the Dems chances in 2020 are now dead on arrival. Against an incompetent, corrupt and criminal Trump Administration, the only thing the Dems had to fear was themselves and they managed to self-destruct. 2020 will be a replay of Reagan verses Mondale and Nixon verses McGovern and Bush verses Dukakis - the Dems are going to be tarred and feathered with the socialist tax and spend brush and fear wins elections because most voters are rather ignorant and incapable of nuanced comprehension of propaganda. From a branding perspective, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie and the Squad are an absolute disaster in MI, WI, PA, OH, IA, MO, IN, MN and in most other mid-western states. Warren and Sanders will depress the indie vote and assure GOP victories.
12
Well, then the top Democratic contenders (with the funds to reach the largest audience) need to begin sharing stories of how a Single Payer System would benefit the average American. They need to make as concrete as possible the benefits of simplification, reduced bureaucracy, secure electronic records, choice of physician and lower overall costs. More people need to see this as something that makes their lives easier and healthier, and less as socialism or government-mandated healthcare.
Yes, this is a tremendous change, but one that will be worth it in the long run.
2
We will see. These state went for Trump, clearly they prefer extremism that benefits them than moderate that benefits to corporations
“But Conservative economists, who have long are that tax cuts are the best fuel for economic growth and rising wages...”
Trickledown economics have done the exact opposite, and wealth has been trickling (tsunami-like) away from workers and towards the rich.
Why publish a false statement verbatim without context?
2
You guys, this is ridiculous. Exxon get billions in tax subsidies every year. We don’t need to raise taxes at all. Just cut off the corporate welfare and a 20 percent reduction in military spending would pay for all of this. The truth is, having the sick diluted system we have now actually costs MORE than a single-payer non-profit health care for all plan. It’s not rocket science: insurance companies make billions by denying people coverage and existing as an unnecessary middle man between health care and the patient. Get rid of insurance companies, and healthcare would cost a fraction of what it costs now.
3
Both sides calculate the cost of Medicare For All by extrapolating the cost of medical care over the next 10 years. It is not an additional cost to American citizens. Some people who cannot afford coverage would be covered, and the cut taken by insurance companies who have turned the concept of spreading risks into a concept for skimming a huge percentage off of the top without any added value would be eliminated. The question is which of these factors would change the overall picture the most. Lack of medical care for those without coverage also adds to everyone's cost of living. Whether the payment is called a tax or a payment to an insurance company is not the issue that we need to debate.
2
In the 1970's, taxes targetted investments rather than consumption to promote equity. The result was a lack of investment, rising unemployment, and skyrocketing inflation as industrial capacity stopped growing. Only in politics could it be "progressive" to advocate something that already failed.
2
In 1973, petroleum prices skyrocketed and everything suddenly cost far more than previously. That ended the post World War II boom. It made further economic expansion impossible, no matter how much money was available to invest. Investors bought real estate to protect their assets. Companies raised prices to boost revenues, and wealth held began to diminish as it was being spent faster than new wealth was created. Next came the shrinking of the vast industrial base as obsolete plants were forced to shutdown because they could not turn a profit. Stagflation arose with double digit inflation. The shortage of capital investment was a symptom not a cause.
1
Can Americans be allowed, legally, to purchase their prescription drugs from Canada? Please? How hard is it? This alone would make tremendous differences in drug costs. I just don’t understand why Ms. Warren does not talk about this import small step for us.
2
While it is not legal there is some type of directive in place that permits Customs and Border Patrol to look the other way for most non-narcotics. It takes a few weeks to get a shipment so it only works for long-term medications where 90-day supplies are possible. The price savings for some drugs is ridiculous. Once you have gotten in the system the Canadian pharmacy makes sure you reorder well in advance of needing the refill.
(Can't take credit for the following, which was posted in the comments section of the Washington Post website.)
Warren's financing plan for M4A, when viewed on November 4, 2020, will translate as follows:
"Congratulations on your re-election, President Trump."
8
Is it from the same people who said that Trump is unelectable because he is extreme?
Trickle down economics is a sound theory. In practice in the USA however, that saved money from tax cuts “just never seems to trickle down” gosh darn it !!
Instead, companies buy back shares or enrich upper management including totally indefensible “golden parachutes” when a CEO is finally fired for running the company into the ground. Yeah, they sometimes throw employees a bone with a one time bonus but that’s strictly a “good” publicity stunt!
A regulation must be passed that tax cuts must trickle down to workers in various ways or those cuts must be return to the government with penalties and interest added on.
Yep! Trickle down economics is a sound theory as long as the money trickles down! Aye! There’s the rub!
As for Medicare for all... it can be done as long as the usual government bureaucracy boondoggles are eliminated and all that money goes to healthcare rather than endless government paper shuffling!
5
@SAH
Alas, money defies gravity.
Instead of trickling down, it tends to pool at the top.
1
The Corporations and the uber rich should be taxed hard. They've been complicit in political payola in order to tilt the playing board in their collective favor.
Their greed knows no bounds.
3
You can tax corporations to death. Doing so guarantees to everything you pay for will increase in price because companies do not absorb costs: they pass them right on to the consumer.
2
Only if they can push it on consumers, but the real market could only so much increase. They will have to choose a decreased profit or no profit because nobody could afford their product.
Hillary lost the "Blue Wall" states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by a mere 55,000 votes. She did so not only because she failed to turn out the Obama base of blacks and young people, but also because she moved too far left for many moderate Democrats and independents, offering what they regarded as pie-in-the-sky instead of pie-on-the-table. In effect, she failed to connect with their real economic concerns.
By contrast, the Democrats flipped 40 GOP seats in 2018 by focusing precisely on those pocketbook issues—jobs, income gap, healthcare and Social Security.
Now we’ve come full circle, and the Democrats are once again offering pie-in-the-sky—grandiose schemes of the Twitter Left, promising free this and free that. Some 6 million Obama voters turned to Trump because they had lost faith in the Democratic Party. What are Democrats offering to lure them back?
Warren, the poll leader in Iowa, whose grandiose schemes have made her a darling of the Twitterati, has little support among black Americans, and little among non-college whites in the battleground states where the Electoral College will be decided. Whence comes her winning coalition?
There is a vast, moderate middle in this country, but most Twitter Democrats are in denial of this. They are a noisy minority, intolerant of majority views, who seem intent on giving Trump another four years. The Dems' only hope is that voters in Iowa and other early primary states will inject some common sense into this race.
10
@Ron Cohen
Which specific policies did Clinton propose in 2016 that were too far left?
4
@BK Exactly. Progressive policies Hillary fought to beat down, though? All of them. Including a mere $15/hour minimum wage. She’s done enough damage. Let’s leave her out of it from now on, please.
@Ron Cohen
She "lost" because Comey convinced 2% of the electorate that she was a criminal on the lam from justice
End of story
"The Republican's new budget for the Pentagon whizzed through Congress today, with bipartisan support for $70 billion per year in increased spending on the Pentagon. Divided by 136 million households, that's about $500 per household per year. This will not be charged to those households, so the budget pushed the boundaries of much a country can rely upon debt to finance military spending - traditionally paid for by looting assets from defeated enemies".
- said no journalistic coverage, in 2019, or ever.
Oh, and never mind "how will you pay for that tax cut"...Republicans just answer "it will cause so much growth it will pay for itself"...for 40 years straight, without that ever coming true once, or a reporter asking about that a few years later.
3
Yeah good luck with that. I'll vote for Trump before ever voting for such a disruptive job killer economic disaster.
11
@Mike
Well, I guess Trump will win New York then, huh?
4
@Mike You know what’s an actual job killer? Student debt that’s indentured servitude to the banks until you’re 40...! You know what else is a job killer? Having to pay $15,000 a year for the privilege of maybe being covered if you get sick...!
Jacobin Magazine, a left-wing zine has called Warren's M4A funding plan a disaster. Why? Because it will incentivize companies with over 50 employees to switch to contracting and part-time hiring as a way to avoid the mandatory tax.
Also, the math doesn't add up. One hopes that the NYT will be as thorough in their analysis of the numbers.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-financing-plan
2
Ms. Warren's proposal impacts 1/6 of this nation's economy. It is not prudent to quickly implement such drastic changes to this large of a sector of the economy. That is project management and change management 101. The people who are proposing these changes have NO IDEA how the current system works. How is it that they are qualified to propose any of this? Health care is like a complicated system...like a woven tapestry. Pull the wrong thread, an the entire thing will FALL APART.
5
AOC really broke it down in an interview with Chris Cuomo this week. It’s not a question of the money—we have access to the money—it’s the values. If you have a problem with M4A, you have a broken moral compass. The math is quite simple.
https://mobile.twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1190164719656673280?fbclid=IwAR2DGUKFC4h4Xt5ujAaGUrJeer4hksVWM4Sl4NBy7O2t__7P6DdOXm7RKNY
3
AOC’s math is simple: Take as much money as possible in taxes and leave the everyone with pennies on the dollar.
4
That’s what happening now, in real time. According to Princeton, MIT and UN studies, half of Americans live in a 3rd world. And if you get sick, and your insurance kicks you off, you might find out what that’s like.
"The average American household currently spends $5,000 per person on health care. About 30 million Americans currently have no insurance and tens of millions more are considered 'underinsured,' meaning they do not get adequate coverage. Hundreds of thousands of people go bankrupt every year in part because of their medical bills." [WaPo, Nov. 1]
In 2017, Republicans lowered the top corporate tax rate 14 percentage points from 35% to 21%, which is below average for most of our economic peers. They claimed as they always do that tax cuts would spur investment, encourage growth and spur "job creation". But that didn't happen. Instead, the GOP tax cuts left the government with massive deficits, and income inequality increased to its highest level since the end of the Reagan era. Nothing rebounded to benefit American workers. At the same time, healthcare costs continue to outpace inflation, drug costs put life-sustaining medications beyond the reach of many, and workers with employer-based insurance are picking up more of the costs. Republicans have continued their sabotage of the ACA, and proposed nothing to extend access. With so many Americans still unable to access care and costs relentlessly going up, it seems perverse to frame a story on Medicare for all around tax increases on corporations that go a huge windfall just two years ago.
6
If younger Americans are mostly approving Warren’s and Sanders’ plan to burden taxpayers with additional tax for Medicare for All, the young people appear to be too ignorant to figure out that there would not be a “net” benefit for them but only a tax increase since many of them in the 18 to 26 year age group do not have healthcare insurance costs sine many have coverage through their parents, but will see their taxes go up. Even the next age group of 27 to 35 wouldn’t have a net benefit since many are healthy and do not have much in out of pocket medical expenses.
2
They will scream Socialism! Fancy lying ads for more Trump! But we have become a country out of balance with regard to Capitalism. Add to the GOP soup evangelical/fundamentalist interests and we are losing it. Ask about impeachment and people say their interests are what Warren and Sanders are addressing: healthcare, education, to infrastructure. Obama gave very good speeches but he only talked about being bold, audacious. He was not. He came to the table with a compromised position. So here we have bold, Warren Sanders bold, Buttigieg bold light, or Biden as more Obama.In voting for Trump in 2016, people believed the demagogue who promised the moon and it will be "so great" we will be "tired of winning" while he delivered swamp. This is not Warren's dilemma, this is the people's choice if we have a fair election. If.
6
The end goals of the democratic party, of which I am a member, such as universal health care coverage and fair equity in income distribution are worthy goals to strive for in my opinion.
I fear sometimes though that in our zeal to achieve these goals we celebrate within our own bubble their worthiness, with too little real gut check on the realities of implementation within a divided partisan Congress and the perception of the entire voting population as a whole outside of our bubble.
There is a danger of becoming a political Sisyphus where we carry a too progressive load to the top of the mountain too quickly only to be turned back because you can't really get that passed through Congress or a detour through Executive order will have you tied up in the courts for years.
Or worse, enough of the population doesn't want to risk an attempted ascent on an extreme precipice that no one has climbed before and Trump wins re-election. Make no mistake about it, winning the 2020 election will take more then just our progressive democrats at the ballot box.
3
@Winston Towne
What you’re suggesting is that Medicare for all and the taxes required to pay for it will not be approved by Congress, but that most people are too ignorant to understand that; this suggests they believe any candidate can act like a dictator and do whatever he or she wants.
1
Warren's plan would be a quick way to kill the prosperity unleashed by the Trump administration. Her approach didn't work in Communist Russia, China, etc. It did result in an equal sharing of poverty by all - except the government elite. In plain English, Warren's plan advocates stealing from those that earn a living and giving it to those that don't. Nothing fair in that.
3
@Bayricker
The prosperity unleashed by this administration? By browbeating the Fed into cutting the federal funds rate? By more than doubling the annual deficit from 2016?
6
@Bayricker Do you really believe that the only people saddled with medical bills are people who have never worked? Your world view is just a tad narrow, Bay.
What is fair about a CEO earning 2124x that of the employees who do the hard labor to bring that kind of money to his bottom line? That looks a lot like exploitation. Sure, you can argue, "Yeah, but those grunts wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for that CEO." Maybe. But it's more likely that the CEO would lose his livelihood - and fast - without the grunts.
No one is arguing for the McDonald's worker to make the same wage as the CEO, but for the CEO to make 2124x that of his employees? That's nuts. And please don't tell me it's because he works 2124x as hard. Those McD's employees put in an honest day's work every day, and almost none of them can afford to pay medical bills. That's not right.
2
I'm mystified why there is rarely if ever any talk about how much health insurance will cost everyday Americans by keeping the status quo with deductibles, premiums and copays, instead of shifting to Medicare for All or a single payer system. Perhaps Sen Warren's campaign needs to outline that in plain, easily repeatable phrases that voters on the fence understand.
We also need to shift the conversation over to health insurance corporations and demand that they tell Americans by how much they plan to increase our deductibles, premiums and copays over the next 10 years.
Any American who thinks those costs will stay the same and that you're health insurance itself will not get worse is delusional.
7
Trump is gradually revealing himself to all, including to his supporters, as a lame self promoter who brags more that he accomplishes. Listen to people and his support is about people supporting their side in a divided country, not him. What this indicates is that he could be impeached and if he is going to hurt Republicans from keeping a majority in the Senate, he’s not going to have a second term.
The challenge for Democrats is beating the Republican candidate, and that may not be Trump.
3
Health care isn't free. A worst case scenario for Americans will be to end up with a perpetually deficient, underfunded and inefficient health care system like the Canadian model. I have relatives in the U.S. who are quite happy with the quality of their private health care. Their only worry is the risk of losing it because in general health insurance is an employment benefit. So, the U.S. should strive to solve the access and portability problems inherent in their current system. I think Obama was on the right track with the "public option" approach. But public monopoly isn't the only or the best solution and people shouldn't be lulled into believing in the fantasy that somebody else will pay for their health care.
https://worldabcnews.com/warren-pledges-no-middle-class-tax-increase-to-pay-for-her-health-plan/
2
And when the corporations restructure to avoid it and the billionaires leave, the middle class will eventually be tapped to fund this. I like my tax rates where they are right now ... not 60 percent like one of the socialist European countries.
5
@John
So you believe that a majority in both houses in Congress will vote for this, with a Senate currently controlled by Republicans? Or do you believe Warren can implement this by herself?
2
@John
When the billionaires leave, they won’t be able to rob us anymore.
2
One of the incentives I’ve had for working all my life for has been the promise of Medicare when I got old. Now to get my vote I’m being told that that was stupid and for nothing? Duped again by the American Dream. This leaves only waiting for the next generation iPhone to be released as life’s only remaining incentive for getting up each morning, I guess.
64
@John Doe Ah yes. The American Dream of healthcare as a privilege for me at some magical age decided by the government, not a right for everybody of any age. Me, me, me and what I want for myself (paid for by tax dollars, of course). We should all aspire to that.
68
@John Doe
If our only reason for getting up in the morning is getting healthcare so that we can keep getting up in the morning... then we have much bigger issues to deal with.
44
@John Doe
Well John, just yesterday my boss (female COO of a mid-size pharma research firm) was talking with me. We have worked together for more than a decade, I know her husband quite well due to his being in IT/technology as I am. She confided that at her age (60) she has no option regarding health care. Her husband works for a firm that does not offer coverage, so she, and their two children, are covered under her policy. Therefore she simply cannot retire until she reaches minimum Medicare age.
Just think for a minute.
If health coverage was not an issue, an employee would have a huge amount of freedom - where to work, when they can retire, children will be covered, etc. Plus employees would be empowered to seek higher wages because employers would not have the "Healthcare sword" to wield against them when seeking higher wages.
97
Her plan is ok if you are on an indexed defined benefit pension. But most people aren't. It is hard enough for unsophisticated investors to make sure they grow their retirement savings without having a bunch of additional friction in transaction fees.
I am a never Trumper. Have been since before 2016. But Warren is trying her hardest to turn me (and I suspect a lot of the middle class) into a never Warrener as well.
Please Democrats - give us a Centrist to vote for!!!
9
@Michael P
Are you looking for a President who can change healthcare and tax policy without the approval of Congress? Because her legislative proposals aren’t going anywhere with a Republican Senate.
2
@BK True - but the specter of that change will make her unelectable, which means 4 more years of Trump. Which would ruin the US (and possibly the world) as we have known it.
I retired in Canada for the health care (and more), so I view the US's health system as highly uncivilized, but let's vote for someone who will take pragmatic steps to phase in coverage for all. Medicare for all who want it, will be much less disruptive, and much easier for people to vote for than tossing the whole existing system out.
2
Rich parents or poor parents, insured parents or not,
let's give the next generation a fair shake.
Starting January 1, 2121, newborns are automatically enrolled in Medicare where they receive health care as a human right.
Forget co-pays and deductibles.
Keep it clean and simple.
Yes, taxes will go up by a couple dollars a year. But getting more kids into preventative care will save on treatment costs in the long run.
6
@Semi-retired
It sounds pretty sensible, but these boomers are getting even more selfish as they age.
1
The only part of Elizabeth Warren's plan I question is taxing annual increases in paper stock gains. With the fluctation of the stock market, a security I hold today that has gone up 10% in 2019 could drop 11% in value in 2020. How would that work? Would I get a tax credit if the security loses value?
Otherwise, I think Ms. Warren's redistribution of wealth is spot-on. Not only would corporation and billionaire taxes go up, but we would know in advance what the government would be doing with the revenue to benefit everyone. What a great plan!
3
The sad reality is that with every tax increase, the rich and powerful always have means to evade much of it and in the end it's the middle class who feel the pain.
2
Trying to undo the harm done by years of fiscal policy that favours the rich.
1
Wealth tax will be dead on arrival. Warren has bought Bernie's socialist agenda Warren's plan is no different than Reagan's unfunded mandate of care for all at the local ER. Others who can afford to pay or have insurance pay for the free ER services .
Instead she should talk about mandates and obligation of all to contribute to the funding pot for a single payer system. That is a Republican agenda that no one gets a free ride. GOP are hypocrites for abolishing individual mandates. Those without insurance who can afford it will have to pay their share, and it should not be the wealthy who pay for them.
Bigger issue is health care delivery and capping costs. No one talks about medical school costs, Outrageous hospital costs as well as doctor's salaries to pay off loans. Additionally , National Health Service doctors educated at public expense, and government run clinics for the poor which greatly reduce hospital costs and provide rural heath care services are a necessary part of reducing costs. The entire delivery system needs to be reformed.
Warren is stuck on Bernie's Medicare for All legislation to satisfy the liberal base of the party who want o punish the rich and corporations. Trump will eat her lunch.
6
Warren's plan may be good. I dunno, she's created a mashup of M4A and repeal of the McConnel/Trump tax bill. I think.
Could we just, for starters, add a public option to ObamaCare?
And, about the McConnel/Trump tax "reform"?
How about - keeping the low income tax cuts; restoring the high income tax rates, and giving the middle class a real tax cut [me and most of my middle income friends - Trumpos and liberals alike - paid more, not less Federal tax in 2018] ?
Sensible, passable ideas, but I can't take the credit; I got them from Amy Klobuchar.
4
The only reason these programs are dependent on a small sliver of wealthy people is that only a small sliver of the entire population has a $1 to spare. If incomes were more evenly distributed that wouldn’t be the case.
1
As usually there's nothing about what will happen when they run out of OPM. And they will.
4
Warren is not going to win; Medicare for all will never happen
5
Oh, something like it’ll happen. Just not with Trump president, and a Senate this gawdawful.
1
Elizabeth Warren is the Barry Goldwater of the 21st Century. Her extremism will not defeat a crippled Trump. It just will not. If you want to defeat Trump you need a far more moderate candidate.
8
It’s so easy to trigger people. No one should ever complain about Millennials again. When has any President passed every legislative proposal when the other party controls the Senate? What’s the likelihood of any health insurance reform legislation being implemented with a Republican Senate? “OMG, here comes socialism?”
2
There are so many implied meanings in this piece, I doubt I can cover them all in this format, but here's a start.
Warren is shifting funds to expand government programs. I see her shifting funds to expand the middle class; the point isn't the government programs.
Warren would fund her plans through taxing a "sliver" of the population, the super wealthy. But the fact is most of our nation's wealth is held by only 175,000 individuals. The point isn't the "sliver" of people, it's like robbing banks; you go where the money is. That just 2 cents on each dollar of wealth beyond $50 million will yield $3 trillion over 10 years tells us how unfair our past economic growth has been.
Then there's the argument taxing corporations/individuals (they are the same, no?) slows growth. But growth of what? Whatever's been growing these past decades has been starving off the middle class. If money were food, we would see 175,000 morbidly obese people and about a billion deathly thin people. Warren's only taking just 2 cents to give some sustenance to the poor.
As for taxes on the rich to fund Medicare for All, read her plan in elizabethwarren.com. In 28 pages, she educates us on the complexities of our medical care, identifies the inefficiencies and corruption that diverts funds from patient care and her solutions to fix these problems. Government may be the vehicle, but that's how Robin Hoods have to work in complex societies.
6
Finally someone has actually thought about what it would take to make a viable plan to cover everyone.
Kudos to Elizabeth Warren she has my vote and I am already on Medicare.
I do have a supplement insurance policy so I really do expect the Medicare for all plan will go that route also. Insurance companies will still have their place. It may also be that Medicare for all just covers basic items and that if you want a new heart you either pay for it are sign up for added at your expense insurance.
Remember also there are Medicare advantage plans that are run by insurance companies and I expect they will be broadened to be part of this plan.
This is complicated and well beyond Trump's ability to understand.
4
Warren Health will not happen for at least 10 years, probably more. I have a good private health plan. I don't want the waiting periods for certain procedures like friends of mine from Canada. I studied the NHS in Britain. All who can afford it have private health insurance to go along with the NHS.
A public option is something that could be passed. The elimination of private insurance will not.
10
Underpinning the new new (old) concepts should also be the challenge to how public monies derived from collective taxation are actually used. What if we didn't do Republican things like go into major deficits by providing tax cuts benefiting the richest of the rich resulting in no economic benefit (except to the richest of the rich) at all? What if public monies only supported the sustainment of a military industrial complex that delivered a military that was only larger than the top 7, as opposed to the top 10 largest military forces in the world combined? What if regulations on financial institutions and other transnational mega-corporate endeavors were maintained to prevent predatory capitalist practices that result in economic and market crashes requiring recapitalization by the public sector so business can go on? We've known trickle-down is a myth for a long time. We've known there is no such thing as a free market, ever, and that regulation is required to counter the effects of greed and imprudence emanating from corporate governance. What if the government actually delivered services for taxes paid, and didn't just find ways to have taxes ensure, and insure corporate profit margins? What if?
3
The current tax code isn't giving benefits to financially successful people; to the contrary, high income earners are already paying the major share of the income taxes, federal, state, and city. For California, New York, New Jersey, and some other jurisdictions residents, income taxes are now at Western European nosebleed levels. The assertion that successful people don't pay their "fair share" is poppycock.
Corporation tax rates are also comparable to Western Europe already, slightly lower on average, after years of being much higher. There are few golden geese to be plucked in America, short of outright confiscation such as wealth taxes. Western Europe has mostly abandoned wealth taxes for multiple good reasons.
Western Europe funds its vast social welfare machines on the backs of the middle class with VAT (comparable to a national sales tax), very high employment taxes, ultra-high gasoline taxes, and such which dramatically cut the living standards of the middle classes.
I doubt that most Americans will want to emulate this model, once voters understand all the implications.
10
Oh, please. Stop playing the boo-hoo for John Galt card; we all know the diff between a statutory and an effective tax rate system in which many large corporations pay zip.
1
@Robert
Many many corporations pay close to the statutory rate, including my employer. And, when state corporate income taxes are included, often the income tax burden is higher than Western Europe.
One other important fact I neglected to mention earlier, the tax brackets for Western Europeans are set at much lower levels, i.e. the highest rates are applied at moderate incomes there. This is another huge burden on middle class citizens; in effect someone earning an above average income is apparently considered rich, and taxed accordingly.
Said the left-leaning writer, I.F. Stone, during the communist hysteria of the 1950's: "Ideology is the triumph of cherished belief over observable fact."
I think this should be an 80/20 plan like most medicare. The additional 20 can be covered by supplemental insurance or out of pocket costs. However, by doing this medicare can begin aggressively fighting pharmaceutical and hospital pricing. If all of this is done it should only cost taxpayers a few trillion
This is not a redistribution of wealth. It’s not a crank social experiment. Historically, corporations and rich have paid higher taxes, but Reaganonomics reversed that.
Individuals pay a much larger share of overall taxes now than corporations. Corporate tax take has been dropping for decades. Lower rates, incentives and tax havens have reduced corporate rates to historical lows.
Equity needs to be restored.
4
Raising taxes after four decades of free market and anti-public institutions malarkey it s not a political message that wins votes. If it’s needed, then it requires a huge effort to convince the electorate that it’s justified. The leading Democratic candidates need to be realistic with their messages. That means recognizing what is not going to promote their political advancements.
2
If trump and Republicon actors/politicians can give away billions in potential tax revenue via that gluttonous tax break law while simultaneously giving 60 Billion of our tax dollars away to big agribusiness farms last year, then we, the people, have every right to insist on affordable healthcare. Fully support Elizabeth Warren 100%. Hope the United States of America doesn't collapse before 2020. The Senate Moscow Mitch is refusing to protect our elections, and not one Republicon is standing up for our people and our country!
2
Medicare for all obscures the scope of changes to be made from the existing system to a single payer, universal system. Enrolling all into Medicare and ending private insurance is the image. Simple. But that cannot work. It represents a very big and complicated process which has never been planned as a simple slam dunk. That’s what everyone who is not promoting it see and point out.
3
Tax anybody but me, please.
84
@RP
That is what this plan does so you should be happy.
11
@RP paying taxes is patriotic. we're all in this together...
11
@Areader
Socialism has never defeated Fascism, for within peoples quests for governments largesse, there dwells folks not wanting to share or give up what they feel is theirs - Advantage Trump
7
After paying 40k a year for my family’s medical insurance, plus co-pays, it’s been an astounding and eye opening delight to be on Medicare. The administration works perfectly, and all my nyc doctors and hospitals accept it. Limping along with our mess of systems and the shame of millions who have zero coverage will only enrich the insurance companies further. They provide no services that Medicare can’t cover. Will we have to tweak details of coverage? Yes. We we have to wait longer for non-urgent appointments? Sure. Will we be proud to be humane and to have finally put caring for our citizens above profit? Definitely. Don’t be afraid of change. Be afraid of the continued greed and the massive suffering of those without care.
3
Corporations should pay taxes in all countries more because they cost all of us more with so called externalities from civil society support for them, to degradation of the biosphere in myriad ways, to fomenting social and world disruption as they pursue money before everything all. They are necessary where huge amounts of capital are required to do what they are created to do but they often destroy the free market advantages because they tend to control markets. So taxing them should reflect all of the ways they affect the world.
Investors offer capital which facilitates industrial expansion and trade. But they don’t contribute anything that justifies under taxing them. They gain from new wealth but they create none of it. The job creator label for the rich is malarkey. They make money from the prices they get for their money, that’s all. People make and sell things that others want and can buy. That is where wealth is created. Yet, the insistence of Republicans politicians is that investors do all of it and all others are takers and social parasites. Investors should pay the same taxes as do all others, including upon their capital gains.
But let us be honest, health care funding is a never ending need but the wealth of the corporations and wealthy is not. Everyone will have to contribute to health care funding or it will not be sustainable.
2
I'd gladly pay an extra $100 in taxes to get $200 off my medical bills
It seems to me that these articles are concentrating on the costs and conveniently leaving out the benefits to the American people
Medicare as it exists today costs money and people pay taxes to fund it - but nobody is campaigning to abolish it, because voters understand the benefits
These articles are trying to trick people into thinking that there will be no benefit to them, which is very misleading
4
"Perhaps the biggest unknown is how the capitalist American economy would function with levels of taxation and spending more comparable to the social democracies of Scandinavia."
Please. Maybe you can get a hint of how it would function by looking at the 90% tax rates on the highest earners during the Eisenhower administration, and somewhat lower, but still high taxes on the highest earners for a long time after that.
2
Warren locks herself into definitive positions. She is meticulous in laying out her views so that her agenda is well-defined. Thereby she distances herself from the others. When she speaks out, it isn't off the cuff. And if she is asked to follow up she goes into greater detail about well thought out programs.
My 'oh my god' moment during the Clinton-Trump debates came when the Donald made fun of Hillary for working too hard on her campaig. And true to his word, Trump is the off the cuff President. So Warren and Trump are night and day in their approach to governing. And I vote prepared over unprepared every time.
Still, there is a big concern. Virtually everyone who wins the primaries moves to the center during the general election. And it works Romney won the first debate over Obama mostly because he made centrist arguments that he had never made before. Obama seemed lost. But then he too moved to the center and Romney was history.
If she wins the primaries, Warren is pretty much locked in by all her position papers. If she sees the need to move to the center, she'll have to go back on much of what she has written. Moving to the center works. It has repeatedly been effective. And like virtually all the candidates before her, Warren is likely to go there. Can she do it credibly? Probably so. But her weighty position papers do not help. She is vulnerable to a charge that she speaks out of both sides of her mouth. And Trump is sure to go there.
2
I’m afraid Elizabeth Warren is finished. This massive industry overhaul will never gain traction and I’ve lost faith in her. 3/4 of Americans like their insurance and healthcare. Another four years of Trump I’m afraid.
197
@Jb How many people are you talking about? And what percentage of Americans even have health insurance coverage? What about Medicaid? What does that cost us?
32
@Jb
Went to doc couple weeks ago - got a prescription for Valganciclovir which stops the pressure in my head that has been going on from childhood (I’m 56 years old with this neurological & biological condition). For 200 pills the cost to me was $1900.00
47
@Jb
this plan will not hurt the insurance industry as they will still be involved in running a good part of it either by the supplemental insurance part or the running of Medicare advantage plans.
7
Unfortunately, the "public option" includes only health insurance, but not health care itself. We need to consider a public option for our medical care - for many of our hospitals and doctors - as is common in many developed nations, which have better health care outcomes for much less spent. Nationalized medicine may sound scary in America, but its results are impressive for much of Europe. In truth, this medical care "public option" often does not involve national or federally-run facilities, but rather state and municipal hospitals and payrolls (in a similar manner to our higher education system). City and provincial hospitals in Europe can very efficient and human-scaled. Our fifth child required an emergency C-section (instead of home birth) at Vienna General Hospital (AKH).... incredible care at zero cost. I wish all Americans could get uncomplicated, professional medical care without even a thought of what it would translate to in terms of currency.
1
@carl bumba. There is no such thing as zero cost. We have something you describe in the US, it's called the VA. No thanks.
2
@Jonathan
The VA is a huge federally-run program of the Pentagon. No, this is not what I described. Public city hospitals have very different economics. I though it was clear that the "zero cost" was to the patient and not that it was somehow valueless.
I support these proposals 100%. Too much money has been held back from the economy by the super wealthy for too many years while too many Americans struggle to just get by.
Although men like Trump like to boast that they made their fortunes on their own, most of their businesses and investments have benefited from the education, infrastructure, police and fire protection, and other public services that we all have paid for over the years -- not to mention the massive tax cuts written for their benefit. Million dollar "loans" and inheritances haven't hurt their prospects either.
It's time that those who have benefited to excess from the labor and taxes of the rest of us, chip back in to give others a shot at success. Or even a shot at a healthy, productive life.
Rather than campaigning to maintain the status quo, which got us in the mess we are in now, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are trying to put us back on the right track. It's more than time.
280
@avrds The "rich" can and will leave this country. The middle class will not stand by and watch the 401K accounts that they have spent the last 30 - 40 years accumulating evaporate in to thin air while taxes are exponentially increased on EVERYONE to pay for these massively underestimated proposals. The middle class will leave too. The only people that will remain are the poor. Then, what will be the next step?
19
@avrds The roads, police and fire brigade you speak of are mostly paid for by taxes on the wealthy. Our tax system is already progressive. The rich are under no obligation to invest in the economy unless you give them a good reason to. Wealth after taxes is yours to do with as you please. What Warren will do is try and force people who work and live responsibly to pay for those who don’t. It is destructive and unfair.
19
Thank you. I agree fully.
10
Elizabeth Warren, please go back home and take your ego and Medicare for all with you. Maybe someday this may become a reality BUT this is a losing issue in 2020. Most of the Republicans and independents you will need to defeat 'him' will abandon you if you stick to this. Our #1 priority has to be winning and winning only. We can wait for Medicare for All but NOT risk four years.
8
What is this, a Rupert Murdoch newspaper? The title of this article could have just as easily been, "Warren Health Plan Tightens Democrats' Embrace of Lowering Overall Costs".
Doing Trump's work for him, again, I see. Nice.
2
Again, we will not win in 2020, if Hillary could not do it Biden has NO chance. Sorry elitist Democrats you had better unleash those 'deplorable other 47%r,' to our side: to the obvious democratic front runners Bernie and or Warren or BUST. Give the u. S. a fighting chance and TAKE the money out of politics and the U. S. of A's news' RICH owners, Fair and balanced?... not even you NYT!!?.. we can NOT afford to lose this time.
3
It's this kind of headline that so irritates me. Many people don't read past the headlines and it makes it sound as though everyone's taxes are going to be raised but that just isn't so. In Warren's plan it is the super wealthy whose taxes would be raised. Who could be against that? That's what the headline should say. Once again the media will be complicit in getting Trump elected.
357
@KTB I don't believe that it will be just the "rich".
25
@KTB - Um... anyone who owns a business that employs 50 or more people is not "super-wealthy." What this will do is incentivize businesses to switch to contracting and part-time workers. Plus, it will never pass Congress.
27
@Lyn Robins Read her plan. It's just the super rich.
22
The moment the “serious” candidate became unserious. This proposal is fantasy.
22
@Chris
Fantasy was believing that if we spend trillions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq we could control other cultures’ political and religious beliefs.
Reality is using the instrument of government to redistribute wealth from the top 10% downward.
Reality is building national safety net programs like Medicaid, SNAP, WIC and Headstart— all of which have been proven to save taxpayers money over time.
Reality was when we built social security and Medicare.
Reality is accepting the fact that if other developed nations can have successful national healthcare programs we can too.
Reality is that we must change this fact in order to compete in the global marketplace: when Airbus bids to sell planes their employee healthcare costs are socialized; meanwhile when Boeing makes its offer all those costs are born within its production costs.
22
Let's get real.
The wealthy are wealthy, some of them obscenely so. A well conceived wealth tax would be a good idea. But the money it would raise would just be a drop in the ocean when it comes to funding Sen. Warren's elaborate and extraordinarily expensive proposals. The bulk of the money would have to come from greatly increased taxation of the middle class.
Large business tax increases are a non-starter as well. Especially when coupled with the greatly increased regulatory burden Sen. Warren also proposes, large business tax increases will likely drive the country into a major depression; there's a very good chance the nation will go down the path recently taken by Venezuela, not too long ago a very rich country, and now a desperate and failed nation.
If Sen. Warren wins the Democratic nomination, Trump will likely win reelection. If Sen. Warren wins the election, the likely result will be economic catastrophe and an overall disaster for this nation.
15
@Al
Your math is off. The 2017 Trump tax cut saves corporations and the wealthy $1.5 trillion per year in taxes. Warren’s plan would cost approximately $2 trillion per year. Hence rolling back that tax cut would hardly be a drop in the bucket.
(It is my personal view that $1.5 trillion in revenue should go to stop deficit spending, pay down the national debt, and infrastructure before a national healthcare plan, but that’s neither here nor there....)
1
@Alex
You actually believe a President can implement an agenda, or at least new law, without any action by Congress? It’s scary how many people think like this.
2
I believe business and investment taxes should be molded to encourage investment in the US' future. In the 50s and 60s, the US position as an export surplus mfg country was secure - its a different world today, and the profit margins from mfg are much smaller.
What the real concern should be is how the post 1980 forever twin deficit has resulted in ever more erratic boom bust cycles that have devastated US mfg by making riding the boom waves via financial windfall far more rewarding than investment in mfg.
2017 % GDP
| Fin & Ins | Mfg
DEU | 4.0 | 22.8
JP | 4.2 | 20.4
US | 7.6 | 11.6
GB | 7.1 | 10.0
[ OECD Data, Value added by activity ]
EW's side that aims to bolster US capitalism through anti-monopoly and anti-lobby legislation to create a level playing field could do much to power the economy.
On the other hand, taxing businesses blindly would have an opposite effect.
This swerve to the left is plain stupid and will guarantee another four years of Trump.
6
The Democrats are embarked on an inept, losing 2020 campaign. Their policy proposals call for radically reordering the economy. Did no one stop to ask about the consequences, like alienating the two biggest sectors of the existing one? The largest sector, energy, the Dems give us the Green New Deal. The second largest sector, healthcare, the Dems give us Medicare for All, along with a boatload of new taxes. Mix these powerful forces with low information voters, Russian bots, Fox News, Facebook, the Bible Belt, and gun “enthusiasts,” and you’ve given Trump his path to a second term.
Excuse me for thinking that the Democrats are about to do the unthinkable - take on a horrible situation, and make it worse.
12
“Capital drives the U.S. economy,” she said. “Investment increases productivity, it creates jobs, it raises living standards and wages. Slowing or handicapping investment would negatively affect everyone in the United States.”
It would have been nice if throughout if this article would have cited any research on the validity of this oft cited economic concept, particularly insofar as it suggests higher taxes necessarily suppress growth.
1
Looking at this logically, Universal health care means multiple things. First of all everyone's taxes would go up, but the trade off is you would not pay insurance premiums any longer. That means the CEO's and highly compensated executives get figured out of the equation, it means shareholders get figured out of the equation, as well as the needs to make a profit, therefore whatever additional tax you pay should be much less than your current premiums. As everyone is included it means the pool is wider, lowering liability as all of the younger folks who were not signing up for Obamacare are now included. That should further reduce the number.
The downside is job loss for all of the folks who work for the insurance companies and while some would go to work for the government handling the new program, hundreds of thousands would be jobless. While some would remain to handle special private insurance policies, that would dwarf the employee pool. Do we have enough jobs at their current pay levels to cover that loss? Moving in that direction is a potential blessing, but also a curse.
1
I don't understand why taxes shouldn't be raised for the middle class to compensate for the decrease in premiums and elimination of copays.
This seems to me to be too much of a gift to the middle class.
3
How can such a long article not even mention the two central characteristics of the US Health system: (1) it is the most expensive of the World and (2) US is the only rich country of the World does not provide health to all its citizens.
5
I never thought it was possible that the Democratic nominee would be more dangerous than Trump. But I have gone from "Never Trump" to, "Oops, looks like Trump is the safe choice."
Trump is safer than socialism. Having lived in Sweden, I can safely say that.
10
Travel to any country in the democratic world, outside of the USA, and you will find that most people are willing and able to pay taxes for the programs they want, such as universal medical insurance, universal daycare, parental leave etc. That the USA is so stubbornly anti-tax explains a lot of what ails it as a culture.
Somehow the US has to pull out of the death spiral it is in, and start investing in its citizens and future.
7
For me this change is too much. I like Pete’s plan of slower change and not forcing everyone off their healthcare. Some people actually have good coverage. I am self employed and would love a better plan. Currently have bronze plan, high deductible. Take advantage of HSA
8
A progressive tax is better than the “anti-Robin Hood” approach of Trump: steal from the poor to give to the rich.
Trump’s tax cuts which benefit mostly the uber wealthy are accompanied by proposed cuts to social programs to benefit the less fortunate.
6
@Daniel Romm
Not only are your spot on, but somehow most people have missed that Trump’s great tax swindle not only lowered taxes on the Uber-wealthy, but also raised the bottom bracket from 10% to 12% at the same time as eliminating the personal exemptions. Sure, this is mediated by a doubling of the standard deduction for those married (screwing the single parent households) and increasing the child tax credit, but the basic structure will further steal from the poor over time.
4
"She would also tax profits from investments that increase in value on an annual basis — like shares in Google or Apple — not just when the assets are sold."
Do people realize that this will be a tax the middle class has to pay? Do you have any investments? You would have to pay this ridiculous tax.
Medicare for All should be paid for in a straightforward manner - with medicare taxes if this is what people want. It could be sold by noting that the medicare taxes would replace current health insurance premiums.
14
@Dave and again there will be no accounting for the inflation that has taken place since the shares were acquired....and those who have retirement from pension funds rather than 401k won't pay a penny toward the care of the poor and those with genetic conditions. So much for fair share.
1
The party of the robber barons, part 2, has been going on since the Reagan presidency. It's time for the fat cats to pay to cleanup the debris left from so much celebration.
By cleanup, I mean dollars for social programs that invest in people.
4
As bad as Trump is - I am not going to support the Democrats if they foist Warren on Bernie on America. I cannot begin to tell you how frustrating it is to have an incompetent criminal leading the GOP and have to choose between that national security threat and a Warren or a Sanders. As fatigued as I am by Trump, the only thing worse than him would be revolutionary socialism which would be an absolute disaster and has no chance of ever becoming the law of the land so Warren and Sanders represent more dysfunction in DC. I need a sane moderate Democrat who can work with Republican to get things done where possible. Warren and Sanders are polarizing so after Trump, not what I want or what America needs. The Trump tax cuts saved me $8000.00 per year and I am not a fan of giving it all back when Medicare MAPD and PDP plans are nothing but corporate welfare for Anthem, CVS Health, Walgreens, Humana, UnitedHealthcare and Cigna. Who does Warren think she is fooling - Medicare for All in a country with rampant diabesity, gun violence and addiction just sounds like government insolvency and the end of the American dream to me.
23
« I need a sane democrat who can get things done working with Republicans »
No you don’t. And it does not matter which democrat the Republicans will vilify whoever is elected. Refresh your memory and remember the Obama and Clinton era. The pre-Clinton era of bipartisanship is mostly gone. Anyone who wants to achieve anything of substance will have to bet all their political capital and sheer energy into achieving something.
The only one I see with that skillset is Elizabeth Warren.
4
@American Akita Team
I honestly cannot fathom how anyone could think the election of either Bernie or Warren would bring about socialism. Neither one has a magic wand - honest! Most likely it would change next to nothing, except to put competent people in charge of the various departments of the executive branch of the federal government, and reassure our traditional allies abroad that we were reliable again. I would rather support a more moderate candidate, but if Warren or Bernie wins the nomination either would have my vote in the general election.
2
@American Akita Team
There are so many ways your comment makes no sense whatsoever.
For example, we had a "sane moderate Democrat", Obama, who kept trying to work the GOP, yet the GOP blocked everything he tried to do.
Warren proposes eliminating parasites like Anthem, Humana, UnitedHealthcare etc, not further enriching them, as the status quo will do.
1
Why voters, or at least media, is focused on candidates' detailed plans about anything is beyond rational comprehension. The more detailed the plan, the less likely it will ever come to pass. Come on. folks! You know very well that Medicare For All in any form cannot pass both houses of congress unless and until liberal Democrats are in the majority in both houses. What are the chances of that happening in the next 4 or 8 years?
Pretty much zilch. So let's concentrate on ridding America of the Trump Administration and its incredible corruption, and replacing it with an administration of dignity, empathy, and morality. Cleaning up Trump's mess will be a full time job. I'm very much afraid that heaven will have to wait.
4
Where exactly did $7 Trillion came from to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Iraq charges were cooked up, Afghanistan could have been handled other than the cowboy mentality of "either you are with us or against us", "dead or alive", "bring them on". If Americans could have given the Taliban evidence of Osama's crime they would have handed him over.
You don't think so .... because you don't understand the culture. Parents give up their kids who have committed crime for punishment.
The future $7 Trillion should be spent on another war. War on sky rocketing healthcare, poverty and social injustices inflicted on minority.
America needs to stop meddling in other countries business.
If US had not evicted, insulted Osama binLadin out of Somalia, he would have been still busy there fighting local war lords and faded away. $2 million / year worth of supplying arms to his rivals would have done the trick.
So Dr. Warren is correct, US can afford Medicare for all without raising taxes.
Opinion from 7,396 miles away.
4
Good article, terrible headline that will be used by the right to continue to brand Dems “Tax and spend” liberals — when in fact her plan does not raise taxes on the vast majority of people and businesses, and when in fact it’s the GOP that’s been irresponsibly spending and spending.
Alternate headline: “With Warren plan, Democrats embrace idea of heavily taxing billionaires and corporations.” That’s accurate, and PS, it’s what the majority of people in this country favor.
5
Tax the billionaires...eliminate tax on social security for the middle class.
5
Medicare for All, please!!!! I just paid over $15,000 directly to my health insurance (non)provider last year for nothing. I’d gladly pay a fraction of that in taxes instead!!!
4
The forces that continue to support Trump, ignorant of the critical role of checks and balances though they might be, are not going away. History is clear that when inequality reaches an extreme, some form of authoritarianism follows -- as it now has! Would you rather tax the wealthy, causing them minimal harm, or give in to a (continued) future of corrupt oligarchy?
1
@Arthur Silverman
People here don’t care. They’re financially comfortable and not willing to look ahead. People can bash Warren and Sanders, but inequality will increase and the divide will continue after a Trump is gone.
1
Make America Socialist Again. Seriously.
FDR introduced socialism. During the 50s, America was at its greatest. The whole time, the GOP was fighting for the rich. "Socialism" was their dog-whistle. The GOP said socialism means what the USSR had.
To this day, unenlightened Americans bark and bite when that dog-whistle sounds. Enlightened Americans realize socialism is what made America great.
This realization is at the heart of Elizabeth Warren's campaign: Make America Socialist Again. We're afraid of the word "socialist." We need to re-establish socialism's real meaning. Fear of "socialism" has led us to where we are. People need to see socialism leads us to where we want to be.
3
Oh no! Taxing the rich would destroy America as we know it! We tried that once before during the Eisenhower years when the top tax rate was--gasp!--91%. And we all know how that turned out.
3
@Bonnie Allen
Don’t let anyone tell you that no one paid that highest marginal rate then. No one can make that claim unless they worked at the IRS then and had access to the data.
1
Elizabeth Warren, who I once supported enthusiastically, is close to losing it. Her proposals are a surefire way to re-elect trump. trump can easily be defeated, probably by a landslide if the Democrats will stick to presenting the endless evils of trump/republican policies. Sure, attack trump's tax policy. It is just another evil. But for the time being, do not propose any new, expensive programs.
6
@Pete Kantor
So is she losing your support because you disagree with the healthcare proposal or because you believe other people won’t like it and will vote for Trump as a result?
What do you think the likelihood is of any healthcare legislation passing with a Republican Senate?
1
Let's face it: Warren's numbers are a fantasy, meant to get her few critics (and Bernie) off her back. It will silence the folks in the eastern media--this story in The New New York Times--home of "contextualization" in its news report--is but one example. It is not until deep in the story that it is acknowledged that there might be a teensy number of "unanswered questions." Good try. But when Trump takes to the megaphone, the sounds about "total costs" will be drowned out by "HIGHER TAXES!" Case closed.
7
The Warren candidacy has drawn its line in the sand-- Medicare For ALL-- and it will cost the Democrats the 2020 election. Yes, excellent, affordable healthcare is a RIGHT that should be extended to all citizens. Yes, the current healthcare system is woefully in need of repair. However, fixing healthcare will be a monumental task that requires a lot of painful measures and bi-partisan support. Trump continues to have almost 90% approval rating among GOP, and the Democrats need every single vote to overcome the gerrymandering, cheating, misinformation, and poor civics education that exists amongst the electorate. Liberals want everything NOW and crucify anyone who raises serious concerns with their world view. Liberals continue to miss the big picture: Get elected FIRST, then enact change. Control Congress and the Whitehouse FIRST, then pass thoughtful, long-acting, progressive agendas. Moderate Democrats have it right: improve what we have now, help as many people as we can now, and set the wheels in motion for a more permanent solution. People will attack this view, and say how stupid and ridiculous moderation and long-term goals are, but the reality is that massive changes to the insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry, medical education, student debt, tort reform, healthcare infrastructure, etc., CANNOT be achieved with one swish of a presidential pen. Independent and moderate voters will NOT support Warren's wishful proposal and simplistic plan for funding.
4
Raising taxes is seriously the only arrow in a Socialists quiver.
How about let's end corporate welfare, personhood, sweetheart land deals, and tailored tax breaks. Pass campaign finance reform and institute term limits.
The real revolution is about restricting out of control government/corporate incest.
3
Elizabeth ' Pocahontas ' Warren is flailing and failing and falling into the same Donald Trump,Sr. bloviating buffoonery tweeting caricature nicknames and slurs mass media partisan political tar trap that befell 'Crooked Hillary Clinton' , ' Lying Ted Cruz', 'Low Energy Jeb Bush' and ' Little Marco Rubio'.
' Medicare for all' is slogan. It is not a policy.
The reality of employer provided healthcare for most and Obamacare for a lot and Medicaid for plenty is ignored. Along with the fact that access to quality affordable healthcare is seen as a privilege in America. Unlike other civilized nations.
The idea of taxing as a policy is abhorrent to those who pay more. But for the fact that they can hire accountants and lawyers to exploit the loopholes they paid their lobbyists to carve from legislative, executive and judicial complicity and conspiracy.
1
No one’s ignoring the current healthcare so-called system. Warren seeks to revamp it with something simpler and cheaper, giving Americans peace of mind that their doctor isn’t tied to their job.
1
@James K. Lowden
Obamacare was the conservative Republican Party free market capitalist alternative to the failed Hillary Clinton healthcare 'reform'.
Which is why it lacks a robust public option and little or no meaningful controls on the costs and prices of drugs, devices, treatments and hospitalizations for those who are covered.
While 30 million Americans still lack healthcare.
Professor Warren is another novice who has never held a private nor public executive position. Harvard is not reality. Politicians are not humanitarians.
1
Once the central planners realized they could just buy votes by giving you free stuff that others would pay for, you lost your democracy and your liberty.
5
I prefer Democracy where Government guarantees me affordable healthcare to Democracy where I shackled to my employer who choose for me what kind of insurance I have and what kind of doctors I can see.
The Warren-Sanders plan to soak the rich will be a fund raising bonanza for Trump. In this age of Citizens United, Russian bots and fake news their faith in "the people" is touching !!! Cute but scary. The same manufacturers of news who are driving Biden's poll numbers down are raising those of Sanders and Warren. Nothing like a good fight among "socialists." And all these plans for social justice on top of the trillion dollar debt we will see in 2020. How does it happen that every Republican president since Reagan has dialed up the debt? The answer is already on the lips of Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham who are testing the political waters in hushed mumblings: "We are never going to get control over the deficit until we address entitlements." Yeah !! They think long term.
This endless repetition of the religious creed
that tax cuts are the best fuel for economic growth and rising wages ...
Capital drives the U.S. economy ... Investment increases productivity, it creates jobs, it raises living standards and wages. Slowing or handicapping investment would negatively affect everyone in the United States.
is so absurd (and galling) to read unchallenged whenever it is invoked as the fundamentalist religious principle we should all be forced to live by, despite all the available evidence that it is a deeply flawed principle.
Why is it that kaedling was not challenged as a follow up to her empty mantra that in applying this faith based economics blindly has created a deeply unequal society with far too many struggling daily just to get by.
Why is she not asked to defend her blind faith by asking her just these three reasonably simple questions:
Where is all that capital investment in desperately needed infrastructure? Why must we wait for hopelessly divided
government to get the ball rolling?
What are we to do with far too many poorly educated youth whose diminished adult lives will be a social charge paid for by all of us.
Why are we continuing to allow capital to flow freely into carbon based energy extraction industries without also
imposing a charge to pay for the damages caused upon
combustion?
And if she doesn't like that or doesn't answer with a coherent, evidence based reply, why
not just delete her useless quote?
Reality: just have the government pay for catastrophic insurance for everyone and let the hospitals take care of the poor with clinics QED
$20 Trillion and it will not cost you a cent. Does anyone actually believe this?
9
The numbers as you report it is vastly misleading. The increase is not 20T. It is 20T minus what employers and citizens already pay in insurance premiums. The net increase is far less.
For that matter, not enough reporting on « medicate for those who want it »: this will cost a lot more than Medicare for all: everyone covered but none of the efficiencies. Biden and Buttigieg should quit hedging and come clean
1
I am really tired of the NY Times writing articles as if American history didn't exist and the only history is what Republicans decide it is.
This is simply Warren and Sanders returning to the values of the 1950s, which the right wing only cite when it comes to the racism and supposed "family values" of the 1950s and convince reporters at the NY Times to experience amnesia about the fact that tax rates on the rich were significantly higher than anything Bernie and Warren are suggesting.
4
Once upon a time before the tax cuts for the wealthy began under Ronald Reagan in 1980 the top tax rate was 70 percent. Since Reagan and the era of Republican tax cuts, we have witnessed wage stagnation, rising income inequality, and the creation of a huge "billionaire class" that is on the verge of transforming our democracy into an oligarchy through unlimited campaign donations. As with the original Medicare legislation, Medicare for All serves the dual purpose in providing universal health care while reducing income inequality. In particular, it will eliminate many falling into poverty due to health care costs or inability to pay for health care that prevents employment. After Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare the over 65 population went from having the highest poverty rate to the lowest. Achieving these goals with one bold policy is essential to limiting the power of money in politics, lowering the poverty rate, reducing income inequality, and creating a d maintaining a strong and healthy workforce. The American people voted for change in 2016 and didn't get it. Now they have a second chance with Medicare for All.
3
I'm a liberal Democrat, but this plan is taxing just about everything imaginable. If we are going to pay taxes every which way, I want it to go to debt reduction, not Warren's very theoretical health plan. She will lose to Trump, guaranteed. PLEASE will the Dem party wake up!
5
Why should we pay the debt that were acquired because the rich didn't pay enough? Why should we sacrifice the affordable healthcare for greed of few?
When Bill Gates sells 10% of his interest in Microsoft to pay the Warren Tax in second year of this plan and the stock drops does Bill Gates get a refund or credit on the Value he paid last. Prior to the Warren Tax only gains and income were taxed and offset by loss. Do people have to pay capital gains or get capital loss when sell their property to pay the wealth tax. And what about that Pesky Constitution, the one that demands Democrats impeach Trump, it specifically prohibits the Federal Government from Taxing wealth.
6
We spend $3.5 Trillion a year on healthcare.
That is about $11,000 per person and 17% of GDP.
And it is about twice as much as the rest of the first world countries.
Why don't we have universal health care?
We are already spending the money. The money is there.
Instead, we have parts of the US with infant mortality rates of a second world country.
6
An increase of taxes on business will be passed on to the consumer which will still be a tax on the middle class and will inhibit spending due to price increases which could lead to less tax revenue from business...
4
@Randy L.
How is the US paying for medical care today?
The money we pay to private insurance would instead go to Medicare for All.
It is the same money. The money is there.
3
Why is this such a dramatic big deal for America to adopt a plan other industrialized nations call national health care?
Is it because we in America have a bad habit of tailoring everything that's done in this country by first protecting big business interests rather than those of the people who pay taxes?
Yes, and look what this sort of behavior has gotten us: absurd medical and pharmaceutical costs that have become so ridiculous that NPR has a regularly featured segment about people who've received medical services and been presented with nightmarish bills--the last program I heard was concerning a woman who was in the hospital after suffering a serious mental episode--her bill was over $21,000 following a four days' stay. And this is a sane medical system?
And then there are hassles with insurance companies' array of "networks," the co-pays, various premiums, "prior authorizations" needed for some treatments and/or drugs; the "previous condition" restrictions--all in favor of the insurance companies' bottom line, not the patients' needs.
Are we afraid of change, is that it?
A negative label of "socialized medicine" is inaccurate: is it a "socialized or leftist" EPA we have?; "socialized transportation" Or "socialized education" Or "socialized FEMA"?
Wake up America--we're way behind in this area. Add up what being privately insured costs you per year (not even factoring in the hassles) chances are that the increase in your tax bill would be to your advantage.
4
I am concerned with where the liberal left wing of the Democratic Party is heading including Warren and Sanders. Sanders is not even a Democrat and Warren has no idea about how to run a government. This kind of thinking will not get rid of Donald Trump. Sadly, as a registered Democrat of many years, I don't see a Democratic candidate who will beat Trump.The Democrats need and adult in the room just as badly as Trump.
8
@A Patriot - If the people who don't like Trump come out and vote, then it is likely that Trump will lose to whatever Dem is chosen perhaps as badly as Barry Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
Get off your read-end and vote!
Warren’s plan will likely raise no revenue.
Congress and a President Warren will need to pass legislation for the taxes before they become law. While the tax plans are in their legislative phase, bankers, billionaires, wealthy investors, etc will evaluate how the proposed plans will impact their incomes. So far, the impact of the tax plans will be rather drastic, since an economist estimates that the plan would effectively tax investment income 100%.
While the plans are making their way through Congress, wealthy people, bankers, billionaires, wealthy investors would move their wealth to overseas accounts and their stocks to overseas stock markets. They will take actions to appear less wealthy on paper and avoid the taxes, by redistributing where they put their money. They will try their best to reduce the taxes they need to pay in anticipation of the tax laws.
Investment capital and money will flow from the US to foreign countries. The value of the US stock market would decrease, and the value of foreign stock markets would increase. US businesses and corporations traded on the stock market would lose sources of income for investment. The profits of the businesses and corporations would decrease. To prevent losses, businesses will cut jobs, shut down, move overseas when possible, or cut wages and benefits.
Warren’s tax plan is the plan for America’s economic destruction. The plan would result in a recession and raise no new revenue for US government.
4
Something is not right with Warren’s projected MFA cost of $52 TRILLION over 10 years. 2016 U.S. healthcare annual spending PER CAPITA was $9,892; the UK 4,192; Canada 4,753. Using a round number of 300M people, we are already spending $3 Trillion per year. Cut that in half if our healthcare system was as efficient as that in the UK or Canada, & still EVERY ONE of our 300M could have health coverage, and we would have $1.5 Trillion per year left over. Instead, MFA will cost about 73% more than current spending, $5.2T vs. $3.0T per year? And this with savings from administrative consolidation, eliminating corporate profit, and the economies achieved through negotiated prices.
I am for MFA, but these cost projections leave me dumbfounded. Warren explained how she would pay for MFA and now must explain why it will cost so much more. It doesn’t look like we have learned much from the other developed nations with national plans.
1
I can't read coverage on Warren without recalling the skepticism and fear-mongering that came through in this paper's coverage, in 2016, of Bernie Sanders' campaign. Trickle down economics has become a religious doctrine in this country, but a "healthy economy" that leaves everyone struggling is finally, finally getting some pushback. Let it! Trickle-down economics and democratic centrists gave us Trump. And the fact that people's jobs are also their source of health care (if they're lucky) is holding Americans hostage.
4
Can we concentrate on saving Obamacare first? The tax cuts for the rich do need to be reversed but we also need so many other programs. This plan will probably make me cross Warren off my list for my state primary. Of course, in the general, I will vote for a potted plant if it has a D next to its name.
4
Elizabeth Warren's plan may be more of an election year sales creation than an honest attempt at major health care reform. It appears to completely avoid two huge, but largely unspoken, financial factors that would need to be addressed for significant reform to American health care.
One, concerns the INCREDIBLE expense of health care in America, which Bernie Sanders addressed in the last debate. Targeting the health insurance industry is relatively easy (and fairly superficial). Targeting our monumental health care and pharmaceutical industries is the real ballgame. And this will not be easy when so many Americans depend, emotionally, on their doctors. Warren doesn't even touch this because she wants to get elected, above all else, imo. Bernie Sanders calls it like he sees it and the American people reward him for this. The corporate establishment, on the other hand, does not.
The other is of course the potential availability of vast wealth from our military budgets. Again, this is something that Elizabeth Warren seems afraid to address. On the other hand, Tulsi Gabbard is going right at it. And with her military experience and her politics, Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few who could actually crack this. Both candidates represent rare opportunities for major progressive reform in America... and corporate media will be fighting them all the way.
1
@carl bumba
Tulsi Gabbard spent a total of two years in combat zones as a member of a medical unit and then as a military police officer. How does that experience provide any insight into the nation's military budget?
@Lynn in DC
Very little. Her years on the Committees of Armed Services and on Foreign Affairs and on Homeland Security surely were better experiences for this.
But the question for a president is not primarily HOW money should be allocated within the military, but WHETHER it should be there in the first place - especially given all the non-military uses for that money. Without deeply knowing the tangible, human side of our military activities our leaders will likely make poor political decisions.
Judging from comments here, you either think things are OK now or you don't. You're afraid of big change or you want big change. You don't trust the government or you want it to work for you. You think the rich deserve to keep every last penny they have or you think they ought to pay it forward to workers and the country they got rich in. The word "socialism" scares you or it doesn't. Arguments about the ways and means can be supported with "alternative facts" but the basic mindset and values won't change. The election will be determined by the mindset and values.
1
The long term care coverage will be one of the main issues.
Will people who can no longer care for themselves or by in-home care have to give up their assets to be admitted to state nursing homes?
What are the limits of in-home care?
Will the plan pay for assisted living care which currently costs about $4k/month or more (in Michigan) for a person with mainly mobility problems? I think the answer here is probably not.
What will be the impact on current long-term care insurance be?
Yeah, the number of folks with these sort of concerns might be relatively small but keep that in mind when the NYT blames the Russians for elections decided by narrow margins.
1
@Jp That is indeed a big issue as people live longer on medications and other interventions and no family members are available to care for them because it takes two paychecks to live and save for your own "golden years." No easy answers to that one. The present choice is buy costly long-term insurance you may never need (if you can afford it) or spend down to your last dollar and the state gets your home when you die. For the ambulatory, there should at least be free daycare facilities to keep us safe while our children work, just like childcare.
@abigail49 :"No easy answers to that one. "
Well, what does the Medicare for all miracle provide for? That's the question. Elizabeth Warren ought to be able to answer that.
No alternative facts are required.
Warren’s stand on “Medicare for All” is a prescription for the re-election of Trump should she become the Democratic candidate. Middle class middle-aged people with jobs and employer provided health insurance may veer away from her. Its a fear of the unknown. I want a more centered candidate.
6
"A ‘Medicare for all’ proposal would push the boundaries of taxing corporations..."
Corporations don't pay taxes, people do.
5
Most Americans are against the tax giveaways to the rich by Trump and would support taking those back. However, that doesn't mean that they are for nationalizing health insurance or for forgiving college debts ... that is quite a leap of logic.
3
Indentured servitude to banks is what college debt is. It is keeping us behind as a country. Why would that seem preferable to allowing this next generation to start a family and buy a house?
4
@Lilly My home loan is killing me as well -- I think the government should intervene to forgive that as well.
1
Every other first world country manages to provide health care to its people. The idea that it can't be done in the US is dead wrong. Tax revenues are too low to keep America great, because of the irresistible and ever present political urge to give tax breaks to the wealthy. Tax breaks are tearing the country apart.
4
@David - Jacobin magazine, a left-wing publication, has called Warren's financing of M4A "a disaster" because it will incentivize companies with more than 50 employees to turn their employees into contractors and part-time labor in order to avoid the taxes.
In addition, the financing plan won't be able to generate enough money, according to them.
It's not just about making sure everyone has access to affordable healthcare that matters. The way it's done is just as important. Warren's plan probably won't make it through Congress, even if the Ds flip the Senate.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-financing-plan
2
I am not up for a tax increase -- especially from Warren. I don't trust her with money. She has wreckless spending ideas. Like so many Democrats she thinks the taxpayer's wallet is available for any project she can dream up!
9
@Judy Weller, Whereas Republicans appear quite happy to cut taxes while spending more, so massively increasing national debt to the highest in history and it's continuing to grow at the fastest rate in history. Meanwhile, the economy is growing at an anemic 1.9%. It's not sustainable. Pay now, or pay later after the debt accrues enormous interest. It ain't rocket science.
4
Could you tell me what is more “wreckless” than giving $1 Trillion in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires?
3
@CritterDoc We all judge these changes as to how they affect us and our standard of living. I can honestly says that recent Democratic changes have ruined my health care and made it more expensive than it used to be.
Rememner "if you like your doctor you can keep him" "if you like your health plan you can keep it" They were all lies. Obamacare mas made my health care more expensive than it was BEFORE Obama played with our health care system. The Radical MS Warren will really do a number on health care and I suspect it will mean higher cost and lower quality as that is what Democratic changes all end up doing to people
My firm employs about 75 people - lawyers, paralegals, legal assistants (‘secretaries’) and other staff. One of our largest and fastest growing expenses is health insurance. There is little we can do to control the cost; the deductibles keep rising; the covered services and medications are always eroding. Over the years, we’ve kept less than productive people with chronic illness themselves or in their families because we have a conscience and could not cut them loose and leave them to fend for themselves to seek health insurance and necessary care.
Right now, much of the cost we pay becomes a tidy profit - for the brokers we need to help us find coverage in the open market and for our insurers and health care providers.
So tell me, how would our firm, and tens of thousands of similar businesses and their employees, not be better off paying more in taxes, but undoubtedly less than what we now pay for health insurance, since we would not be feeding an enormous for profit health insurance and health care industry? Why would we not be better off taking the load off our own shoulders?
Our current system is ridiculously inefficient and expensive. It becomes a bigger chunk of our GDP with each passing year, the cost rising much faster than the CPI. The only thing our current system does is fatten health care and insurance coffers, shield the wealthy from reasonable taxation, and result in inequitable delivery of care.
Why can’t this country do better than this, as others do?
14
@chambolle Kaiser ( Group Health ) is a quality non-profit.Who is providing health care to your employees?
2
@Chuck74 - We’re with the artist formerly known as Group Health, now known as Kaiser. And for three of us, as members of a group plan for our PC, the firm pays premiums that run over $20,000 a year for a ‘high deductible’ plan with substantial co-pays. Thank heavens I’ll go on Medicare in a year or two.
The median family income in the U.S. is about $60,000 before taxes. Tell me how a family affords health insurance and the additional costs incurred if you actually need health care, unless an employer is paying or there is some other subsidy? It’s a ludicrous situation and one no other advanced nation on earth tolerates.
1
@chambolle as a small business owner I think we are in the same boat. I also want to know if the really great scope of health care services that my “team” and I decide are our budget priority will continue to be available. The Warren Plan forecasts no. That’s too bad. Eventually I think our country needs to decouple benefits from employment. When that happens and the government and union employees sign on, my little business will be all in.
1
Medicare for all will quickly descend into Medicare for some as healthcare will be severely restricted. It is absolute fantasy to believe that “free” unlimited health dental and vision services can be provided to 330 million Americans without significant adverse consequences on elderly citizens.Will the promise of medical care in the last years of our lives will become a cruel hoax?
7
@Fred C Dobbs Correct. That's why an increasing percentage of UK residents have private insurance -- up to 13% now.
6
Starving the NHS from being able to function for the benefit of allowing Richard Branson to step in to make a profit is not increasing the quality of life of people in the UK.
@Fred C Dobbs Yes. It's not as if any other country has managed it, right? Well, apart from every other western democracy but hours I mean.
1
Time to exit the Gilded Age 2.0. Time for the rich and powerful to pay their fair share.
5
@JT Rich - Not everyone who owns a business is rich and powerful. In fact, Warren's plan would encourage companies to switch to contract and part-time employees.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-financing-plan
1
And welcome Cold War 2.0? Not my fight. I was an active participant in Cold War 1.0. I prefer we forego 2.0. Where's that Reset Button?
"Warren Health Plan Tightens Democrats’ Embrace of Tax Increases"... on the small fraction that benefited from the earlier tax cut.
In the meantime, "Trump's Plan Tightens Republicans Embrace of Budget Deficits" is the BIG story that past three years.
More evidence that Krugman is right that the MSM has an fiscal conservative bias -- at least when Democrats are drawing up the budget.
3
The reporter's perspective is so skewed.
The rich have demanded the Government underwrite all the things that allow them to accumulate massive amounts of wealth. Then the rich - and their employees who lead the Republican Party - demanded the government give them a tax break. During this time, the NY Times never questioned the wisdom of this or how the Republicans would "pay for" this big tax cut to put more money in the bank accounts of people who already had the most money.
Where were the headlines that the Republicans planned to take money from the middle class to pay for tax cuts for the .01%? Where were the headlines DEMANDING that the Republicans explain how they would "pay for those tax cuts" and then headlines about how the Republicans "plan" was non-existent?
Oh yes, they never ran. Instead when Republicans say something, it is reported as if William Barr and his Republican band of liars were truth tellers. But whenever a Democrat offers a real plan, it is dissected and found to be wanting.
4
I don't know if this plan is perfect. It probably isn't. But I do know this:
The media gets candidates elected.
The media is looking for a groundswell of voter energy.
Groundswells of voter energy come from young people.
And young people in 2020 are not about to settle for half-baked centrism that looks—and performs an awful lot like GOP-Lite. Just check the polls in Iowa.
The usual mob of pundits and centrists will break out their fainting couches over this, but proposals like Warren's acknowledge today's electoral reality—where the middle of the road is a great place to get run over by a truck.
The logic behind M4A is not really that debatable. Warren's plan may be. But the energy she's able to generate simply by supporting this idea makes it smart politics. Will Democrats in a Warren administration get everything they want? Probably not. But reaching for the stars rarely leaves one holding a handful of mud.
3
The important thing is to defeat Trump. So I’ll vote for her. Her policies are destructive but the Republican Senate will keep her in check.
Real economists have known since the time of Daniel Bernoulli (nearly 300 years ago) pretty much proved via a logical argument (too algebraic to put here) that heavily taxing the wealthy has a marginal (word chosen deliberately) effect on their behavior. Tax cuts have their largest effects on the behavior of the least well off--they have more money to spend on essentials, and therefore are healthier and more active in society.
Somehow the entirety of the Republican Party chooses to ignore this truth in favor of kowtowing to the kleptocracy. All of the behavior of the wealthy in the past two years has only been a confirmation of Bernoulli.
2
Using taxes -- or even raising taxes -- to fund the USA's glaringly obvious needs, like a better healthcare system, an infrastructure that's not crumbling to the point of laughable Third World status (buses, trails, and roads aren't constantly on the verge of major break-downs and where power doesn't get cut for weeks at a time), or a improved public schools is NOT "an ambitious redistribute wealth"!
It's providing the level of service to the public that the allegedly "richest nation" on earth can, and should, provide! Services that most of the rest of Europe provides for its citizens, as well as Japan, Australia, and Canada.
It's the collapse of anything like a Square Deal, a New Deal, a Great Society for most people in our nation under pressure from the uber-rich elites and amoral mega-corporations that's the "radical" idea! The greed of the few vs the needs of the many!
4
Spot on!
1
True 'tax reform' need not mean an increase in taxes for the middle class, e.g., re-setting corporate tax rates to pre-Trump levels.
2
The poor pay little to no taxes. The middle class would be burdened with paying the most as the extremely wealthy would find ways to pay less. This would not grow the economy and would not create jobs. Redistribution of wealth would be unfair to those who work hard for their money. This sounds like socialism and will ruin our country. We only have to look at Venezuela to see that it would fail miserably.
I do not worry about Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders implementing their tax plans because neither will be elected. These policies are just too left wing for Americans. President Trump will be reelected and continue his robust growth and economic success for the US. They want to continue on this positive path and continue improving their livelihoods. Why would anyone want to go backwards? They want to keep moving forward and upward.
8
No. It tightens her plan to lower the costs of medical care. People don't love their insurance companies, they love their doctors. Insurance companies don't provide health care, doctors and hospitals do. Time to get off the Republican talking points and get with a system that works for the rest of the industrialized world, as well as some nations that aren't as "advanced. Trump won't be beaten by a "middle of the road," "incremental," candidate. When you stand in the middle you stand for nothing.
6
This plan will unleash economic growth! All the uncertainty and bureaucracy that comes with buying and using health insurance will be eliminated; doctors can focus on healthcare, less on administration. Consumers will be able to change jobs and move, reducing friction. It will be essentially a tax cut to unleash the American people.
11
I had to pay $15,000 directly to the insurance company last year. Even more this year. Last year I had to pay $52,000 for my son to stay in the hospital for two days. Just in those two years, I could have bought a house with a solar roof.
12
The idea should be to lower taxes for everyone. It's a very bad sign that so many apparently believe that the Federal Government should do more for them by taking money earned by their fellow citizens and redistributing it to them. There is no honor in such thinking. People need to be self sufficient and find their own way in the world rather than sitting about complaining about what others have and plotting to expropriate them.
7
@Frunobulax
I respect that you believe this, and that you are sincere.
I’ve never taken a dime of public assistance of any kind, but there is something wrong with a system in which to cover my family of four with excellent health care insurance, albeit in an HMO, takes 25% of my take home pay. It’s only because I have rental income on my property that we can afford this.
The pioneer, “pull yourselves up by your bootstraps” philosophy does not properly account for all the ways that Americans have pooled resources to solve common problems: reservoirs for water in the west (including to homesteads); national roads, ports, airports; fire, police, military; education, food security for the elderly, and a highly cost effective preschool program (“Headstart”). Why shouldn’t our country invest in national healthcare?
Why should the very, very wealthy get a $1.5 trillion tax cut under Trump? They had already very much benefited from the tax code, from the bank bailouts, from fancy loopholes. Why shouldn’t they pay more?
And more importantly, why doesn’t it concern you that the top 10% are increasingly vastly more wealthy than the next 30%? Do you think that’s good for national and global security?
8
@Michael There is something wrong with a system where you get to have a rental property when there are people who have no property. Why should the middle class be able to have an extra rental property while the poor do not get any property? I think it would be better for the nation if your rental property was taxed away from you and given to a homeless person.
2
@Scott
Sometimes it is revealing and fun to argue by hyperbole. In the case of your comment, it is only fun. If you do not accept the basic premise of a progressive tax system for the United States, then there is no point to you and I discussing this further. You are entitled to your “no taxes” or “flat tax for all” beliefs but thankfully they are more relevant to a graduate seminar or an Ayn Rand book club than they are to the current political and tax reality of the United States.
4
It's possible to see the taxation required to fund single payer health care. Just look to our North, you know that powerhouse of an entrepreneurial economy, Canada.
Their national income tax system is similar to ours -- except there is no deduction for mortgage interest. Their health care system is funded with provincial taxes, which are typically double to triple our highest state taxes. Though the tax rates are progressive, Canada still hits the lowest earners with tax, while our lowest earners pay no Federal tax and, in states with a progressive tax structure, no state taxes either.
Here is a link to a tax calculator. Plug in a couple of different incomes, in a couple of different provinces, to see how it would be taxed in Canada.
https://simpletax.ca/calculator
2
“Conservative critics say they would cripple business investment, slow economic growth and dissuade future entrepreneurs.” This must come as quite a surprise to all the residents of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, UK...
6
@Nima
Several of the countries you list have corporate income tax rates about the same as ours -- or lower:
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Switzerland
United Kingdom
The real outlier now is Canada, with the highest corporate rates of any country on your list. I assume companies are flocking to Canada to set up shop?
2
And fewer regulations
The idea of taxing billionaires to pay for the plan sounds great but billionaires hire rich accountants and evade taxes with loopholes. Ask Donald Trump. In real life, as the young say, who will really end up paying for her plan ( hastily drawn up because of persistent questions in debates and town halls)? You and me. Those presently covered by Medicare will have less choice of doctors, higher premiums, higher co-pays etc. Adding 180 billion people to Medicare must have that outcome. Another likely outcome: a higher deficit with huge inflation because the taxes won't materialize for the IRS and the deficit will double. People who are not my age don't remember raging inflation like in 1980 when mortgages hit 16%. I also remember 1993 when Hilliary Clinton was given the job of coming up with a plan. She had an army of advisers with computer experts and it took 6 months,, not two weeks. Tax the sales and purchase of stocks? Sound good? Suppose the wealthy just sit on their stocks and watch them grow or fall? No taxes gained but 401K plans of teachers (the middle class) plummet if stocks fall.What in the world qualified Elizabeth Warren to come up with a plan to turn health care upside down with a new tax system? Nothing. So why did she do it? She saw Pete Buttagieg climbing with workable solutions and I never saw him with bluster and poorly thought out schemes.
3
I will never believe that taxing the elite wealth class will slow down the economy, stifle growth and hurt the country. Our country is at its best when everyone has skin in the game and prosperity comes to anyone who put in the work and play by rules.
Since the 1980s, the government and economy has been purposely gamed to help those in power at the expense of those who are not. Where has it gotten us...? Ridiculous wars, soaring deficits, unaffordable education and health care, crumbling infrastructure and political gridlock. Good grief...if "President Donald J Trump" isn't enough reason to reset this country and get things back on track...then god help us all.
Elizabeth Warren is the only one who really understands how government and society should work together. She does have a plan, not just an empty political slogan or polished speeches, but real plans that require thought and a vision to rise the tide for the majority of Americans...which is what honorable elected officials used to do. Everyone I know in all corners of the country is unhappy where things are right now and talking about how everything is changing for the worse. I believe the more people consider their current life and future aspirations, they will come around to the realization that Elizabeth Warren is the only one who really has the smarts to be President and the sheer drive to turn this country back from the brink it is now.
4
Since, in truth, only people bear the burden of government programs, isn't it true that, even if corporations are taxed directly, people will bear the burden of the program through reduced employment (no, not just in the health insurance sector), higher costs for goods and services, and diminished returns on their retirement investments? If you have no job, low living expenses and no retirement funds, vote for Medicare for All. Oh, that's right, you're already on Medicaid. So, who's left to vote for a job-killing, investment-killing, cost-raising program?
Wealthy high end earners will continue to shelter their money and corporations will move their money to off shore accounts. Congress, being at the beck and call of high end earners and corporations will do nothing to stop it, but will then have to rely on middle class and low end earners to fund Warren's pie in the sky plans. It always ends the same.
2
Not if we don’t keep voting for the same politicians.
3
@Lilly
Recall what George Carlin said about politicians. It does not matter who you vote for. We always get the same government. Everyone thought Obama was center left. Everyone was wrong. He was far center right (underscored by his refusal to allow prosecution of Wall Street ((not to mention his millions earned in speaker fees to Wall Street as soon as he was out of the White House doors))).
4
We just have to be very very careful in how these proposals are shaped and explained. If the economy and stock market are as strong next year as now (at least in terms of the numbers) Trump will have a big leg up. Trying to argue that the economy is really not that strong or defend any proposals that could impact people’s retirement accounts and investments will be an uphill battle and could hand Trump the election and our first goal should be getting rid of Trump.
3
“For all its detail, Ms. Warren’s funding proposal leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Many of them relate to how the new batch of taxes she proposed Friday would interact with the nearly $10 trillion in tax increases she has already proposed for corporations, high earners and the wealthy”.
For someone who has never run a business or who has no economic or private industry background, Sen. Warren’s ideas are simply half-baked - the U.S. healthcare system and the U.S. economy are complex systems and just because you cane up with some interesting ideas that might get you an “A” on a term paper doesn’t mean it’s prudent to enact them.
A little intellectual humility here would be appreciated - there are better ways to achieve these progressive ends than what Sen. Warren is proposing.
4
What seems to be lost here is that Medicare is not free for those receiving it. We get charged for it. I wonder how much of an increase is Warren forecasting? Oh, she has not figured that increase in yet?
11
I just paid over $15,000 directly to my health insurance (non)provider last year for nothing. I’d gladly pay a fraction of that in tax instead!!!
6
@Lilly
How do you know that Warren's Medicare plan for you won't cost more than that? Not to mention the extra charges for supplementals. But I could be wrong. It won't be the first time today.
1
I don’t trust Warren. I’m voting for Bernie, but...It is wrong, sadly. I had to pay $52,000 for my son’s hospital stay last year too. I could have paid the taxes for Medicare for All and still bought a house instead of what I’ve had to pay to insurance companies over the years of ObamaCare even.
1
Political instability is the price the world is paying for extreme economic inequality. We need to re-level the playing field ala LBJ who got Medicare,Headstart and Civil Rights legislation passed. Elizabeth Warren is the leader for our time as shown by her economic plans and health care reform ideas.
2
I'd be fine with a tax schedule similar to the rates we had in 1952. Take our country back...
9
It’s why neither she or Sanders will ever get elected. I hate Trump and consider myself a moderate Democrat (fiscally conservative, socially more moderate, I voted for Reagan and Clinton), but unless I was positive Congress was going to be split, no way I vote for either of them, which tragically means I would have to vote for Trump. Please Bloomberg , enter the race.
4
Luckily, for the sake of a non-oligarchy, Independents, Millennials together, the largest voting block in the country disagree.
2
@Dvab
What you seem to say is that you hate trump
less than you love (aka covet) your economic self interest.
This makes me curious what it is about trump you actually hate, and then whatever that is, why is this fundamentally of less significance than the modest effect, if any ( I assume you are well off but not in the rarefied stratosphere income wise), anything proposed by Warren would have on your economic well being.
To be effective, Bloomberg would need to enter
the race as a democrat not an independent. It will
be very interesting to see how long he feels he can dither on the sidelines.
" I'm worried it's unrealistic. It's just unknown. " But that's exactly the point. How can one know without even trying. The billionaires won't really notice a few millions less from their kitty of billions. But it would mean a lot to the middle class to get universal care health care. Besides for those who like their insurance plans, she can add a rider of a public option. Which I presume is where we will land pragmatically if she becomes the next President. Not to mention the insurance companies will stay in business albeit less fat.
2
This will mean the end of Warren (and Sanders) and the rise of Mayor Pete. He’s been my preferred candidate all along. I predict he will be the nominee. Smart, educated, well spoken, a veteran, slightly left of center, and YOUNG!
7
@Marc He’s bought and paid for by the monied interests.
The crocodile tears from the 1% might be more convincing if they'd actually invested that last tax giveaway. Or the one before that. Or any of them.
10
Why not start by reversing the tax cuts and worthless deductions that started with Reagan in the 80's like restoring corporation tax to reasonable levels, estate tax, elimination of carried interest deduction, gambling deduction, etc. I guess these are too popular in Warren's estimation so she proposes taxes that have absolutely no chance in either congress or the SC.
3
One interesting component that could be extracted from the mega-proposal would be to allow employers to offer their employees the option of transferring their coverage to Medicare with the employer paying 90% of the current costs of private insurance.
1
Warren's proposal would never get through Congress even if the Democrats controlled both chambers. Most members of Congress are bought and paid for by corporations through campaign donations. But, more importantly, Warren's proposal will ensure that she never gets to the White House because working-class Democrats who like their current employer-based health care and independents will sit out the 2020 election. If she's the nominee, Trump gets re-elected.
14
Make America Fair Again
Tax rates on corporations and top earners were so much higher in the earlier decades including the 1950s for which MAGA is so nostalgic
Bring back those rates and we can begin to fix this inequality which destroys the American Dream for the vast majority of Americans
6
I was reading this week about how some billionaires buy $100 million homes...sometimes more than one! There is now so much capital up there they don't know what to do with it. Meanwhile, the middle class goes bankrupt with medical bills, is chained by usurious student loans, pays half their income for housing.
This isn't going to end well.
10
Let us not get lost in the weeds of details which either cannot be known, only estimated, or will be changed in the give-and-take of lawmaking. When I vote, I will vote for the candidates who have done serious work and given serious thought to solving big problems in our economy, society and environment. Less government, lower taxes, and "trickle down" to the masses is the snake oil Republicans always sell. Even worse, they create the fear that our whole economy will collapse if the wealthiest families and corporations are made to suffer the slightest deprivation. They may even flee the country and leave us with no means to earn a living! Whether it is in this election or the next, change must come and will come. Hopefully, it will come peacefully through our elected representatives and our democratic government.
1
Most of the truly wealthy (e.g. Bezos, Buffet, Google guys) got that way by building a company from scratch; their wealth is their ownership in the company, not a money in a bank account. Implementing this wealth tax means you take their company away from them. Maybe it works for one generation, although I doubt it. After that, why would anyone bother to take all the risk of starting a company if the outcome is that it just gets taken away from you? This will destroy the entrepreneurial spirit that drives this country and makes people risk dying to come here.
30
@Impact matters We need more SMALL business creators who may not change the world with new technology or marketing strategies but will produce useful products and services, support their families and a few others. When we as a nation become so dependent on big corporations for our livelihoods, we become a nation of slaves.
4
@Impact matters
If Warren's proposal comes to pass, all the millennials, Gen Ys, Gen Zs should worry and despair - there will be no more high quality jobs from new companies that came about by way of Apple, Hewlett Packard, PayPal, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. - basically your entire Nasdaq companies.
9
@abigail49 How these SMALL businesses are going to compete globally? China will flood the US with cheaper goods driving all businesse out.
Currently, stock appreciation is only taxed when you sell it. Warren's proposed tax on annual stock appreciation even if you do not sell it will kill our 401Ks and the stock market. You will be forced to sell some portion of your stock holdings to pay the taxes if your holdings appreciated during the year, unless you have enough cash to pay the taxes. And this is every year.
20
The second sentence of this article uses the phrase "redistribution of wealth" to create the illusion that a redistribution if wealth hasn't already occurred in this nation. Wealth and the access it provides to politicians and think-tank has created a generation of special pleaders who have revised tax laws to allow the wealthy to evade a great deal of their financial responsibility to this nation. Elizabeth Warren has, as has Bernie Sanders, encouraged voters to have a dialogue about how our tax dollars are spent and refocus the discussion of our national priorities. When the military requests another B-2 with a cost of 737 million per no one ever asks how will we pay for it. But raise the specter of decent medical care for all an suddenly how we will pay for it forms the only conservative talking point.
8
Note to American Public:
Without tax increases - especially on the wealthy Republicans - the United States infrastructure will eventually fall.
The bridges will will be coming down in droves and our wonderful Interstate Highway System will be cars - electric and gasoline powered - on top of one another.
Exception the Interstates around Lambeau Field - where there are six hundred lanes to get to the Packer Game and are completely empty otherwise. Did Manafort money to Scott finance those?
Trump was unelectable - yet somehow grifted into the presidency. How did that happen? The GOP trolls on these comment sections are very sly indeed. Deficit spending and America's problems are all Obama to them - all the time.
6
Attention: this comment is not about the advisability of implementing a so-called “Medicare for All” national health plan. It is only about the affordability of such a plan, if chosen.
The Trump tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations cut tax revenues by $1.5 trillion per year. Warren’s plan is estimated to cost $2 trillion a year.
Even assuming that taxes do not go up on the wealthy to levels higher than the Trump cut, the main financial feasibility question is where that extra 1/2 trillion will come from.
I would like to remind folks that it is estimated that since 2001 the US has spent approximately $5.9 trillion on the military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan. That expense alone amounts to more than 1/2 trillion dollars per year.
Financially this can be done. What needs to be studied very closely is the effect of medicare reimbursement rates on the viability of medical practices and hospitals.
But let’s please get over the trope that its not affordable.
6
Michael - Trump has five billion in his suit coat.
Excellent use of GOP / Mulvaney “get over
it” ... very clever troll -
Excuse me five trillion- just on the Ukraine / Exxon-Mobil deals - Rudy might toss in a few trillion and the Koch Bros..
It’s time. The Reagan revolution that was primarily about redistributing monies to the wealthy has sadly been much too successful. When the wealthy are asked how much money they need they will typically answer, “More than my friends”.
The time has come to make the crucial investments in the health and education of average and poor Americans. This is proven by the economic success of the last 2 Democratic administrations, failure of the previous two complete Republican administrations and apparent collapse of the current monstrosity.
1
The Medicare-for-all price tag is so unrealistic that it is almost like asking voters to turn away from the Democratic party; this, when the focus should be on how President Trump has tried to weaken, not strenghten Obamacare, as well as his rolling back Obama regulations (cleaner air and water) that improved the health of Americans.
Pie in the sky proposals that take away individual choice and beg to be labelled socialistic are an unnecessary approach that would sabotage efforts to elect a Democrat.
7
Nothing about M4A is even adjacent to being unrealistic. And I am certain that most people whose feathers are ruffled by it a) aren’t anywhere near rich enough to be affected by the proposed tax increases or b) have trouble with basic math as we are ALREADY paying more than the proposed increases for substandard healthcare.
Go ahead and leave the Democratic Party. Enjoy the pollution, infrastructure decay, job decline and astronomical wealth gap.
6
The Democrats may get a chance to re-discover the wheel. The reason Trump's tax reforms cut corporate taxes was because this country was in real danger of having a lot of US corporations move their headquarters overseas to lower tax jurisdictions. If they didn't, they were at risk of being bought by foreign companies and thereby relocated. Until the tax reform, both trends were clearly evident.
It's a fact that for most multi-national companies, the US is no longer their largest market.
6
It's all in the language.
Medicare For All represents FREEDOM:
for workers to change jobs without losing health coverage;
for businesses (especially small employers) to hire without having to be responsible for workers' health insurance.
And then there's tax. I pay 8% sales tax on many purchases, 4% on some others. What's so outlandish about a 0.1% or 0.2% transaction tax on stock sales? It would barely amount to the noise in stock price fluctuations, would be easy to administer and collect and, given the value of stocks traded each year, would raise lots of money for the treasury. Calling it a sales tax would suddenly make the argument in its favor much, much easier.
13:30 EDT, 11/02
10
The Top 1% have gotten $21 trillion richer since 1989 (post Reagan tax cuts). The bottom 50% have gotten $900 billion poorer.
Warren is asking for $20.5 trillion from the rich.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice” (Dr King).
10
Copying Bernie in a progressive agenda is the way to go, but I’d rather have the one I can trust to carry it out.
1
@Lilly
Hilarious!
I’d rather follow someone who’s not a life-long politician...
How does this work long term without control of immigration and the enforcement of current laws let alone if Warren does as she says and decriminalizes border crossing?
When math meets ideology, math wins.
17
I’ll tell you what this voter is going to do; I will vote (D) and not (R). I have a preexisting condition and I have kids going to school and older ones going to concerts. Healthcare and gun safety is why I’m voting (D). My question is, why aren’t you?
4
I want to keep my private health insurance...
4
@Jerry Sturdivant
I want to have a comfortable retirement and my grandchildren a future. After a lifetime of saving and
investing I am not interested in structural changes that benefit Democrat deadbeats.
2
This article states Warren’s Medicare for All plan “is the most prominent example of how a party that once bet on centrist economic policies to win elections is moving toward far more ambitious efforts to redistribute wealth and expand the government’s role in the economy.”
Wrong. One proposal by one candidate doesn’t represent the entire party’s position. Until one candidate becomes the nominee, none of them represents the entire party. That’s what this primary process is all about. So, NYT, please report accurately.
Many of us oppose Warren’s and Sanders’s proposals for many reasons. I, too, believe wealth inequality is a huge issue. But I believe in approaches that are pragmatic, not vindictive. Like enforcing living wages immediately, and a progressive tax structure without loopholes or shelters. I, too, believe in universal healthcare coverage. But I don’t believe taking a wrecking ball to an entire industry is the answer. While there are wealthy people at the top making a killing, literally, millions of average people work for those companies, too. Under the Warren and Sanders plans, those average people become collateral damage to the cause of “revolution” and “progress.” That human cost is not one I can stomach.
That’s why I support Biden. Because successful transformational change takes thought, planning, and yes, time - not dynamite. Because the government is already in tatters, and needs a steady, experienced hand to rebuild it, not a sledgehammer.
8
@DCH this is the best response I have seen so far. well said.
The hating on rich people leads to no where.
2
Agree completely
It should also be noted that Warren's economic plans are drafted by French economists from UC Berkeley who use data unadjusted for transfers to amplify their false inequality agenda. I hope Facebook, Twitter and the media will ban the false claims in their research put forth by them and Warren. Zucman was on CNBC and was owned quickly by the hosts. The economic philosophy embraced by progressives is built on lies. That's why it doesn't fit anywhere close to the governments own numbers. If Trump can't put out an ad featuring Biden's own words on film, the press shouldn't be giving airtime to these economic frauds.
7
I’m tired of hearing how the entire poor and middle classes in this country needs suffer so that the 1 percent can get richer and richer. They claim that they need to hover up all of that money to “create jobs”, but that’s a lie. Look at what corporations did with their big tax cut! They bought back stocks to make their shareholders richer. We are a wealthy country with hungry people, who can’t afford medical care, who can’t afford childcare, and who can’t afford college. What kind of society is that? So no, we aren’t going to “be grateful” to the wealth gods for creating non-union, non-living wage jobs. And yes, we are going to demand policies that redistribute wealth back to the workers that create it!
8
We have been giving the rich more since 1980 and guess what, the rich have more. At the same time incomes and growth have stagnated because, guess what. the rich really don't know what to do with all that they have. So we stimulate growth by giving the banks more money to lend to the rich which somehow doesn't work.
Meanwhile public services and infrastructure have decayed and productivity stagnates. Maybe it is time to try something else.
263
@Chris Martin
The economy shifted in the 1970s from manufacturing to tech/knowledge, which is less human labor intensive and more capital efficient. It exponentially then romped up globally.
The U.S. population was @ 200 million. It is now 330 million, set to be 440 million in just 30 years. The world poulation has also doubled via the same undereducated, unskilled poor to now 7.6 billion set to be 10 billion.
We ought not have doubled our population with 3rd world uneducated, manual labor just when that global economic shift was in motion. No going back or fixing it now, but we can take measures to reduce the problem. Good luck with that.
16
Perhaps Trump and the Republicans should stop attacking Planned Parenthood and every global pop control program, Maggie.
33
@Robert Any government program will be under the whim of the current political class. Only an economic and political fool thinks more government control over personal liberty is an improvement.
2
Will everyone who has spent years saving for retirement by funding a 401k plan, so we would not be a burden on our children or society, please rise up and let Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (who will both be rewarded with taxpayer funded pensions) to leave our money alone. Our 401ks are all we have. If you tax stock and bond sales you are taxing us. We are middle class.
233
“To cover those costs, Ms. Warren would impose a new tax on financial transactions, like buying and selling stocks and bonds. She would also tax profits from investments that increase in value on an annual basis — like shares in Google or Apple — not just when the assets are sold.” This says it all. Anyone who is invested through their 401k will be dramatically harmed. This is not only a bad idea, it is an idea that makes Warren unelectable.
116
@Retired Hard Worker that’s what progressive tax structures are for. You don’t have to have a flat tax on 401k gains, you can tax the first 50 thousand at a different rate from the next 50 thousand and so on. Just like income. There’s no reason they couldn’t keep middle class levels of 401k income at current rates while raising the taxes on the trades the wealthy are making.
It all comes down to how the laws get structured, which is ultimately going to be up to Congress. As far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing wrong with endorsing higher taxes on the wealthy, they’ve had it coming for a very long time. I don’t really even mind if my upper middle class taxes go up so long as the wealthy finally start pitching in a fair share to the society that made their wealth possible.
230
@Eric. That’s not what she is saying. Nowhere have I read that Warren’s stock transfer and gains tax would be progressive.
57
Memo to the Democrats:
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
President Trump did not win the 2016 election. The Democrats lost it by nominating a candidate who was unelectable.
Sen. Warren is even more unelectable that Hillary Clinton. Most of Warren's proposals are way too far to the left. Her denials notwithstanding, they would, of necessity, be funded with massive tax increases, very much including on the middle class.
Her attempts to game affirmative action will not be the most important issue against her, but they will come back to haunt her. Affirmative action is zero sum, and many believe their own educations, careers, or children have been unjustly adversely affected by affirmative action. Expect to see a lot of political advertising keeping this issue alive.
There are several more centrist, and far more electable, candidates still in the game. The Democrats would do well to select one of them.
18
The highest tax rate in the 50's, 60's and 70's was 70%. And we had a strong unionized middle class.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders know their history, others not so much.
Go Elizabeth, you're on the right track.
573
@cherrylog754
When tax rates were higher, there were many, many more uncapped deductions, so taxable income was a smaller proportion of total income than now. It was possible to deduct all interest expense -- for house, car, jet ski, personal loan, credit card, etc. It was possible to deduct all property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, city taxes, etc. It was possible to deduct all miscellaneous expenses, such as for safe deposit boxes, investment newsletters, newspapers, unreimbursed business expenses. It was possible to deduct every nickel of medical expenses.
So, yes, tax rates were higher. But, today, you can't deduct much, so current lower tax rates bite more than they used to.
33
@cherrylog754 :"The highest tax rate in the 50's, 60's and 70's was 70%. And we had a strong unionized middle class."
We also had a strong manufacturing base that provided well paying jobs to skilled and semi-skilled labor. The decline of that middle-class blue-collar wealth began in 1973. All the unionized burger flippers or chicken sandwich assemblers won't make up for the loss of those jobs.
Maybe a WPA V2.0 will get folks working again, it will go along nicely with our Cold War V2.0 that forward thinkers seem to be crazy about.
8
@Jp What I think you are saying is that the "bigs" moved their operations out of the US and left the American worker stranded. What I say is that it's about time someone stands up and fights for us.
12
Reversing the ridiculous tax giveaway the GOP pushed through recently should never be referred to as a 'tax increase'. Shifting the payments for health care from inefficient, profit driven health insurance companies to the federal government should be called what it is - a rational and fair way to pay the trillions of dollars we spend on health care annually now through our employers (who are grudgingly spending money on private health insurance that their competitors on the world market do not have to spend) while eliminating insurance company profits, arbitrary decisions on coverage, and extra costs for doctors and hospitals who now have to employ a small army of people to handle the forms and relationships with a few dozen insurers.
The scare talk around "medicare for all" is just that: scare talk. For the vast majority of us, our tax burden will increase significantly less than what we're paying for private health insurance. Combine that, with taking on the ridiculously bloated U.S. military budget that is more of a giant piggy bank for arms manufacturers than anything like a military, and we might have money to spend on all the social programs that "we can't afford".
455
@Lyn Robins 700 Billion in Military spending.20 billion in oil and gas subsidies.200 billion of tax dodging from wealthy corps.
35
@Lyn Robins ? Wrong.
Unless, of course you can explain how (all) the billions spent on “Defense” are actually keeping you sleeping peacefully.You are also wrong about Medicare and choices... it that’ll be for another day.
10
@Hugo
After the "beautiful" (if not perfect) letters Trump wrote to and received from Kim Jung Un, he assured us we could "sleep easy" about North Korea. It would be difficult to sleep easily as long as Trump is president,
10
Does anyone care about the deficit? Oh... and there is a strong middle class and upper middle class in this country who can afford their own education and health insurance. Why give people free stuff they don't need when that money could be spent on people who really need help. Oh... and don't forget about the crumbling infrastructure across the country that's being ignored. Careful when driving across bridges and be sure to replace your shocks and tires frequently!
7
Please note that all groups paid much higher taxes in the mid-20th century. Since then tax rates have gone down, economic inequality has grown, our infrastructure is falling apart, our healthcare system is a wreck as is our educational system. Warren is on the right track.
659
@farhorizons We have also had amazing advances in technology.
2
@farhorizons. The working class and the poor are actually paying for federal taxes than they were in the 1950s and 60s. They are paying higher payroll taxes mainly but also higher sales taxes, user fees, and property taxes.
41
@farhorizons
The American working and middle classes were, also, forced into ever-increasing debt (credit cards and/or payday loans)... just to try and hang onto the “American dream.” Add onto that, the shifting burden for retirement savings from employers (defined benefit plans) to employees (defined contribution plans).
All of the this was gaming American workers so that Wall Street, corporations, and the investor class could lick their chops and become morbidly wealthy. I will not feel sorry for the pain suffered by the obscenely rich... pain that could have been avoided if the wealth was shared fairly since the 1980s.
41
This reporter's formulation -- that Ms. Warren seeks to mooch off the super-rich to pay for social programs -- ignores the reality of inequality.
Having neutered unions, weakened labor protections, re-written the tax code in their own favor and then shipped jobs to China, what did our "job creators" and hedge fund managers expect?
They insisted on keeping all the money, so now they can pay all the taxes.
804
@jrd Corporations don't pay taxes....their customers and shareholders do. Also, their employees lose benefits and have lowers wages because the corporations will reduce costs in other areas to offset the tax increase.
14
@Lyn Robins This is standard billionaire nonsense. Yes, "shareholders" (overwhelmingly wealthy individuals) pay taxes. Customers do not "pay taxes" - although the corporation may try (and only rarely succeed) at passing these on to customers.
Most likely, corporations will just become less -- but still -- profitable.
And in a "full employment" environment, just try to "lower wages"! LOL
19
@Lyn Robins. Hogwash. When taxes were very high in the 1950s and 1960s on corporations, CEOs paid their workers well because that money would have just gone to the IRS anyway.
44
I think that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren could move toward the middle and grab a wider share of voters if they proclaimed that they were open to negotiations on healthcare and that their plans were starting points for negotiations with Congress.
4
Warren is a gift to the GOP because she is honest about what the Democrats believe. Tax everyone who is productive so the lazy do not have to provide for themselves. All the Democrats have is far left candidates--they have even corrupted Biden--they will be losing bigly in 2020.
12
@Jonathan The Democrats have more mainstream support for their general policies than the GOP does. If anything, the GOP's candidate is far-right.
1
You fail to understand the savings from other parts of the government. As an example cutting the military 25% to 40% would free a lot of capital that is just goes to Israel and defense companies and other other welfare state goodies tour precious MIC.
1
Can't I just say I take Medicare for All seriously, but not literally? Seemed to dispel criticism when the GOP was peddling gator-patrolled moats on the southern border to white people in the "Heartland"...
*Sigh* hear that? That’s the sound of Medicare for All dying at the hands of the billionaires’ personal lobbyists - working in coalition with the health insurance, big Pharma, and hospital lobbyists who are already fighting it.
.
What if instead of imposing huge new taxes for Improved Medicare for All / Single Payer, we were more modest? Most Americans would be well served by a hybrid program like what France Has. I call it Limited Medicare for All with Private Options. To pay for it, we could use the current Obamacare subsidies (which wouldn’t be needed any more and total $600 billion a year). It could provide all Americans with catastrophic coverage based on their wealth and income that doubles as a backstop for private insurers’ risk. It could also provide vaccines and annual checkups for all Americans to help us remain healthy.
.
Don’t get me wrong. The world’s billionaires need to pay more in taxes because they’ve proven that, for the most part, they aren’t going to use their wealth for the better of their fellow man. How about funding the military and wars with wealth taxes on billionaires? That would free up funds for important things like education and healthcare, and a Green New Deal. Also it would put the world’s anti tax billionaires firmly on the anti-war side. That would be better than having them oppose healthcare.
4
This is the third story in the major newspapers today that reads like it was written by the health industry lobbyists in the name of being "moderate."
Why should the United States stay committed to a failing, bloated, discriminatory, unfair and cruel "health care" system that costs 7 percent more of our GDP than the next most expensive nation?
Do we really want to keep seeing health costs soar with no chance for reform?
We hope the press can frame this issue with accuracy borne out of the real effects of the current health industrial complex and pharma on American citizens. Warren has presented a paid-for plan for debate. The press reaction is disturbing and immediately biased.
6
@Dolphin
Yes, the agricultural system changed the standard American diet to the point where these statistics are inevitable, but you blame the victims. When Michelle Obama tried to intervene, we saw results fairly fast. They are now being reversed under the current administration.
I think it is thrilling to ask corporations to pay somewhat more for the health of Americans. They need "skin in the game" when it comes to climate change, agriculture and food supply, chemical pollution, energy production and other health-impacting industries.
2
@Dolphin I’ll confess to thinking, for a moment, that a Donald Trump Presidency might not be that bad back in 2016, when he was talking about closing tax loopholes. But then I reminded myself: this man is in real estate: he’s all about the hard sell; you can’t trust him at all.
.
It’s a shame, because if the loopholes were actually closed, those tax attorneys would have a harder time hiding their billionaire patrons’ money.
Previous NYT articles have identified the exorbitant costs of medical tests and procedures as our major problem. Giving the medical-industrial complex massive new access to federal taxes only rearranges revenue streams, and will perpetuate the problem of costs. Health care costs are much lower in other developed countries with similar services, and they need to be directly addressed in the US to significantly impact the %GDP we pay for health care.
6
If you believe the government does a good job with money, you are delusional. While the press whitewashes Elizabeth Warren's Medicare for All scheme, it ignores the fact that the deductibles middle-class tax payers may or may not pay according to their health in a given year, will be paid in full to the Medicare for All system. So if you are sick every year, it's not a tax, but if you are healthy and don't need to pay a deductible, you will be "taxed" and have to pay it anyway. So many lies from these politicians, perpetuated by the press. Class warfare sells for Democrats. If you are middle class on the coasts, they will promise you the moon. If you are middle class anywhere else, you are deplorable. Just wait and see what happens to private investment and jobs when Democrats put their tax schemes in motion. If you like having a job, you may want to think twice. If you like handouts, they are your team.
6
My husband, my son and I have healthcare through his employer. It costs him $20,000 a year before copays and deductibles.
I can't be sure that Medicaid for all will cost less than our current system.
I am absolutely certain that our current healthcare options do not work for many Americans.
For profit healthcare is capitalism at it's worse.
“A ‘Medicare for all’ proposal would push the boundaries of taxing corporations and the rich to fund expanded government programs.”
Bill Gates suggests higher taxes on the rich - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/bill-gates-suggests-higher-taxes-on-those-with-great-wealth.html
Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he believed it was wrong that rich people, like himself, could pay less in federal taxes,
New York Times Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman - “AOC’s advocacy of a tax rate of 70-80 percent on very high incomes... it’s a policy nobody has ever implemented, aside from … the United States, for 35 years after World War II.”
Donald Trump May 7 on Meet the Press concerning tax rates “"For the wealthy, I think, frankly, it's going to go up. And you know what? It really should go up."
2
I’m a doctor and I support Medicare for all. Many - the vast majority - of my colleagues support it as well. Why? I am tired of the clinic environment being hostile to the poor and working class. I want to welcome, I want to care, and I don’t want my care compromised by profit making corporations.
30
Why can't we address the peculiar need for health insurance? Why doesn't the free market peg health care cost appropriately to average income? I don't need home insurance to buy a home and I don't need car insurance to buy a car. They aren't easy to afford, but it is certainly possible.
1
Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.
8
@Pigenfrafyn
Then it's obvious we are not paying enough.
2
Bill Clinton, in a memorable speech at the Democratic Convention, talked about the reality of math in U.S. politics. The Democratic Party leftwing has to come to grips with the reality of a centrist electorate. Having followed U.S. politics for some time, I think a campaign that promises to soak the rich and create a multi-trillion dollar health program with no tax cost is doomed to utter failure.
The last Democratic candidate to propose anything remotely close to the pandering plans of Warren was the Honorable Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota. In 1972, McGovern lost in a landslide election to Richard Nixon. He failed to carry his own state! The only state he carried was Massachusetts -- coincidentally the base of the "Central Planner" candidate Elizabeth Warren.
Let's get real, Democrats! We are facing a fascist threat and need to take the election seriously. Most of the voters want a return to normalcy, stability and accountability in this election cycle-- not high-minded fantasy plans from central casting.
9
Return to normalcy. You mean, maintain oligarchy?
This analyses avoids the real questions that are required to evaluate Warren's proposal:
1. How do the proposed taxes compare to what wealthy individuals and corporations have paid in the past? Before the 2017 tax "reform"? Before the Reagan era tax changes?
2. What would be the net change in spending on health care by individuals? By employers as part of their overall health insurance expenditures per employee?
These numbers need to be evaluated to see the impact of MFA.
1
Can we just spend our next presidency reversing everything Trump did, just like he has tried to do with Obama?
2
There’s no time left to only do that. We are in a mass extinction event right now, remember?
Warren is banking on her ability to explain complex things in straightforward terms. I hope she can. Her campaign needs to hammer home “Net Cost Reduction” as an alternative to “Huge Tax Increase.” Even the NYTimes is leading with the latter headline. She must give clear analogies: her plan is like a rural district that’s been getting water from an inefficient private company. Everyone celebrates when the water lines are extended to that district — city water! The low cost and high water quality are the focus. It’s not a huge tax increase it’s a net cost reduction. The campaign must seize the initiative and control the narrative. Now!
3
Something leftist progressives apparently don't get - corporations don't actually pay taxes. They pass them on to their customers.
10
Enough is enough!
It is time to undo the damages that have been done in the past 40 years. The very rich people (top .1% of the population) and the very large corporations like Amazon, Apple, ... United Healthcare etc. have not paid their fair shares of taxes by using LLC's and other schemes. This is a well known fact. The last Trump & GOP's tax cut was a total scam. Trump's administration and the GOP have lie to the American people! Big time! Corruption is everywhere in Washington! From the White House, the GOP to the Supreme Court! It is time to undo the damages! We, the American People, want a government of the people, by the people, for the people! We don't want a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires for the billionaires and the large corporations!!! History shows that income inequality leads to a revolution!
1
You say, “In doing so, Democrats are trying to push the boundaries of how much a country can rely on a sliver of high-end investors and other wealthy citizens to fund widely used social programs and bankroll other services traditionally paid for by individuals.”
But how is this pushing the boundaries when it’s basically a reversion to how things were done in the past? Why doesn’t the article mention that historically, this level of taxation isn’t an anomaly? That actually, the current level of extremely low taxes on the extremely wealthy is an aberration?
I see other articles like in The Upshot providing this kind of context. That is being written in your own paper. Why not include it in this story?
3
The most important issue facing America is to beat Trump, To beat Trump you need Republicans. Elizabeth Warren will not get a lot of Republicans voting for her. She will not beat Trump
13
Well said, clear and to the point
2
Clearly the writer Jim Tankersley has chosen to completely ignore the 1950's!
That was the period during which the interstate highway system was built and the top marginal tax rate was over 90%! Warren's plan is a comparably tiny increase in taxes on those who can afford to pay much much more! And they should pay more--they have benefitted the most from living and working in the United States!
3
Warren is the George McGovern of 2020. She will lead the Dems to a Trump victory.
11
They thought nothing of taxing our paychecks for our Social Security. They thought nothing of taxing our paychecks for Medicare. They thought nothing of taxing us for FDIC. They thought nothing of cutting taxes for the rich; their businesses and corporations; then increasing their deductions so they pay even less taxes. They thought nothing of actually giving our tax money, free, to corporation through subsidies. Now that somebody suggests cutting out the middleman – the medical insurance companies that take 20% of our premiums – and your company benefit medical payments, and applying that to our Medicare for All payments, they’re crying like a stuck pig. Why?
Letting people and their kids get low – or no – cost physicals and treatments will actually save money in the long run. They found my cancer in its infancy and pills stopped it before it got to expensive treatments. Yes, Medicare for all will catch us up to the rest of the civilized world and save money and lives in the long run.
6
This plan is pure fantacy designed to trick the poor and middle class.ore jobs will move away and more wealth going underground. The same companies that EW is depending on to create jobs she is making out to be the enemy. More taxes are needed to be paid by the rich by not this way. Why can't the progressive see that they need moderated to win. The middle of the country will not accept this plan makes no sense you win the popular vote but still lose the election EW cannot win with this plan.
6
Oh what a bunch of right wing talking points. A family of 4 now pays over 12,000 a year for health insurance, what with the co payments and deductibles and other fees. With Warren's very well thought out plan they will have that much money now to spend elsewhere. So Mayor Pete and Biden, are you saying that you want to make sure these families who pay so much now for health care should not get to have that 12,000? And this will definitely stimulate the economy.
The nation has spoken.
Corporate Dems and all Republicans are scrambling to scare, to fool, to threaten the masses out of voting for what is cheaper, humane and centrist in other countries.
The precious rich have been taxed even more than Elizabeth and Bernie's plans in the days when this nation really thrived. And to say if corporations and billionaires have to pay more taxes then the economy and productivity and growth will take a dive is just the opposite of what happens when people have fair wages and relief from terrible medical debts and college debts and can actually buy things. And yes public college used to be free.
The biggest danger to Elizabeth and Bernie is not the Republicans it is the corporate Dems who take bribes from the corporations. They will claw Bernie and Warren to the ground with all their might.
Mayor Pete is the second largest recipient of donations from insurance companies behind Trump. So he has his marching orders shove the "Choice" down poor voters throats. Great plan!
5
@cheerful dramatist
And based upon total healthcare spending in the US, it is around $10400 PER PERSON ($3.5 trillion in 2017)
That family of 4 needs to put in $41600 - not $12000
@AnnS Good to know I am just quoting what is in Elizabeth's plan, I will go back and check that out. Anyway what ever it is think of the relief of all Americans not having to pay what ever they pay now and having better and more coverage and not be terrified that the insurance company will kick them off if they get too sick and they will lose everything just to keep a family member alive. Oh and forgot part of her plan says that the money employees pay for their part of employee insurance is also theirs to spend on nicer things.
We will only get health care justice after the Trump crime family and their criminal associates in the cabinet and in the congress are safely locked away in federal prison. Your reporting fails to reflect the seriousness of this crisis for the rule of law.
2
why does a trillion dollars of defense spending every year incur no political risk but spending 20 trillion over 20 years for health is terrifying?
i would rather have an affordable doctor than a useless piece of a 400 million dollar jet fighter.
and so would everybody else.
6
Misleading headline.
It’s not a tax increase. It’s a premium reduction.
The corporation I am employed by is cutting more benefits this upcoming year, oh, and my premiums are still increasing. My favorite part? There’s a corporate policy that strictly limits merit based pay increases.
The corporation I work for is not doing anything that thousands of other corporations that employ millions of Americans are also doing.
I’m so sick of this. The media acts like the current system is working. It’s not working. It’s not working for anyone. Ironically it’s probably not even working for the author of this article or the editor that approved it. We need a system like the rest of the developed world has.
3
We do not propose to say that there shall be no rich men. We do not ask to divide the wealth. We only propose that, when one man gets more than he and his children and children's children can spend or use in their lifetimes, that then we shall say that such person has his share. That means that a few million dollars is the limit to what any one man can own."
Huey Long
These people sound worried. Greed is hard to defend. FDR won four elections by making the rich his enemy.
2
Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and a host of diverse, progressive lawmakers at both federal and state levels have done more to reinvigorate the Democratic Party than anyone since FDR. They are right on track.
Plutocrats getting squeamish? Retaliatory? Threatening? Good. We should welcome their hatred.
As for for wealthy, "centrist" Democrats hoping for a return to those halcyon days when Mitch McConnell stymied every timid effort that came from Barack Obama's White House, my question to you is: which side are you on?
10
Eliminate the $10,000/yr private health insurance premiums. Eliminate the co-pays and co-insurance and deductibles. Now a tax on the order of what is now paid for Medicare doesn’t sound too bad at all!
Americans are innumerate.
3
What the uninformed miss about taxes and health care is that you can have genuine group health insurance and more affordable health care with a small tax increase, or you can have a $6000 deductible and much more in sneaky “cost sharing” requirements, putting care out of reach, for no tax increase. You pay either way, but drastically different bottom line for your household—plus, ah, health care.
3
Warren could win this nomination and the election by modifying her plan to the Buttigieg "to those who want it" plan. Be bold and prudent. She won't, of course, because it's too late. I'll vote for any Democrat either way but will the rest of the country. My fear is that this move could well give us the unthinkable 4 more years of Trump.
4
Single payer now.
Healthcare justice for ALL.
3
Why campaign on this ridiculous unaffordable pipe dream of completely free healthcare that will never pass Congress
On the other hand it could pass with no tax increases, income adjusted premiums, and choice of private and employer policies
4
@jim auster 49 industrialized countries in the world have a single-payer system! France has had a single-payer healthcare system since the 1950's. I know: I was born in France and I had it even when I was student! A single-payer system is cheaper for all! A single payer system will provide a better healthcare coverage because the customer does not have to chose a bad plan out of many bad plans. Everybody has the same comprehensive plan that covers everything except experimental procedures and experimental non-approved drugs. The Americans should understand that, its is not because you have a lot of choices, that you have a better plan! The best plan is a plan that is very comprehensive and covers everything except experimental medical procedures and non-approved experimental drugs! Medicare is the American plan that is closer to a single-payer system plan. Medicare is good although is could be improved a little.
1
The words “$20 trillion in new taxes” equal one thing and one thing only: four more years of Trump. Mark my words. This is absolute political suicide.
11