Everyone, please try not to fall for uninformed commentary on Medicare for All; the reality is that too many Americans have been subjected to so many decades of "Perception Management", orchestrated by Big Insurance and Big Pharma, presented by the mainstream media, so carefully crafted that most come away believing the great lie that our system of medical care, in terms of expense foisted on the masses, is the best, when in fact it is the worst on the planet.
The following report, albeit a year old, explains what our corporate owned government, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Business, is terrified of -
Excerpt and link -
"A study from the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst finds that single-payer health care will save the US $5.1 trillion over a decade while drastically cutting working-class Americans’ health spending. It’s the most robust, comprehensive study yet produced on Medicare for All, which has long been in need of easily citable research.
The study analyzes Sen. Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All Act from top to bottom, elaborating on several key aspects of the bill, including what the transition to a fully public, comprehensive, free-at-the-point-of-use health care system might look like and what impact the program will have on US residents."
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-sanders
3
I am insured by Medicare and a supplemental plan. I have spent the last 2 days trying to find out the copay for a treatment a specialist has proposed. The insurance company needs a diagnostic code to tell me. The doctor's office did not answer the phone for the half hour she tried to call them. She left them a voicemail asking them to call me with the code. I haven't heard from them.
Because I have financial assistance from the local hospital system, I need to know if there will be costs to me for the surgery involved. The new specialist I'm supposed to see about the procedure isn't part of the hospital system, but he is in-network for my insurance. Do I need to see a different specialist who is part of the system?
I need answers. In the meantime, I'm in terrible pain and can barely walk. The very first specialist has proposed an implanted nerve stimulator to be surgically put into my back. Why not surgery to repair the source of the pain, which is spinal stenosis? I've had it done successfully twice so far.
I need answers. The system is not working and I don't know what to do. Having one single-payer system would be a blessing. The physicians wouldn't need a team dedicated to dealing with all the different insurance plans. Having to call a number of people for the answer to a simple question is ridiculous.
Single-payer systems work splendidly for other countries. Why can't we made it work here in the greatest nation in the world? Phase it in gradually.
15
I'm sure everything will work just great when the government is in complete control of our health care. We can expect the same excellent level of service that we currently get from Amtrak, the post office, and the DMV.
12
These are canards used by the right to justify their underfunding of government services. The budget for Amtrak was decimated, the Post Office does a spectacular job given its charge and the FACT that it is self funding and DMV's are notoriously under-funded by state governments. Let private industry try to do what these entities do at the level at which they are funded...or NOT funded, to be more precise!
11
@Country Girl: Your comment moved me to tears. Perhaps people will pay attention to your terrible, heartbreaking, and - worst of all - totally unnecessary predicament. Then they will see that Medicare is not free, universal healthcare. Nor is it the single-payer system other nations have.
But the ideologues will push and push for their flawed "Medicare for All," and when it comes we will be stuck with it. And after it comes, politicians will crow loudly that they gave us what we wanted - and then nothing will change for years to come even as we all suffer. As I note elsewhere here: The people laboring under the bizarre misapprehension that Medicare is "free" are headed for a rude awakening and a deeply bitter disappointment...
How horrible that people must suffer and suffer necessarily.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
I’m supporting her, but I fear that the Country could never achieve any kind of unity of purpose, and is too dumb to fix itself..
3
Warren's plan would require a net pick up of four Democrats in the Senate in 2020. With 35 seats up for election, the Democrats need to hold all of theirs and pick up four more. If (and that's a big if) she is successful in realizing that net pick up, then she needs every Democrat in the Senate to support her plan.
Anyone who believes that can happen in 100 days should familiarize themselves with the history of Democratic support for Obamacare.
3
Senator Warren is finally listening to advisors and, more importantly, The People, and backtracking on her pipedream Medicare for All, which poll after poll shows that American people do not want at this time. Americans like the Affordable Care Act and want a Public Option added, along with prescription drug and out of pocket costs reduced.
Sadly, Senator Warren has come around too late. I do not trust her (1) to come up with workable policies that can be enacted now rather that "down the road," and (2) to work with other Democrats and Republicans to get things done.
To my mind, there are currently only three candidates that rise to the standard I believe we need in a President and Commander in Chief: Senator Amy Klobuchar, former VP Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. However, Biden has too much baggage that contains his previous terrible words and deeds regarding women's reproductive health and African Americans, and Buttigieg is far too inexperienced -- his situation is akin to a talented young junior executive absurdly applying for the position of CEO in a Fortune 500 company.
Klobuchar has the experience, solid good sense and the pragmatic progressiveness that will get this country where it needs to go. Klobuchar is proven in winning elections in red and purple districts in her state, working with Democrats, Republicans and Independents to get bills introduced and passed. She is the real deal.
I am not a fan of Bloomberg and am uncertain about Patrick.
2
This added specificity should reassure at least some people who are afraid of losing their current employer-related health insurance plans. I suspect going a bit slower toward Medicare for All would be even better. Nonetheless, Ms. Warren is the only one who has explained how she would move forward in such detail. Everyone deserves to know they can get medical care without being bankrupt, or being refused because they have no insurance.
As someone who is in her first year as Medicare eligible I am so grateful for the coverage. Beats having no coverage in my 50s when my employer stopped offering health benefits. Everyone deserves access to affordable quality health care. Medicare is not perfect and could use the improvements Warren is promoting (for example, I’ve just entered the doughnut hole causing my medication costs to increase hundreds of dollars for the remainder of the year - ouch! - that needs to change). A cap on out of pocket costs is needed too since you can still be bankrupted while on Medicare. But Warren is right on - get lots of folks enrolled in Medicare options and improve it while forcing providers to cut waste and unnecessary expenses (and get rid of all those health care hospital CEOs and executives and big pharma execs leaching millions off of patient’s health care!!) Break up the health care industrial complex. Reopen rural health centers and regional hospitals. Then a true Medicare for All can begin. Win With Warren!!
9
I'm glad Warren's moderating her position, leaving three years for people to appreciate the better coverage and lower costs of her medicare plan. We are capitalists and love our freedom, so why not let government health plans compete in an open market and prove their worth. But this requires cutting Big Business down to size to give government a chance.
So although Warren's transition plan is closer to centrist plans, what hasn't changed is her determination to get corporations off our backs. For this fight, Warren's the only one.
4
This article quotes the deputy campaign manager for Biden saying that "Medicare for all will deny Americans the right to choose their insurance by eliminating employer-sponsored insurance.”
What? Americans with employer-sponsored insurance DON'T get to choose their insurance. THEIR EMPLOYER DOES. Our employer gets even more control over our lives and choices - and we need that insurance so we are LESS FREE to switch jobs and especially less free to start our own business or do free lance work.
Guaranteed universal health coverage will free all Americans to pursue their dreams without fear a medical financial disaster or being indentured to their employer.
6
I give her credit for providing such a detailed transition plan (having read the full proposal on another website). She must have a very capable, conscientious staff to which she is laying out parameters, and then monitoring these staff and editing the final product. It could be improved over time (of which there is still plenty), both internally and with public input.
The distinction between two provisions of the plan for opting into M4A (the poor plus under age 18, and age 50-64) could have been explained more clearly.
3
This initial plan would actually have many dire and adverse consequences. Under Obamacare, employers over a certain number of workers must provide coverage. That would end and cause most if not all employers where there is not a strong union contract to simply drop all coverage for those, at least, who make less than $50,000 a year which is higher than both the US mean and median income. Why would this be a problem if Medicare is going to pick up the tab? Well if there is a two income family above that threshold, one of the providers would have to quit their job. That is just for starters.
Looks to me like she's getting nervous and starting to borrow features of pete Buttigieg's Medicare for all who want it plan. She's still very careful about how it's all going to get paid for, and of course it has to pass congress before anything happens. but she doesn't mention all that.
4
Still a pipe dream. Show me the money.
4
The people laboring under the bizarre misapprehension that Medicare is "free" are headed for a rude awakening and a deeply bitter disappointment...
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
8
All this talk talk talk about the largess these candidates will so graciously bestow upon us... it means nothing compared to the greatest gift of all: no more endless American wars.
Stop all American bombing and overthrowing of governments.
Live and let live.
The world deserves a break from the bloodshed we wreak upon it.
But so many Americans only see ending our many wars as an economic boon to themselves. They only see the money that ending the wars will "save," instead of the lives it will save. How horribly greedy and solipsistic. Money, it seems, is still everything here. How can one expect such people to care about other people?
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
2
I don’t need the government to manage my health care. I am perfectly capable of doing that myself.
4
What are the specific actions for controlling costs? Without cost controls, we’ll go bankrupt!
Doctors won’t accept Medicare reimbursement for all patients unless med school costs are subsidized. We’ll need death panels to ration care!
3
@GV. Yes, costs have to be controlled or MF4A doesn’t have a snowball’s chance. Warren seems to propose across the board reimbursement reductions- good luck with that. Hospitals will close and providers will quit. Their lobby is powerful. Doctors, nurses, PAs all have loans and the docs at least have significant malpractice premiums. Not a word from the illustrious Senator on how to reduce the cost of medical education, rein in the trial bar, increase provider access etc. All she does is bash greedy business which is cheap and easy. Many, many changes have to be made incrementally and it will take a bipartisan coalition to get it done. I’m all for a candidate that wants to bring us together to problem solve. Warren is smart and very used to viewing herself as the smartest person in the room so “just shut up and do as I say already”. I have a streak of that tendency myself but 38 years of actually working and not just lecturing people has taught me that other people have much to contribute.
2
"But she would still rely on Democrats winning control of the Senate, where Republicans currently hold a narrow a slim majority." Well, of course she would. As would every other Democratic nominee. You imply this is somehow a flaw or weakness in her plan instead of the reality for any action on the critical issues facing our country and the world. If the Dems don't win control of the Senate, surely it's a given that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans will refuse to pass any legislation or push forward any Supreme Court nominees. Heck, they'd reject a bill lowering taxes on billionaires out of fear of giving her a "win."
1
The worst argument against Medicare for All is that people in the private insurance industry would lose their jobs. The salaries of a couple of million paper shufflers and benefits deniers is part of the inefficiency of our present system, making it the most expensive in the world.
Its as if we worry that defeating killer diseases will cause funeral directors and grave diggers to lose their jobs.
6
She is correct to be aggressive and implement her plan right away. Obama had the public behind him when he was first elected president, and yet he took single-payer off the table to appease Republicans. Big mistake. Warren in not inclined to make that mistake. Brava! An anxious nation awaits your forward thinking.
4
So Warren is now facing the reality that FORCING people into the insolvement Medicare system is the path to electoral defeat. Time for her to drop out of the race. A bleeding heart liberal from Mass who is so out of touch with most Amercans does not stand a chance any way.
7
Warren is trying to squeeze out a middle ground between Sanders' M4A and Buttigieg's M4A Who Want It. Instead of claiming middle ground, she is floundering in the woods and losing credibility. In fact, middle ground is not needed.
Bernie's M4A plan includes a 4 year transition with the final chapter being the end of private insurance. Pete's M4AWWI allows choice to inform us what Americans prefer. Warren's has a 3 year transition and allows no choice. Where is the innovation? There is no there there.
Pete Buttigieg is the originator of the glide path to universal coverage and the Medicare for All Who Want It detailed policy proposal, which has been available on his website for months. https://peteforamerica.com/policies/health-care/
14
What is the fundamental point here? No ill and unwell American shall have to die a tragic death without medicare. Does it sound obnoxious, illegal or sinful? Then why so hullabaloo! You mean to say it is okay Americans to die without doctor, medicine, care and hope of cure? You're awfully mistaken. The real America, I know, is verily considered to be the most beautiful, kindest and incredibly caring and sharing country on earth. Behold! A tiny example. Stark Countians, the County I'm privileged to live in, donate an average of $3001 a year or 4.01 percent of their income based on an adjusted gross income of $73375. "If you are in the luckiest one percent of humanity, you are to it to the rest of humanity to them about the other 99 percent." Warren Buffet. Please don't try to duck, dodge and divert from the moot point resorting to filibuster by distorting the true definition of socialism. Yes! It is worth a debate on the right strategy towards achieving the ultimate goal of 'universal health care for all' regardless of any parenthetic clause and condition.
S. A. Samad USA
When is Elizabeth Warren going to realize that health care costs money and she can’t give it away for free? At last she’s come around (sort of) to a public option plan but still nobody pays. In order to secure this medical care, I’m sure people would be willing to pay what they can afford depending on their age and circumstances. There are always going to be people who want to buy insurance to cover medical costs. Let them.
Come on Sen Warren. Back off this chimerical Medicare for all stuff, embrace a public option and give yourself a chance to be elected.
1
People can buy the private healthcare if they really love to overpay for services, so they can opt out of Medicare
3
"she would impose new taxes on businesses and the richest Americans."
Wrong, she will restore taxes on businesses and the richest Americans.
9
If Democrats honestly believed that Medicare for all, a public option or Obamacare were the most desirable ways of funding American healthcare, they would begin by imposing their superior plan on a group of overwhelmingly Democrat participants. Step one would be to replace employer provided health insurance for all federal employees.
After the program had demonstrated its superiority and reduction in costs, step two would be to tell the states and municipalities that they had an option of including the cost of their employees' health insurance in taxable income or joining the superior federal program.
After the addition of the healthy federal, state and local employees to the insurance pool, step three would be to invite individuals to voluntarily join up.
Had Obamacare included civil servants in the exchange pools, instead of fabricating a pool of the young and healthy to be overcharged for their expected cost of care with the old and infirm who were getting a 40% discount, the scheme would have worked.
3
My worry about Warren is that she has so thoroughly swallowed the hook cast by Biden and Buttigieg. She is too easily baited. I admire her energy and willingness to show she is serious when she says she’ll do something, but as important as healthcare is, it is not the only issue. With Warren, it feels that way.
Besides, the logistics of these plans don’t really matter as much as the intentions. You can only get so much done on any proposal. Like many commenters say, it all depends on the make-up of the legislature. Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, et al, should acknowledge that. But you gotta start somewhere and if all the Dems start at least with a public option, it will be a big improvement to the ACA and will be popular with many swing voters. By the way, for people who are not on Medicare yet—the Medicare of today is not free. There are premiums based on the amount of your tax returns. They are very low for most retirees who have lower incomes. They aren’t as low for people with higher incomes, but nevertheless they are quite reasonable. It really doesn’t have to be free. I don’t know anyone who complains about their Medicare premiums.
1
It is very much depends on how the public option plan will look like. If it is like the bronze plan of ACA, it is not much improvement
@Kally Medicare premiums have no connection to one's tax returns. I know; I am a Medicare recipient.
@Mary. You are incorrect. Tax returns might be imprecise but the premiums are income based. If memory serves, Reporting this week said that the 2020 premiums for the highest income level couples would be $12,000. There is no out of pocket expense cap. Medicare is definitely more reasonable and broad in its reach but it’s not free, nor should it be. M4A doesn’t solve the overall cost and access issues though
Republicans say she is muddying the water. That is exactly what she needs to do to get elected. If Medicare for all is the goal to reach, Warren is the best if we ever want to get there. The primary reason I am a strong supporter of her is that she can enforce the laws more effectively than any one else and prevent the financial malpractice. That is what is scaring the rich, save few.
2
Having lived for years in Japan where I benefitted from national healthcare, Warren has my vote. We can have a cheaper and more equitable system as the rest of industrialized nations have proven. People are afraid of losing something that they think is better, as a result of years of political disinformation, and many sadly have little compassion to help share the burden of those less fortunate. If she is elected over Trump and Dems can win the senate, Warren’s plan helps the whole country significantly. But Warren still needs to address the problem of a loss of jobs that our sick insurance industry will have to suffer. Does she have a plan for that?
7
I am happy to hear that Ms. Warren is not going to force people to accept her plan as that has been the one sticking point which has made me want to abandon my vote for her, not because I do not think it is a good idea, but because I think most Americans are very "do you own thing" oriented and do not like the government interfering with their choices.
Quite a few of the countries with so called socialized medicine also offer the private options to those who do not wish to give up their private insurances, and this strikes me as fair. It also strikes me as fair that people should not lose their life savings over medical bills, and so people who cannot afford health coverage need to be covered.
Ultimately, some form of government health care would not only save people money (as Ms. Warren has demonstrated) but save Americans from one of the country's biggest killers, the stress of not having the money to pay for health care.
1
I found that Americans do not want to do 'their own thing'. They want their employer to tell them what they need to do. They want the insurance to tell what they can and can not use. Seems like they are really afraid of real choice, and prefer to pretend they have choice.
@Manuela her plan does still force people into Medicare. It just takes three years to get there.
My Medicare requires a co-payment. Is the Medicare for all different,?
What are we already spending on health care in the US? In 2018:
Employers spent $1.2 trillion;
Medicare + Medicaid=$1.2 trillion;
Employees 0.3 trillion;
Obamacare subsidies: 0.7 trillion;
Non-group private insured (43 million)-premiums only=0.2 trillion but out-of-pocket probably another 0.2 trillion
9% were uninsured.
3.8 trillion and 10% are not insured.
Many of us with high deductibles just avoid care.
$3.8 trillion and 10% are not insured and many of us are underinsured and many of us are in debt due to health care.
2
As a 2x cancer survivor, I would love to have some sort of universal health care coverage. I just don’t know what the “best” plan would be and if the country is ready for it.
Not sure I care what specifics Warren is promoting today. We have a giant crisis in our nation. Anybody but Trump needs to get elected.
1
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are important contributors to the Democratic party. They are completely unelectable and should withdraw their candidacies. They are out of step with the times...they may be ahead of them and their ideas may well be right...but with a country focused on their life savings invested in a stock market that's booming right now, they're not preaching to the choir, they're preaching to an empty pasture.
1
If Warren and Sanders are ahead of their American time (because in Europe they are a little behind), then Biden is so much passe
2
As I'm over 50, she's offering me a buy-in option, or Medicare at 50 plan. Great. That plus her other immediate expansion proposals equal most of what rest of the field is proposing.
She's come back to the pack.
I don’t think many proponents of Medicare-for-All realize that doctors don’t have to accept Medicare. Medicare-for-All will actually result in two health care systems: one for the rich and one for the rest of us. The best doctors won’t take Medicare so they can charge what they feel they’re worth. The rich will be able to afford these doctors. The rest of us will be stuck with average doctors and mediocre health care and our tax dollars will pay for this even if our doctor doesn’t accept our insurance.
4
@Mark
Under the present system, many are stuck with no doctors. Or none that they can afford.
We need to open more medical schools. There are many qualified potential students who are turned away.
3
@Mark
Uh, no. Perhaps you are confusing this with Medicaid, which has lower reimbursement rates than Medicare.
Most doctors/hospitals accept Medicare. They wouldn't survive without it.
3
No, This is not true. many doctors, especially the better doctors and especially in more expensive areas, do not accept Medicare at all
1
"Her Medicare for all plan would require an estimated $20.5 trillion in new federal spending over a decade, and to provide funding for it, she would impose new taxes on businesses and the richest Americans." is the piece that really scares me! When I purchase items on Amazon I pay taxes, how about going after businesses for their fare share not imposing new taxes? When I shop at B&H I'm paying taxes, how could they owe millions? My dollars are taxed 7 times, I'm afraid new taxes will become higher prices that we all will endure.
1
@Andrea Ubok
Thos same businesses would no longer be paying for private health insurance, nor dealing with the management time of arranging private insurance for employees.
2
She's taking Pete Buttigieg's proposed plan and stamping her own name on it. Will she claim to be a veteran next? Jeez.
4
Warren has made it clear that Medicare for All is the destination. It's similar to when a company moves headquarters - it will happen, the only debate is how. The more the government becomes the health insurance company, the more that most people will like it. Private insurance has profit, excessive overhead and denial of service built into its model. Current Medicare is the most efficient (lowest overhead) health insurance system in the country. Would anyone over 65 give up their Medicare? No. And as more of us get it, more of us will feel the same way.
4
I pay several hundred dollars a month for my health insurance, which is very good, with a matching contribution from my employer. According to Senator Warren's plan, I would get better health coverage without paying anything, including any increased taxes. That doesn't make sense to me. What will replace my contributions to my health coverage? I just don't believe her explanations are realistic, and that means I don't trust her plan and I don't trust her to be president.
9
@av35
Like everyone else in the civilized world, single payer means it comes out of general tax revenues from which everyone will contribute. It is true, your taxes will increase but, the tax increase will be far less than what you are paying now in premiums, there will be no more co-pays or deductibles and everyone will be covered.
Why is that so hard for Americans to understand?
3
@Deus
There is nothing in her scheme that reduces the executive salaries of charity hospitals. Therefore, the hospitals will continue to raise their prices regardless of whether the bills are being paid by individuals, employers, insurers or the taxpayer.
Like Obamacare, the scheme is designed to make sure that healthcare is funded for the benefit of big medicine donors to Democrats.
What Democrat voters and Canadians find it hard to comprehend is that the big boys are not giving up their largess without a publicity campaign that says if they don't get their way, the Republicans are throwing grandma under the bus.
Hospitals today claim that Medicare reimbursements only cover 80-90% of their cost of care, so they have to charge everyone else more to cover the losses on Medicare patients. The Kaiser Family Foundation [lobbying arm for the Kaiser for-profit enterprises] has already made projections of how many hospitals would close under Medicare for All since, obviously, they wouldn't be able to stay in business if they had to take a loss on every patient. So some of the MFA proposals have increased the anticipated costs to cover the hospital demands.
What is somewhat odd is that the supposedly skimpy Medicare reimbursements are substantially higher than what Canada, France, UK or the "smarter" or "civilized" countries are paying for identical services.
I'm really looking forward to free everything. It is so clear that won't change incentives or behaviors. Finally a democrat I can get behind. Obviously we will get 4 more years of Trump if this is the alternative.
5
Small (retail) business owner here. I'm currently paying $16,000 month to insure about 25 people. Warren's plan would literally save my small business.
13
@Frank
Dude, under her plan, you would still have to pay the government about what you are paying now for the insurance
2
I love you Liz! I was worried for awhile that your Medicare for All plan would sink your campaign. This transition plan is reassuring and brilliant. We will miss you as Senator but you will make a great president. Now will the gentlemen candidates out there come out with a similarly detailed health plan or are they going to continue to snipe at your proposals. Let’s see your details! Time to send her another donation. Take that Mr Bloomberg. Real democracy in action.
5
The plan by Warren seems to smack of pragmatism, not a big bold progressive plan. Generally the party of the president loses seats in the House in mid-term elections so by the time she gets around to Medicare for All she may have fewer votes she can count on than if she did Medicare for All in her first term. My guess is this is going to cost her progressive support. There seems little patience on the progressive side for delaying a push for Medicare for All. If she waits until her third term will she really have enough time to take on the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and everyone else opposing Medicare for All. I think Warren is getting herself into a mess on this issue and it may be her downfall in the primary.
I was a little bit unsure about Warren's Medicare for All plan.
I am all in on her "first 100 days" proposal.
7
The US system helped kill my late wife in two months and ten days. I believe she would have received much better care in other western countries. I think Pete Buttigieg's plan for Medicare for those who want it, may be the best transition to help us do better. We are currently ranked 54th in the world for healthcare efficiency according to the Bloomberg survey so it will take us a while to catch up. Sadly, a lot more people will die prematurely until we do.
1
@F Walker
Buttigieg' so-called Medicare for those that want it means nothing and will not change anything.
This is complicity in the worst crime in human history.
Diverting her effort and our attention TO who-gets-what in our current fossil-fueled piggies generations.
Diverting her effort and our attention FROM the reality that we are spiraling to horror for our grandchildren, collapse of human civilization, and extinction for the final generations that follow.
At zeroing in on specific steps to help solve a problem, Senator Warren is superb. But at judging priority on what problem to address, on a scale of 1 to 10 she is minus 3.
3
@Dick Purcell
People who don't see a doctor due to out of pocket costs or are being sued by hospitals for what insurance doesn't cover -- they don't have the luxury of the big picture of climate change.
They are just trying to survive today.
So....the family of 4 that makes $55,000 per year pays full freight on health insurance; and the family that makes $5,000 less gets a free ride. How do you not see how offensive this is to people who break their backs working to provide for their families?
5
@Ann Wouldn't that family of four get coverage for their children under this plan?
For the life of me and to the critics of Warren and/or Sanders and their Medicare For All plans who honestly believe that this would be a negative in their campaigns, has anyone bothered looking at the alternative??
Trump and his "Trumpublicans" have been stating very clearly for quite some time now that IF re-elected, they will take aim and destroy the last remnants of the ACA and in their next budget, in order to cut the record deficit they created, they will be making significant cuts to social security, medicare and medicaid with the ultimate goal of privatization.
The idea that MFA is going to be a negative while the Republicans are aiming to dismantle the whole social safety net that the majority of Americans paid into is ludicrous and easily can be eviscerated by a democratic candidate who will do exactly the opposite for the American people.
5
I don't know ANYONE who agrees with Warren on Medicare for all. If she is the Democratic nominee,Trump wins a second term. All of my friends and working associates despise Trump. But we hate Warren's talk of Medicare for all even more than we hate Trump, for many reasons.
First of all, many of us have been paying into Medicare our entire working lives. And now, she wants to open it up to illegal immigrants! If I did anything illegal, I'd be in jail. And if I had my young children with me at the time of my illegal act, they would be separated from me. I would go the jail and the kids would go to Children's Services. Yet Warren and many other Democrats give a special status to people from other countries, especially Latin America, that we don't have here in the U.S. When they are separated, the Democrats scream bloody murder. Secondly, there is no way I can trust Warren to get medical care right. Congress can't get Veterans Health care right, so why in the world would I trust government to get the entire U.S. health system right. Not going to happen.
6
God help us all from the like of Warren & Sanders & IOC & the Left Wing. We need to GET RID OF TRUMP as the first priority. These people will not do this.
2
@rumcow
You will not get rid of Trump unless you offer a viable democratic alternative! The mainstream/centrist corporate/establishment candidates like HRC in 2016 is what got Trump elected in the first place!
6
No HRC herself gave you Trump, not her centrist tendencies.
2
@Deus
Hillary did not lose because she was a centrist. She lost because she was Hillary, i.e., a bad candidate. Obama and Bill Clinton each won two terms as a moderate/centrist.
5
With Medicare for All, when fully implemented, you could get rid of VA hospitals in large metro areas, as the Vets could go to any hospital in that metro area, and use that money to build a combined VA/NHS/Native Health Hospitals and clinics in underserved rural areas. Also change the name from Medicare or single payer to “AMERICARE”. Some would call it WarrenCare or ElizabethCare or just E-CARE. It will work - it does in most advanced countries.
5
@Time - Space
E-Care would be a good name, but I-Care would be even better. It would be care in the virtual universe rather than actual medical services.
This is really is a somewhat of a revised Bernie Sanders plan whom in his case, would phase it in over a four year period reducing the qualifying age coverage every year until it was in full effect and covering everyone. This would give time for the adjustments that would have to be made within the system and particular employers who would no longer have to be concerned about the cost or implementation of healthcare within their companies.
Just think America, when it comes to healthcare you would then have the distinction of joining the rest of the "civilized world" in which healthcare would become a right and take a considerable financial burden off much of American society who has little or no coverage, large co-pays or the half million Americans that have to file for bankruptcy every year because they can't pay their medical bills.
6
Democrats have spewed forth election year promises of universal healthcare since 1945. Over 70 years now and and people still fall for it.
As to Senator Warren in particular, how wonderful that she's got a plan for... everything. How did we ever get along without her? Warren possesses that rarest of human qualities: 100% certitude. She... KNOWS and she can fix everything. Whatever the situation, Warren's got a surefire plan.
Shrinks have a term for a person like that.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
5
Dear Rev, “It’s not the critic who counts.....The credit belongs to the man (woman) who is actually in the arena...who strives valiantly; who errs...and if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” Teddy Roosevelt. Warren is striving to give every American basic health care, a human right this wealthy country lacks. She is a fighter and she cares. That is why she has my support.
Warren’s “big first step” should be to try her Medicare for All on the two existing public health insurance programs— Medicaid and Medicare— which together cover 114 million people. That should be both economically and politically feasible which is definitely not the case for replacing the private health insurance industry that would limit consumer choice and face massive resistance from many moderate voters as well as the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies along with both hospital and physician associations worried about the low reimbursement rates. Once she can demonstrate that it works it should be offered through a public option. Anything else is a recipe for a Trump second term.
By the time the campaign is over, Warren will be backtracking to Medicare for None.
4
I wish Warren Luck but she should be careful.
If you are cynical, the second most important reason why President Trump is currently in the trouble he is in is that he stepped on too many toes too quickly when he came into office.
Move into health care too quickly and she will pretty much do the same thing. Not saying this is wrong, but saying that the Republicans will do everything in their power to undermine it, especially if they have just been stung by an impeachment.
@Dundeemundee
I have an easy solution. Start electing people to the Congress and Senate whom are unencumbered by lobbyists money and are committed to implementing the plan.
1
Finally. Start with the public option and watch people get out from their employer controlled and insurance limited health plans. Do people like employees shifting more and more costs on them and insurance overruling physician decisions. Do you really trust either to prioritize worker best interests over executive bonuses and stock options?
The employers’ role should be to pick up part of the costs through taxes, with no say in how care is delivered. If payers want to survive, sell supplemental plans or turn into provider companies, just as big tobacco diversified. Our current model is incapable of reining in costs, because it is designed from maximum profit and inefficiency.
2
We just got the rate increase for our private family health insurance for 2020 and it will be almost $25K per year with a $7900 individual deductible- or over $15K for our family.
I’ll take Warren’s plan!
11
I wonder what you were paying before you got Obamacare. That law was supposed to save you a lot of money.
Can't say I've ever been given much choice with employer sponsored insurance. PPO vs HMO maybe. But what would a private insurer offer that isn't covered by Medicare?
4
The private carrier drops you when you get cancer, kidney disease, etc.
5
@Leonard
reimbursement rates that good doctors accept, unlike Medicare
This is now the issue to disqualify Warren from my list of candidates, and unfortunately I don't have anyone else to turn to. Please let there be a candidate who makes climate change the top priority - not health care. If there is one major piece of legislation that the next President spends their initial political capital on (other than democracy itself), it should be climate change. Please let there be a candidate who makes it their top priority to build a coalition on this most important issue.
4
Pragmatism is good. Given the likely composition of the Senate in 2021, Medicare for all can only viewed as a long term aspiration. The reality is that the details of any future healthcare legislation will be hammered out through tough negotiations held in Capitol conference rooms, not abstractly in idealistic campaign position papers.
For now, it is sufficient that Warren commit to the universal healthcare goal, explore the financial feasibility issues in a credible manner, and demonstrate requisite flexibility as to the various intermediate steps that may be involved in getting the job done. She has done that.
7
Medicare for All is ultimately literally life saving for each American. Everyone needs healthcare at some point. As in all civilized countries other than ours, it is considered a human right. It’s the entire point of living in a civilization. Insurance companies profit from killing you and denying you healthcare. We don’t need them as the primary providers. Keep your doctors under Medicare for All. Any kinks will be worked out. This change is the gift to life for millions. The U.K., Canada and France among others provide government healthcare. We must also.
11
We hear so much about Americans with private health insurance who love it. I'd like to see the government offer a "government option" for a few years and then slam the door. Those who love private insurance so well can then live with it without denying everyone else single-payor. And that's what they're doing now: denying everyone else single-payor.
9
@Theodore R
The so-called "public option" is unrealistic and will be essentially unfair. In this case with the private insurance companies still controlling the pool and the system, they would then "cherry pick" only the healthy leaving those that are left over, less healthy and older that will have no choice but to choose the "public option".
Universal single payer plans operate most efficiently when it is the primary system otherwise, costs will never be able to be controlled and private insurance companies have no interest in controlling costs.
1
@Deus: Good points, except for the part where those who want medicare cannot get it because some folks are alleged to want private insurance. *That's* the part that's not fair.
Well, that and the fact that Australia, your lovely, but frigid, Canada and practically all of Europe provide, measurably better health outcomes at substantially lower cost than we "exceptional" Americans are able to obtain, thanks to our private insurance.
Have any of the Democratic candidates spoken about providing funding for medical research? Finding a cure for diseases that ravage our bodies and take our lives are essential to any good health care program!
Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare corporations make billions in profits from illness and disease. Finding a cure to diabetes, cancer, heat disease is imperative not only for keep health costs low but also to improve the lives of millions of citizens.
The compromise candidate. Moves like this reinforce my dedication to Bernie Sanders.
9
@Jeff D
I am voting for Bernie, but both are excellent. Let’s be careful about our criticism of allies.
4
I'm a liberal Democrat. I oppose Medicare For All and do not support Warren now for this reason. First, Medicare for All addresses only part of a very complex problem. It addresses coverage, but not the unsustainable rising costs of care. As long as we continue to have a fee-for-service model of healthcare, where delivery of more care results in more money for hospitals and physicians, the coming train wreck is not averted. Warren does nothing to address the over-compensation of physicians, who are just as profit-driven as are the for-profit insurance companies (in fact, most insurers are non-profit, unlike physicians' groups). Warren likes to demonize the insurers while never mentioning the problem inherent in physicians who make $400,000 or $500,000 a year, billing for that income whether it is commercial insurance or Medicare for All that is billed. Her portrayal of the problem is purposely limited and obfuscates the complexity, which includes unsustainable escalation in costs. Until she addresses the full problem and all of its players, not just one or two that she paints as ogres, I have reason to doubt the integrity of her plan.
5
@Tintin
It directly addresses the costs of care because it takes greedy, for profit, killer insurance companies out of the picture. Both Bernie and Warren support negotiations with drug companies such that we don’t pay more than other countries.
5
@Justice4America My point is that physicians who are profit-driven are no better than insurance companies that are. I'm curious why so many, including Warren and Sanders, are giving the drivers of cost, physicians and hospitals, a pass.
1
Physicians are not significant contributors to the excessive costs. Their pay has not risen significantly since before health costs began to run away in the 90s. Their pay is well deserved and highly controlled by the regulatory environments of Medicaid and Medicare, which insurance company reimbursements schedules are based on, and trust me, some of those rates are laughable relative to the work and liability involved. This stereotype of the excessively billing millionaire physician represents a very small proportion of all physicians who work 60-100 hour work weeks for their moral calling of maintaining our country’s high health care standards. This is after 10 years of post college, lost income (while in post grad training). Take away pay and you will instantly lower our national healthcare quality, because the sacrifices made to enter the field are very very heavy. This stereotype of the greedy physician has been planted in the public consciousness by articles highlighting the actions of the minority, as well as by the pro-corporate wings of the field, for their own agendas (e.g. to shift costs to monopolization of health systems).
Warren’s plan is still too big-government for this Dem. And healthcare is not the issue to lead with. It should be infrastructure reform, wealth inequality, job creation initiatives by moving to green energy, education. She won’t beat Trump with this plan. Hopefully, she won’t beat Biden or Mayor Pete either. Otherwise, it’s four more years of Trump News, every night, all night. No thanks.
4
@HeyJoe
The GOP wants to take your healthcare and that of your family and friends. Healthcare is number 1 because without your health and your life nothing else can improve. I find it hard to believe you’re a Democrat.
1
@Justice4America
Democrats want government control of healthcare because it means the wealthy big medicine owners get richer while the poor get poorer.
Where is the money coming from? The US government makes just under $2 trillion from tax receipts every year, so even if they doubled that it still wouldn't find current expenditure PLUS President Warren's $2 trillion per year health plan. Socialised medicine is a noble goal, but I the Warren campaign doesn't have a feasible plan for funding it.
4
@Pete
She provided a detailed plan for paying supported by numerous economists. Before spreading lies look at her very specific plan to pay for it. Once you do that then specifically let us know what you believe won’t work and why?
4
It's not "lies", it's analysis from economists, only they're not the same economists that the Warren campaign is paying to agree with her cost analysis; i.e, they're independent, and they're credible.
@Justice4America
That's not much of an answer. Sounds like you don't understand how she plans to pay for it either!
Has Warren given up, or is this desperation?
Maybe someone should pass the campaign a note reminding them that waffling and political calculations leave voters wondering if a candidate will just change their mind again.
Even if you like this proposal, you've got to ask yourself; can you trust this is really where Warren stands, or will she abandon another pledge, make a new vow, or forget about it altogether.
Warren's biggest hurdle this campaign has been earning trust from voters, and she has consistently given them reason to question where she is at on any issue. In recent polls, Warren's support has started to decline. Doubling down on a trust deficit doesn't seem like the best way to win confidence.
7
@Marion
Nothing happens immediately anyway. It answers the issue of quickly stripping away healthcare insurance. People find change difficult even for the better. People didn’t want Obamacare either at first but when the GOP tried to kill it, even Trump supporters were outraged. The GOP still have no healthcare plan after 12 years btw. Nor do they intend to. Bluntly, they want you to die if you can’t afford care.
@Justice4America
No Trump supporter or Republican was outraged by the attempt to repeal Obamacare. It took the brain damaged vindictive RINO McCain to prevent its repeal. We remain outraged at the disgusting behavior of McCain.
Obamacare was not change for the better. The only people who supported it were big medicine cronies who got higher profits and bonuses and people who had nice employer provided healthcare and though it was lovely that their lessers had such a lovely option available. No one who had insurance in the individual market before Obamacare was better off. The 10 million healthy, able bodied childless adults who were newly insured by Medicaid didn't have high medical costs before O'Care and enjoyed the free contraceptives they'd have otherwise had to pay $60 per year themselves and adored the free opioids.
American life expectancy at birth has declined annually since 2015, the year after 20 million more people got insurance.
Bluntly, Democrats made things worse for everyone except their wealthy donors. They think euthanasia and abortion are fabulous ideas couched in terms of women's health and dignity in dying. They don't think it's worthwhile to support the birth of the unworthy or the continued existence of the unworthy, unless there's money to be made.
I think Warren will be an excellent President. There is nothing wrong with lofty goals. Medical is a human right, not an option.
13
Earlier today, while walking the dog, I was thinking - I really like Elizabeth Warren, but she has to dial back her Medicare for All plan. My sense is going for the whole enchilada is not going to be acceptable to a large swath of the voters that will be needed to win the election, and that was coloring my ability to go all in with Warren. It would be a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good, and the good is expanding health care and sending the moving trucks to The White House.
8
Thank goodness Warren is admitting that Medicare for All cannot be built in one day.
@123jojoba
She always said that but as usual few people listen.
2
So much is made of the astronomical cost of single payer, National, socialist, or Medicare For All variants on the idea of a government operated healthcare system for Americans. Billions... TRILLIONS! sound so scary. It what are we really talking about? What if we made no changes to the current chaotic system? Would it still wind up costing someone, somewhere all that money? Would a single payer system wind up being cheaper than continuing in the current unsustainable path? Are the arguments really: we don’t want the government in charge of all that money when we could be stealing it ourselves? If the government is in charge, won’t medical costs become more transparent and offer fewer profit opportunities and perhaps even regulation? Will the costs go up because fewer will be priced out of the market and we’ll be covering more people? All those HUGE numbers: are they gross or net? There’s a lot to be defined before Warren or anyone else can seriously discuss the cost of a single payer system. And right now, it seems those with money to lose define all the terms.
2
When Sen Warren reports for work in the U. S. Senate does she not notice that the Republicans are in the majority? Even if she presents the most perfect plan ever devised, how does she expect to get Senatorial approval? Until she comes up with a plan to tip the Senate, this is campaign drivel. This race isn’t just about the Presidency and she and her rivals better realize this, or nothing will be accomplished.
2
@Bob Fiedelman
Maybe you missed 2018 wherein the GOP had tried to take healthcare away.
YES! This is a workable plan and transition and has addressed many concerns about taking others private insurance. It would be remarkable if this could be achieved in her first term but as she has stated it’s better to have bold goals and fight for what is needed and just then aim for mediocrity and settle for half or less of a loaf. Only time will tell what we end up with but she has my vote as a 62 y/o that has grown tired of mediocrity, corporate control and holding my nose in these presidential elections.
1
The reality is that it will take 3 years to make a functional plan, and years to fix the flaws.
Literally hundreds of thousands of "pages" of details, and millions of jobs affected.
If the GOP didn't hate Obama so much, the ACA could have been changed and updated.
I still can't figure why Trump says HE will fight hospitals and drug companies, and essentially reduce the income level of doctors, while telling us how great the stock markets are and how cozy we all are.
Is HE going to legally FORCE doctors and practices to take everyone? Does he know the complexity of claiming people could look online at doctors and hospitals to see what they charge for a baby aspirin?
Personally, my mandatory $135 for Medicare and my $123 monthly for the Plan G supplement is doing just fine for me.
heres an idea, don't give Sanders any attention or positive feedback on what his campaign is accruing (quality, BIG endorsements from many unions and working class people) and when the next best option that kind of appeals to his base dithers back toward the middle celebrate it!
2
This is a step forward but to create a strong foundation for universal health care or a combination including provisions for private insurance will take more than 3 years .
A public option with subsidies for low income people will provide health care for all. Reducing prescription drug prices for all to International levels will reduce costs
If I was Senator Warren I would seek expert advice for the road ahead and form a blue riband panel to make recommendations for how we can best move forward to Universal Health Care.
The same approach would apply to Tax reform and the elimination of all tax breaks for the wealthy and Corporations before implementing a wealth tax .
If she takes a more evolutionary approach she will beat Trump , carry Senators to a Democrat Control of the Senate.
Having seen the Ambassador deal with mean spirited white males today I want a Woman to lead our country.
I say that as a Generation A white male
Warren still is the candidate that Trump and the GOP want as the Dem candidate. Her candidacy will depress all down ballot races, jeopardizing recent Dem gains. Forget regaining the Senate with a Warren candidacy, any voter on the fence with their Senate candidate will think twice before they hand the Senate over to a Warren administration.
This Dem wants to win and defeat Trump and the gOP. We will not get there with Warren.
3
I call this Sen. Warren's "Kamala Moment." In short, she was for Medicare for All before she was against it -- or at least before she realized that it's political suicide. Flip-flops like this didn't do Sen. Harris any good, and this won't help Sen. Warren either. It's pretty clear that her surge in the polls has stalled as voters realize the risks of her proposals.
2
What riles me the most about this campaign season is how completely oblivious these candidates, (or maybe it’s just their supporters), are to the most dire needs our country will have, if and when, we get rid of our present government. Not one candidate is talking about the huge costs it will take just to get a half way decent government performing again. We are so incredibly vulnerable right now. All the major government departments have been hollowed out and of those that remain, possibly hired by the Trump administration it might only be by coincidence that they have some knowledge about what they are doing. I realize that fear mongering doesn’t win an election, but honesty does, and we need some honest talk before we promise the moon..... or Medicare for all in the first 100 days.
This plan requires a Democratic Senate and House. Warren is a senator from a state with a Republican governor, so if she becomes president she will be replaced by a Republican. That makes taking the Senate back nearly impossible and makes all her plans meaningless.
2
No there will be a special election to replace her.
as Liz said, when a private plan is needed for an emergency situation, the employee will regret s/he didn't have the public plan....Pete/Bernie cannot compete with her.
1
Senator Warren is proving her mettle for office. She is showing that she can be flexible and ,afterall, isn't that what politic means? She proves she is a true Democrat.
5
Liz Warren plan will
mean 4 more years of Trump.
Fluke - she wins - a D Senate would never support taking my health care and giving control to Federal government.
2
Excellent move, Liz!
Your old plan scared voters and could have lost you the election. It probably would not have passed Congress. And could be unaffordable even if it did.
Your new plan is voluntary, so voters will like it and Congress will be more willing. And rolling it in gradually makes it easier to get the costs right.
Best of all, maybe, looks like Liz is savvy enough to recognize a mistake when she makes one. Warren 2020!!!
So Warren promises to repeal and replace Obamacare? That should assure her election.
In the minds of every Trump voter and probably a third of Clinton voters: No way am I voting for this woman. She’s not taking my health insurance, she’s not taking my gun, she is not doubling my taxes. No, she is not getting my vote.
2
Did she just politically suicide?
I mean I get why she took that position and as a centrist I would agree, but this is political suicide. She can't compete with Kamala Harris. And she certainly can't afford trust issues with progressives.
What... was that...
1
Who will wait for their medicare? Inquiring minds want to know. The Democrats are as adept at bait and switch as their rival party.
A President Warren would not be able to do it all. She will need the approval of Congress to pass any of her plans. All she can do as President is push for change.
The glorious Reagan Revolution has destroyed the middle class. Whining and crying from billionaires and their enablers who benefited the most during this time is just ridiculous.
The question for Warren is: “how do you plan to get this through Congress?”
No president can enact legislation. When will the media start to call out all of these presidential nominee hopefuls and tell them to stop promising what they cannot deliver. No wonder people vote or don’t vote for specific individuals for idiotic reasons. They don’t understand how our government operates and the candidates reinforce their ignorance.
1
Ok, now we can all agree, she is delusional.
First she provides a plan o pay for all her goodies that will never pass at all. It balloons the budget to double what it is, and the Tax the Rich law will never pass. Economists, lawyers, professors all say the same, she underestimated the cost and will not get this approved in her life time.
And now she claims to have Medicare for All by year 3. It took Obama about 6 to pass Obama Care, and he had congress, the senate and the SCOTUS on his side. She is no Obama, the Senate is not with her and half of congress will not back her.
She is selling you a piece of blue sky. And you are all lining up to buy some.
2
This just reads as a free ad and another reason for me to back Bernie Sander in the Primary. Thanks NYT!
4
Thx Sen Warren. Seems like your heard our cries to pls modify or scale back your plan. Nobody is questioning your integrity,intellect,or determination to help 99% of us.
Now,pls go the record for strong borders and stopping illegal immigration. Deprive Trump of his favorite demagoguery lines of attack.
2
NYT Headline the moring after the 2020 election:
"SHE PERSISTED"
I'm so looking forward to it ;-)
3
Good move to reveal an incremental implementation, because it sounds like some people were freaking out, and I would hate for her to lose just because of that. The ultimate goal remains the same!
5
Pass it??? At any time????
It is not happening if she ins and takes office in the 1st year or even the first 4 years
To do that the Dems need
* House majority
* Senate super-majority of 60+ (uh the filibuster thing)
Good luck trying to hold all 12 D seats up in 2020 AND pick up 13 R seats in the Senate -- R seats which are up are in the South and the West (Montana-Idaho-Texas west)
That is NEVER GONNA HAPPEN
This article is a ridiculous waste of time
3
My reading of this announcement is she is caving in on M4A due to the backlash she is receiving. She is freaking out the moderate Democrats who want Trump out of office and are afraid her progressive/extreme position will scare away the voters who are ready to abandon Trump but won't vote for socialist programs. I am one of those moderate voters who is very leery of Warren so this news is welcome.
I hope she continues to back peddle on M4A and make it a "nice to have" rather than a hard requirement. Piority #1 is beating Trump in 2020. After that we can undo the damage he did and work on new initiatives like healthcare.
The first time someone goes to see their doctor for whatever reason, produces the Medicare card and discovers that there is no co-pay and that their labs aren't going to cost them and that they will be treated and treated well, I rather think that that person will decide that they like Ms. Warren's plan. Then when no enormous bill arrives that could bankrupt them, they will want her for President forever. That thought probably terrifies Republicans, especially Republicans who are making money off of other people's illnesses. All I can say is, Go, Girl, Go!
86
@lynchburglady Actually, that's Sanders plan you're describing. Warren stole it from him, and she has no plans for actually implementing it.
3
@lynchburglady
“Then when no enormous bill arrives that could bankrupt them”
But it will bankrupt the rest of us through higher taxes.
Even after taking her recently reviled Plan into account, Ms. Warren has budgetary hole. Filling it is made harder by her insistence that taxes on the middle class will not increase.
Besides, promising to discontinue the health insurance of the millions of Americans who have private plans through their employers is crazy. This is especially true for many union members who have generous health benefits (Cadillac health insurance plans). Ask union member if they want to give up their current health insurance for “Medicare for All”
6
@Miguel
500,000 Americans are going bankrupt every year because they can't pay their current medical bills now!
6
I agree with Warren’s approach to this much needed change in our health system, with one exception: if a company is currently spending a lot on health insurance for their employees, why should they have to pay more than a company that is currently spending less per employee in the future? That seems unfair and I thought the goal is to be more fair not less.
This is my reading of the proposal, please correct me if this is not so.
Except that Warren will never be president because medicare-for-all, as well as decriminalizing unauthorized entry into the US, are political losers. If Warren is the democratic candidate, these two policies will guarantee trump's re-election. Soooo stupid - these proposals are deeply opposed by the electorate and will only poll worse as Fox and Trump blast away at such easy targets.
20
@Chukar I am so sure that these two proposals, Medicare for All and decriminalization of unauthorized entry, are deeply opposed by the electorate. It makes little sense to refuse to give healthcare to all who want it as other Western countries do. Decriminalization is not a free pass; it simply means it will be an infraction instead of a misdemeanor.
1
Promising healthcare reform is a winning issue. “Medicare for all” is a good moral aspirational goal, but politically difficult to execute. Medicare expansion is probably more doable as would be controlling the cost of medication; both would be welcomed by middle class families. Let's see the impact of Kentucky’s newly elected democratic governor’s reversal of the ACA’s prohibition under Republican control — enough said. Senator Warren’s reform and restructure platform is what the American people want. The ACA is popular and no matter how hard “Moscow Mitch” has tried to eviscerate it, he’s failed. Affordable healthcare remains front and center and Senator Warren should continue advocating for it in the 2020 election cycle.
3
I thought the progressives opposed incrementalism. If Warren keeps this up she will shift more progressive votes to Sanders. I think she is making a big mistake by going small. She has built up a pretty good reputation with the left but now it appears she risks throwing it away. This move will play into the hands of progressives who don't trust her. She certainly is demonstrating why she isn't trusted. This could be the breakthrough that Sanders needs to overcome Warren.
6
Seriously? This new announcement amounts to two hypotheticals:
First, President Warren is inaugurated in 2021 with a Democratic House and Democratic Senate, and is able to pass through a public option.
Second, both houses of Congress remain democratic into 2023, and Warren will have a mandate to push through Medicare for All.
3
Trump has his basket of deplorables, Sanders has a basket of delusionals.
4
@Bob
Agreed. But better now to pivot and take off the cosplay characterization in the primary, so we can all vote truthfully on the politician. But is this Warrens true state yet?
Pete, pick a side.
Just incrementalist road kill in the middle.
1
I went to her website and read her whole transition policy. I wish everyone would read it as it will answer questions the commenters here have.
I don't know what legislation the future Congress will pass. I do know that when I mark the ballot for Warren, she will work hard for all of us to make our lives better.
I am a senior with a lifetime of voting. I want a smart fighter in office who knows what needs to be fixed. I never thought I would see in my lifetime the country so damaged by money and power.
21
Warren can not win a general election with this plan, she will hand Trump another term. That's besides the fact this will never pass Congress. We need a candidate that had plans that can actually become law.
6
Do you mean Trump? His tax cut passed.
1
@Thomas Renner I don't see another candidate with a Healthcare plan that isn't status quo adjacent.
We must mandate Medicare for All.
4
@yulia No, not Trump. Besides his great personal flaws he is a rotten politican. The tax bill is all he got done in three years and all it does is help him and his rich pals. For two years he had control of all government and couldn't fix immigration, gun control, DACA or even get his wall built. We need a president that can fix this stuff once and for all.
1
Senator Warren's newly proposed strategy of first offering children and people below twice the poverty line income threshold free healthcare requires, as the article explained, the assumption that Democrats take control of the Senate. But that may not be sufficient unless they achieve a supermajority of 60 required for passage of any legislation that is permanent and not subject to reconciliation as was the case when the Senate passes the tax bill in 2017 (it is set to expire in 10 years). I don't think any presidential candidate has the coattails to bring this off in 2020. A more plausible approach would be to strengthen and broaden ACA as Joe Biden and some other candidates propose and on a temporary basis if needed to circumvent the supermajority rule. The latter rule also applies to Warren's and Sanders' ambitious tax plans, which nevertheless could be implemented for a limited time basis, as it only requires the approval by 50 votes, with the new VP casting the approval vote. But as the saying goes, the President proposes and Congress disposes, what actually will be achievable is anybody's guess.
5
And how Biden will do that? Through ever rising subsidies to cover ever-rising premiums with ever-rising deductibles. It will be great for insurances but I am not sure how good it will be for folks
4
Unfortunately, in the current world of Democratic fantasy plans and aspirational purity, the Republicans are in an excellent position to help the Democrats reelect Trump -- something the Republicans cannot do on their own -- providing reinforcements to the Democrats' circular firing squad and auditions for God.
Americans tend to understand that successful executives -- governors and mayors of large cities -- usually have more relevant experience in what it takes to be President than do legislators -- Senators and Representatives. Governors and mayors actually have had to execute plans involving many, often conflicting, constituencies. Theirs is not the luxury to simply promote elaborate plans for fantasy political landscapes.
None of the medical proposals deals with a major reality millions of Americans face: the huge lack of primary care doctors and other qualified medical personnel, especially in poorer and rural communities. What good is insurance, even "free" insurance, if there is nobody to go to with your medical problems? A number of months ago the Albuquerque Journal ran an article stating that the largest medical provider in New Mexico did not have a single primary care doctor accepting new patients. Lest those of you on the coasts dismiss this as a just penalty for living in flyover America, the article also stated that in Massachusetts, with the highest doctor to patient ratio, the average wait to see a new primary care doctor was fifty-seven days.
6
I am wondering how big this problem actually now. The voters cited the high cost as a problem, not a lack of GP.
1
@yulia
Yulia, thanks for engaging. Both from my personal experience, those of family and friend, and from what I read (such as the article I cited), it is an immense problem.
Think of it this way: how many medical students with huge amounts of tuition debt and hoping to raise a family are likely to head to a small town in North Dakota after graduation? I don't blame the students. What we need, and what none of the candidates with big "plans" is addressing is how we can create incentives for new doctors to head where they are needed most, rather than simply where the bright lights, the good schools for their kids, and the highest pay are.
2
Exactly the right move by Warren. What is needed most right now is healthcare for children and for people with low incomes. Warren's proposal offers this fix at a national level. It also reassures people like me, happy with my Medicare and private Medicare supplemental, that private coverage will not immediately disappear. I want my supplemental until I'm sure that Medicare for All provides me with full coverage. Warren is making it clear that she understands the need for a transition period. I'd make the additional suggestion that she state that private insurance will continue to be available to anyone who wants to pay for it (but they must ALSO pay into the Medicare for All system). This is like private schools. If people want to pay for private schools, absolutely no problem, but they still must pay taxes to support public schools.
11
Some progress here from Sen. Warren, but her single payer plan and the interim plan still go way beyond the public healthcare systems of all the other universal care countries. Her plans pay for everything from dollar one. Other countries with universal care pay about 80% of all healthcare costs publicly, with the remainder paid by the patient and/or a supplemental insurance policy. Some commenters will write that that isn't true, but one has to only use the Google machine to see that it is. Canada's public system pays more like 70% or all healthcare costs, for instance. The Canadian public system does not pay for all dental care, vision care, limb prostheses, wheelchairs, prescription medication, podiatry and chiropractics and ambulances. Canada’s provincial and federal health insurance covers standard ward accommodation (four beds to a room) through Canada’s Medicare program. A private room or semi-private room will cost you or your insurer $200 to $300 a day. All personal and nursing care provided by long-term care homes in Ontario for instance are funded by the government. You must pay for accommodation charges such as room and board. Accommodation charges vary from $1,900 for basic, to $2,700 for private rooms. Warren's plans cover all of everything above. (As does Bernie's plan.)
2
@jas2200 I don't know about other countries, but not in New Zealand. We absolutely do not pay 20% personally! Pretty much the entire thing, certainly all the big expenses, are free.
"Other countries with universal care pay about 80% of all healthcare costs publicly, with the remainder paid by the patient and/or a supplemental insurance policy"
@Susan Kraemer: New Zealand's public healthcare systems pay for approximately 80% of all healthcare costs in the country. (Wikipedia puts the percentage at 77%, but that data appears out of date.) It does not cover optometry, adult dental services, orthodontics, and physiotherapy. It does not pay for all medications, although it covers some medications fully or partially. Long-term care is means-tested. Out-of-pocket payments, including both cost-sharing and other costs paid directly by private households, accounted for approximately 12.6 percent of total health expenditures in 2014, with the largest portion going to outpatient services. Co-payments are required for general practitioner (GP) services and many nursing services provided in GP clinics. About 33% buy complementary coverage (for cost-sharing, specialist fees, and elective surgery in private hospitals) and supplementary coverage for faster access to non-urgent treatment. Private health insurance pays about 5% of total expenditures.
See: https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/new_zealand/
The Google machine will give you more.
1
This is very good news. I have been a supporter of Elizabeth Warren for years, but I thought it would be impossible to make such an enormous change right away. I suspect she will have to deal with a recalcitrant Congress at several points in her program, but the steps she is planning will help her get her plan through.
I have to say that I was worried about her before she enumerated her plans to implementing her medical care program.
I have been following Elizabeth Warren for many years and she is just what we need for President.
11
$20.5 Trillion over ten years is about 10% of our GDP for that time frame.
Currently, spending on health care accounts for almost 20% of our GDP.
Are we going to make up the difference in copays?
5
No, simply our healthcare expended will be pretty much in line with other developed countries due to price control.
6
@yulia
So, the health care providers are going to agree to charge half of what they do now?!
Another pipe dream.
4
@yulia
'No, simply our healthcare expended will be pretty much in line with other developed countries due to price control.'
First she needs to pass a law regulating the cost of healthcare.
Then she needs to pass a law taxing the rich.
That will never happen, thus her entire plan is a fallacy.
1
Good move by Warren. This takes the best elements of the centrist approach and marries it to the long term goal. Most importantly, it shows that Warren is willing to take market feedback and moderate her approach. A free plan for those earning under $50k is far more attractive than what’s available on the exchanges today and setting that as the effective FPL makes a lot more sense.
23
@Shyamela
It just strikes me as politically calculated and dishonest.
Voters are looking for a candidate they can trust, and Warren keeps waffling on her stance. At the beginning of the campaign she was dedicated to Medicare for all. When she was called out on being evasive and dishonest, she hired economists to come up with a variance of the 'plan.' Now, she is basically abandoning that and only supporting part of a plan. One really has to ask themselves if they can trust Warren's stance on this or anything else.
1
A thoughtful candidate acts upon new data. I see Warren doing this, rather than being dishonest. Would we rather a candidate who did not change their position, ever?
1
@Shyamela
Glad she's pivoting now, rather than continuing the cosplay progressive to win the primary only to pivot towards the center in the general.
It is calculated Marion. Dishonest? Some of us agree. Many think it's just good business sense.
Warren weathervane has adjusted on many stances since Jan.
Trust her stance? Ha!
1
What's her plan to win the midterm elections in 2022? If she wants to implement m4a in her third year she will need to win congress.
The goal should be to strengthen Obamacare by reducing costs, banning predatory speculation, and increasing coverage. That could actually pass.
11
And how will you decrease the cost?
@yulia
Start by overturning bush era laws that prohibited the federal government from negotiating on drug/medical prices.
Second ban speculative practices in medicine, such as those by martin shkreli, who increased prices by 5000%.
another point for Sanders in the consistency category. Warren acting more like a chameleon every day
20
....or simply like a normal politician.
1
@eeeeee
Sanders is a good guy. But if you think he can wave his bent index finger and “Poof”, the insurance companies are gone and Congress is passing his plan and everybody is covered under a single payer system overnight....
Well, you need to give this more thought.
3
@eeeeee I'm glad Bernie started this conversation, but... he will never get the whole enchilada passed in one fell swoop. Inch by inch is how we can get there from here. She knows it takes time to move people's thinking forward and is allowing for that-- experience with it will help us all know how to continue forward in that direction. I voted for Bernie, this time I want the pragmatic leadership of Warren to get it done!
Why not just copy Canada's model for health care insurance. Everyone is insured 100% coverage. No one worries about medical bills and Canada's life expectancy is greater than in U.S. They must be doing something right.
29
@Bob: Canada's public system pays more like 70% or all healthcare costs, not 100%. The Canadian public system does not pay for all dental care, vision care, limb prostheses, wheelchairs, prescription medication, podiatry and chiropractics and ambulances. Canada’s provincial and federal health insurance covers standard ward accommodation in hospitals (four beds to a room) through Canada’s Medicare program. A private room or semi-private room will cost a Canadian or his insurer $200 to $300 a day. All personal and nursing care provided by long-term care homes in Ontario for instance are funded by the government. But a patient must pay for accommodation charges such as room and board. Accommodation charges vary from $1,900 for basic, to $2,700 for private rooms. The W/S plans cover all of everything above. The other universal coverage countries pay about 80% of all healthcare costs through a public system on average. Use the Google machine and look it up.
6
@Bob
Forgettaboutit.. Are you reading the news? This neighbour of ours tolerates mass shootings of school children and re-elects politicians who can’t and won’t get mandatory background checks passed as law.... women aren’t yet equal to men under law in Virginia and several other states ... and a group of adults still thinks Trump is an honest man and a great President... climate change doesn’t exist.. Ukraine not Russia interfered in their last election, etc. etc. Totally mind boggling...
@Bob
The question is how do we get there. We have to abolish insurance industry, fight against pharmaceuticals & hospitals and make sure have enough tax money to pay for it.
2
Warren is a very fine Senator but the Medicare for All is her albatross. She is a great Advocate for people but too Left to be president— she makes me nervous.
12
@Mike She scares me, too.
1
@Mike
Makes you feel nervous, really? For some reason she makes me feel safe. Safe and cared about. Two things almost no other politician does.
1
@Mike I agree with you that Warren's (and also Sander's) M4A plans may be too ambitious to pass, given the current political landscape. And that IS making me nervous in terms of her (and his) electability.
But I don't think that M4A is "too left." Some kind of M4A is standard in virtually all other industrial nations, most of which are based on capitalism, not socialism, much less communism. Germany, France, and Sweden are cases in point.
The US are just so far to the right today, that every other country looks left to us. But we are the abnormal ones, not the rest of the world.
So, we liberals should refrain from feeding into Republican talking points. For that is what they are.
It would also help if Sanders stopped calling himself a democratic socialist. His platform, like Warren's, is what is known as "social democracy" in Europe. It's run-of-the-mill capitalism restrained by common sense regulations (including, in Germany, a law that criminalizes knowingly publishing falsehoods on the Internet!) and tempered by a good dose of social responsibility.
If Democrats explained this to the American people and started using the correct terminology, that should help a lot and may even make sense to some Republicans. As it is, they are able to dismiss the progressive platform as "socialism" or worse.
1
I for one am extremely glad she has greatly loosened her inflexible
“ Mandatory Medicare All “ plan . I’ll consider voting for her after I read this .
18
@KarenE
'I for one am extremely glad she has greatly loosened her inflexible “ Mandatory Medicare All “ plan'
You have your candidates mixed.
To appeal tot the fringe left she wants mandatory medicare for all, paid for by a new la taxing the rich.
Pete Buttigieg is the one who came up with the 'Medicare for All who want it' plan.
She is just saying what she has to say to appeal to voters, but she's not giving you a choice.
2
Americans tend to understand that successful executives -- governors and mayors of large cities -- usually have more relevant experience in what it takes to be President than do legislators -- Senators and Representatives. Governors and mayors actually have had to execute plans involving many, often conflicting, constituencies. Theirs is not the luxury to simply promote elaborate plans for fantasy political landscapes.
Unfortunately, in the current world of Democratic aspirational purity, the Republicans are in an excellent position to help the Democrats reelect Trump -- something the Republicans cannot do on their own -- providing reinforcements to the Democrats' circular firing squad and auditions for God.
3
@Steve Fankuchen "Democrats' auditions for God"? Clearly Trump need not audition for God's Apprentice, since he is the "Chosen One," to which his Evangelical disciples will attest.
@Steve Fankuchen Read Warren's memoir 'A Fighting Chance' regarding the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to see how strongly everyone involved in its creation respected her leadership and administrative abilities: a lot of employees cried when she left, but she was right about them being ready to 'steer the ship' and told them so.
Thank you Elizabeth Warren. Whether you will gain enough support to win the Democratic nomination remains to be seen, but no open minded, intelligent person can deny that you put your ALL into everything you have accomplished, are working to accomplish, and will put towards serving our country to the best of your ability should you ever be our president.
33
@Richard Phelps
Amen to that!
@Richard Phelps You are very smart. I know it; because it takes smart to know the smart. I came from a country who took up the one payor system for healthcare when I was a child. I remember hearing the loud uproars against the new system from all over the nation, mainly because people were frightened of the unknowns. It took a few years for the dust to eventually settle. Several decades later, today, people wouldn't give a second thought about it. One payor is the much needed health care system for the nation. That country is Japan. I have never heard of a Japanese going bankrupt from their medical bills.
The current US medical system including hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, physicians are deeply tangled up in the investor's pockets. Money is the undercurrent of the problems. Nothing will help unless we abandon the current system and take up the one payor system. Elizabeth Warren knows it too well.
US has waited too long for the change. What are you so afraid of? Look around other industrial nations. They have been all enjoying their rational one payor system for decades already.
2
@hiker
"You are very smart. I know it; because it takes smart to know the smart".
I only hope that enough voters are smart enough to go out and vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, even if their first choice didn't win the nomination! I'm not sure our democracy can withstand another four years of Trump and his followers and enablers.
1
Fantasy is always stronger than reality-- the fantasy that the government is going to take something away from you versus the reality that the health insurance companies already do everything to limit coverage and their cost -- it is how they make money . What is so sad is that things that Nixon republicans believed in like universal health care and social security are now suspect in the new republican party. The country has moved so far to the right that a reasonable proposal to move us to universal health coverage without profiteering is considered outlandish and wild . I admire Warren for her intelligence , her tenacity , and her humor
( those billionaire tears ) . Will american misogyny bury her? Will the super rich and corporations who have raked it in over the last 29 years bury her? Will the fear of the other mean people vote against self interest ? Probably yes to everything -- unfortunately we are a doomed species.
14
@Peter
Unfortunately, too true.
@Peter Yep, that pretty much sums it up.
Presidents don't pass legislation on their own.
She needs the support of Congress. Without it, these are empty promises.
36
@Raz
That's really at issue here. Sanders' strategy has been to go to Congress with an all-inclusive plan. This is the best chance of getting something through because there is plenty to negotiate and find consolations to gain support. Part of the problem with Warren's approach is that she has already stripped down the proposals several times to the point there isn't much left to negotiate. There aren't any consolations left to be made. When someone promises to try and pass less, they guarantee that less will pass. This is a political calculation that is more likely to end in no healthcare reform or expansions at all.
5
Gutless GOP senators can be pressured. This is popular.
1
@Raz
We elect president for their vision which he/she is supposed to fight for.
8
Happy to see Warren is finally talking about a necessary transition period, a path from where we are to a “Medicare for all” system.
This transition cannot happen overnight, as much as we may wish that were possible. Talking about a realistic timeline and incremental changes along the way, gets this idea out of the stratosphere and into the real world where we live.
This won’t be easy and the road from here to there is unlikely to be smooth. But, this will be very much worth the difficulties, time, and expense.
People will have coverage regardless of their employment status.
Employers will be freed from the superfluous expense and hassle of trying to make healthcare decisions for their employees.
And companies now paying no taxes will now have to cough up their share. About time.
25
Given how much I’m paying for my meds, Ms Warren can’t be elected soon enough.
152
@Eugene Debs
Warren has dialed back her support for healthcare this entire Primary. She's not offering more; she is promising less. We can't even trust that she will continue to support the small increments she has abandoned the overall plan to support.
Sanders has a plan to cap individual prescription drug costs at $200 a year for each individual. He is the only candidate that has a long record of being honest, consistent and keeping his campaign promises. Decades he hasn't wavered in keeping his promises to the people.
3
Warren wants lots of young, poor, enthusiastic Democratic voters. Once they make some money, the become Republicans.
11
@Ernest Montague I make 6 figures and am in my 30s, and I'm all in for Warren.
25
@Matt
That's nice. But when you are older, smarter, and start making some real money, you'll be a Republican.
1
You call that pocket change money? Has haw haw! When you grow up, take up golf, and rake in many times what you could ever imagine spending - even during a long hospital stay -because it marks you as so much better than everybody else, come back and the Republicans will welcome you. Until then, go peddle your papers, pauper... and don’t come crying to us when you are floored by a life threatening illness or injury.
Sensible, disciplined and smart plan, just like the candidate behind it! Warren 2020!
53
appeal to the big money interests, works every time
2
Does Warren have "a plan" to disband the Senate? Because without that, this is pure fantasy.
29
Actually does not matter who wins the democratic primary. If the senate is dominated by republicans they will torpedo anything. The age of by-partisanship is over.
6
Dems need to take back the senate!!
So she has adopted Pete Buttigieg’s plan? “Medicare for All who want it” to transition into single payer?
Warren has a plan for that: hop on to Sanders’ plan when it’s popular, then add in Pete’s plan when he gains traction.
26
@Tyler Buttigieg's plan is "Medicare for All Who Can Afford It" since they have to buy the Medicare policy. There are currently 28 million uninsured in America and that number is steadily increasing as health costs escalate. Obamacare did nothing to reduce health care costs - in fact, costs have gone up by $1 trillion since it was enacted.
Warren's plan provides free coverage to those who can't afford it, and allows others to purchase a Medicare plan if they want it.
Warren also has a long-term plan that will dramatically reduce healthcare costs.
24
I've been a fan of Pete all along. He had steered his ideas to the right a bit since, everyone needs a lane covered.
2
I am sure that Elizabeth Warren is a nice person and that she has the best of intentions. If she does get the Democratic nomination, which is quite possible, and somehow manages to win the election, which would astound me, I do not see how she would get her ideas passed into law.
24
@Sophie She would then help win Congress with a supermajority in 2022. Trust me, if Warren wins it'll be like Obama 2008 but hopefully they'll have learnt from their 2008 mistakes. I doubt she'll be as timid as Obama.
@Sophie Yet we have no problem envisioning trillion dollar tax cuts to the wealthy getting passed.
That's what corporate-bought government has gotten us.
3
I'm not sure who has this coveted stable employer-paid health insurance everyone is clinging to. We have insurance through my husband's well-paid white collar job, but every year his company expends a huge amount of time and effort to find a new plan that costs them a few pennies less, resulting in higher employee-paid premiums, deductibles and out of pocket expenses for us, as well as having to find new doctors and health care providers when the new plan no longer covers care by the providers we had been using.
139
@Rebecca
Your excellent comment echoes my experience in obtaining health insurance in a small rural medical clinic for many years - changing insurance plans every 2-3 years to prevent 30-100% increases in premiums (and only pay 10-20% more each time)...
14
@Rebecca Often not mentioned is the varying quality of employer health plans. The ACA set standards for acceptable individually purchased policies and might more easily be amended to extend to company plans than implementing Warren's and Sanders' proposals.
5
I do, Rebecca. Thanks to working for 30 years at low wages for the Great State of NY. TWU rules; pusillanimous governors help.
1
"But Ms. Warren’s plan would still rely on Democrats winning control of the Senate, where Republicans currently hold a narrow majority..."
Literally any legislation of any substance will require that, because senate republicans have made it abundantly clear they will refuse any and all compromise with democrats. Can you honestly see them even coming to the table on immigration reform? Climate change mitigation? Background checks for assault weapons? Reducing income inequality? How about criminal justice reform? Or voting rights? Maybe a little funding for our crumbling infrastructure?
42
@Andrew Exactly. A number of Democratic candidates should be running hard for the senate. Buttigieg would make a great one. Steve Bullock is another. And Deval Patrick can run for Warren's open seat when she wins.
18
Her plan lacks a key element: increasing the number of providers who ACCEPT the healthcare plan/insurance.
9
@FogCityReader the providers will have to accept Bernie’s plan: it will be the only game in town!
3
@FogCityReader Under Medicare 4 All, Nearly all providers will have to accept Medicare.
She has a plan for everything but no cohesive plan for getting elected. She is desperate now and trying to walk back her Weekend at Bernie's II embrace.
9
This move gets me on board with Warren, if the Dem establishment chooses to make her the candidate. Still a big "if," I suspect. To paraphrase the underrated Amy Klobuchar: practical vs. pipe dream. If MFA passes, obviously under one Dem or another, I only worry that the Grand Old Plutocrats will undo it if/when they get back into power.
10
@jerseyjazz It's always a tug of war but surely you didn't think Roosevelt was going "if we implement the New Deal one day the plutocrats will undo it when they get back in power".
@jerseyjazz I like that Warren is starting with the ideal policy, as opposed to the self-negotiated 'middle ground' policy that would inevitably get watered down even more once the lobbyists who donated good money to the candidates get their hands on it, like Biden/Buttigieg's plans.
1
Everything about Warren is competent and responsive to real people and real, verified, needs. She is the only one who seems to continuously and comprehensively demonstrate what leadership and the hard work of leadership (team building based on research and history and vision) look like. She is moderate, conservative and radical all at once. Go Warren!!
46
Considering the actions and acts of violence by the Republicans intent on violence as a means to an end, we will need that expanded health care to tend to the wounded, and I kid you not!
If all goes well and the plotters go to jail instead of all of us to battle, then remarkable savings and quality of care will occur by eliminating the profit motive and having universal oversight, unfractured oversight, of the nations health care as wonderful insights will be gained in the effectiveness of treatments and the satisfactions of patient needs.
Even if Warren fails to win, her policy should be adopted. Be brave in the face of scornful uncaring Republicans who believe in survival of the fittest and have been endangering the nation with repeated attempts at sabotaging health care.
8
This is a good step that puts some daylight between Warren and the disastrous socialism of Sanders. It is what Mayor Pete has been proposing all along, and it might lead to an efficient public/private mixed system, such as the one in Switzerland and Germany. My question is:,why families below 50,000 income pay nothing? It will create the sense of unfairness and set more affluent middle class people against the program. Why not to levy a proportionate health tax or scale premiums to income? Everybody should have a stake in the program, including the poor.
17
@Mor do you mean the disastrous socialism of Social Security and Medicare?
2
I thought the middle class just love their employer-sponsored health insurances? What is their problem? They have wonderful health insurance paid by their employer, and low-income people will have horrible state insurance paid by wealthy.
1
I'm a big proponent of M4A. But given the details that would need to be worked out, I could imagine the straightforward pursuit of that goal could take a couple years anyway. If she can get this transition plan in the first 100 days, and a M4A by year 3, that sounds good to me. If she isn't able to get M4A by year 3 (and this is a result of her own lack of effort), then we can primary her for her 2nd term.
11
Sounds very close to what Pete Buttigieg has been promoting all along. Medicare for those who want it.
46
@Mark P. ,
Medicare for all was a proposal well before Pete Buttegieg was talking about it. Does he have plans for financing it? Where are his detailed proposals?
39
@Mark P.
One critical difference: he plans to consider the public option the final goal, whereas she is using it to ease transition into full Medicare for All, which she would do in a similar timeline to Sanders.
In other words, no.
21
@DebbieR
I don't recall PB ever talking up "Medicare for all". His talking point has always been "Medicare for those who want it" which is a lot less scary for those who can be spooked by the idea of loosing whatever health coverage they currently have. My point was that Senator Warren seems to be saying, "Let's start with something a little less far-reaching" and move incrementally.
14
Brilliant move by our next President, Ms. Elizabeth Warren.
Trump, Bloomberg, the Republican Party, (aka the Trump Party), and the Republican-Lite Pelosi Schumer Democratic Party, are shocked that Ms. Warren is showing Americans how to take back control of their destiny, and absolutely terrified at hearing the words, "Ms. Elizabeth Warren, President Elect of the United States of America, come election night November 2020.
46
The reality is that certain fearful Americans need to be transitioned back to civilization because they're frightened of joining the civilized healthcare world that the rest of the rich world has had for decades.
This is a smart move by Senator Warren who understands politics and actual governing.
Many Americans cried that the sky was falling when the ACA was implemented, but by the time the Reverse Robin Hood Trump Party tried to repeal it in 2017, the ACA was in fact too popular with the majority of real Americans - Republican, Democratic and independent - to repeal.
Warren's plan will transition the USA to Medicare For All and will get more Americans comfortable with single-payer and eventually a critical mass of Americans will support it....(along with the inevitable addition of supplemental coverage for purchase that other countries also have).
Smart lady.
Smart problem-solver.
Smart Senator.
It'll be nice to have a smart President after the current sorry excuse in the Oval Office.
November 3 2020
174
And the world will look at us with a new respect, and forgive our brief insanity ...
42
@Socrates
Yes
And as far as I can see, a third of the country is clever enough to promote caveman morality but too deep in denial to admit that democracy could actually work.
The Constitution says tax and spend to promote Justice and the general welfare. That is what the Left keeps peacefully protesting for.
Public opinion is everything. Those that can change public opinion can control government." -Abraham Lincoln.
Politics is not the art of the possible. Politics is the art of making things possible by explaining why your ideas are better.
Republicans keep talking about making their ideas into reality, while Democrats whine, "they won't let us."
You cannot compromise from the middle, because you have already given everything away.
The Party of Trump has given the "moderates" a choice. Follow President For Life Trump so that he can divide the country by race, ethnicity, sex, sexual beliefs, religious beliefs or the lack thereof, wealth, etc, who says things like, "someone should beat that guy up," while pointing at a journalist?
Or ally with the Left to save the Constitution.
The Left has values that they will not sacrifice even to get rid of Trump. Those are the facts. The center keeps telling us to be flexible with our values. ALL of the disasters happen when the center compromises with the Right. All of the disasters that the Right blame Dems for were opposed by the Left!
Wages and GDP were going up FASTER before the "conservative" revolution!
CHOOSE A SIDE!
18
@Mel Farrell
That it's the happy ending.
It will occur as soon as someone listens to the boy screaming, "Trump is trying to make himself emperor to stay out of prison!"
Trump's blatant and professed intent is to break the law and violate the Constitution until he is removed from office, because he's going to prison anyway. He might as well be King first.
What most people lose when they become "liberals" is the understanding that crazy intimidates people and that is why it is so effective for looting organizations.
What the Right does is militarize EVERYTHING to make themselves better bullies, so they can extort more people. Trump was extorting the Ambassador while she was testifying to his extortion of the Ukraine. He wants you to watch it happen and feel poweless to stop it.
He's got Democrats searching for the secret needle at the bottom of a haystack. Meanwhile Trump has a shiny pile of needles on Fifth Ave, like doing a photo op while he asks China to interfere in our elections on TV!
The entire country has Stockholm Syndrome. If you don't all wake up soon, Trump will have normalized breaking the law and violating the Constitution on TV, while you all discuss the file points of impeachment. At that point he becomes King.
Ta Da
I study coups. Trump is staging a coup.
The Right calls for, arms for, and trains for, civil war.
The Left opposes fascists because we believe in hearing all voices to achieve win) win solutions that don't sacrifice anyone's values
2
This is a sensible, measured plan. It is in the interest of the American people to have a president who cares about their wellbeing. Those who say her plan proposes too much, as I see it, are unwilling to go far enough to fix what never should have been allowed to become a gravy train for insurance companies and big Pharma. Healthcare is a fundamental right which is being paid for by American citizens even while they are being denied full access and affordability.
27
Honestly I am not in favor of Medicare for All, but do people have three years to wait? What if you're seriously ill in those three years? It sounds like she is waffling. I would rather just see a low price public option on the Obamacare exchange and give employers the option of sending people there for their health insurance.
8
Why is it better, considering that improvements (free for low-income and buy-in Medicare) starts right way?
A plan that doesn't explain how she's going to get Republicans to vote for it is not a "plan."
8
The key words here are "seek passage". Last time I checked the Congress passes bills. And good luck to any Democratic President with the Republican controlled Senate. On passing anything.
8
I research the health care industry. How many Americans sicken, die, and/or go bankrupt under the present system? How many will continue to do so while Warren caters to the big insurance companies and for at least another 3 years, and then maybe finds "reasons" to delay M4A for even longer? But as she has said, she's a "capitalist to the bone." I'm voting for Sanders--the real FDR Democrat in this race.
16
I'm a retired federal employee, and I just got off the phone with my health care provider who asked me if I had any concerns. No, I told them, I'm completely satisfied with my federal health care coverage, and deeply appreciative. So my question is: as federal employees would be the first, easiest targets, would a President Warren be eager to yank my health care insurance for which I worked for 20 years?
11
@Mary
If you still have your federally provided coverage, and other benefits, when you are covered under Medicare for all, the only thing you stand to lose is the rather questionable pleasure of having coverage while watching others suffer.
I also have coverage under my pre-retirement employer. I worked 15 years for the benefit of purchasing a high co-pay, high deductible policy not paid for by taxpayers.
Just not feeling a lot of empathy here.
1
Thank you Elizabeth Warren for wanting to improve the health care system in our country. And, Social Security, and Education, among other areas. Granted your proposals may not be perfect, but I am encouraged by your considerations for answering the needs of the Middle Class. You have my vote.
54
@David Michael "proposals may not be perfect"...she also needs to get rid of the "free" stuff ( childcare, college, and forgiving student debt, etc)...more affordable, yes, but nothing's "free"...she also needs to explain how Medicare works (hint, it is far from free and does not cover everything...and it's complicated, especially when you add the necessary additional insurance)...
3
@David Michael Of course. The goal of Progressives is to penalize those who played by the rules their entire lives.
1
I have been frustrated with attempts to characterize Senator Warren as adopting a "my way or the highway" approach. Her intelligence, her experience in the Senate and with the legislative process, and her temperament all suggest that she is quite aware of - and prepared for - the need to compromise on major legislation.
And now she has shown us the details of exactly how she plans to do that, starting with a more modest plan to bring more quickly relief to Americans needing health insurance but unable to afford market rate plans. This is an excellent step.
Here's what I don't get: Why is only "Ms. Warren's plan" being subjected to the "but" clause: "But Ms. Warren’s plan would still rely on Democrats winning control of the Senate, where Republicans currently hold a narrow majority. "
Isn't this true of ALL Democratic candidates' plans? After all, the Republicans seem to be in the business of making it harder to obtain coverage. Why wouldn't they oppose any Democrat-led effort to move in the other direction?
As for "crowding out other legislative priorities:" The same can be said of any major legislation. Leading means choosing priorities. The priorities that have been privileged in the past 3 years - tax cuts to benefit the wealthy - haven't done much for ordinary Americans.
Warren is again showing herself to be both a principled and a pragmatic politician. This is a welcome proposal, whatever the difficulties in enacting it may be.
95
@catstaff Even if enough Democrats get elected to make congress functional again many of them will not be on board with Medicare for all. It may be possible for a Democratic president with a Democratic congress to do some things and not others.
2
I don’t see any plans to increase the number of health care providers, which concerns me. In the past few years, with expanded coverage in Southern California, my HMO, which I love, cannot keep up with the CB patient load, wait times are increased for basic services such as colonoscopies, which are farmed out in what can only be called factory medicine, and mental health care is vastly understaffed. Any plan has to include more physicians for more patients. And using nurse practitioners in place of physicians won’t cut it. Just pumping more money into an expanded patient list won’t solve our health care problem. The actual health care resources, especially human resources , must be addressed.
8
@Somethingtosay Maybe less administrative time would lead to getting more actual health care time out of the same number of health care providers.
4
@Robert David South
No. Physician time is physician time. Under the Affordable Care Act, which I strongly support, my physician has less time to spend with me and urgent care is overwhelmed. That’s how it is for those who choose managed care, which I still believe to be the best and most equitable system. The strain on the current physician resources is obvious where I have been getting my medical card for the past several decades.
1
This is a good start. Warren is revealing her ability to be flexible and adaptable to the will of the people as well as her political savvy. She knows as we all do that it would be close to impossible to enact Medicare for All. It is not only the Senate which would be an obstacle, however. Rather it is a good majority of Americans, including Democrats, who would rather see the ACA strengthened enough to eventually employ as a transition toward a single-payer system. Frankly, I doubt that even three years would be enough time for the above. I am not even sure if my Baby Boomer generation will experience its fruition. Yet, we need someone in the office of the presidency who has vision and realizes the trajectory of the challenges and needs of a young century.
77
This is once again what separates her from Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren continues to show that she is not as progressive as she would want her constituents to believe. A corporate Democrat such as herself made her big political points by playing on male/female comparisons between her and Sanders. How can she call herself a progressive when she refuses to reach farther than what she believes is 'sensible' for the richest country in the world.
Free Medicare for All or bust.
17
Welcome to Warren’s real healthcare plan:
Step 1. Strengthen Obamacare.
Step 2. Introduce a public option.
Step 3. Expand and improve Medicare access gradually.
Step 4. Medicare for All.
124
I hope my fellow citizens are sensible enough to elect Warren if she wins the democratic nomination. It would do all of us a world of good. But I fear too many of them are not.
34
This is a bug, not a feature.
I have health insurance. Most likely, so do you, if you're reading the NY Times.
Healthcare is like public education: you are going to look like cruel barbarians in retrospect - kind of like what our too polite European cousins already view us as.
There is zero excuse for the wealthiest country in the world to behave like a third world country when it comes to health care.
And for all of you "budget hawks" - Go look at our military budget and subsidies for fossil fuel multi-billionaire companies, and get back to me.
Stop pandering to the DNC donor class and "independents" who normally vote Republican.
The vast majority of the country agrees with Medicare for All when polled - it's the lobbyists and mealy mouthed politicians (like using the term "access") that prevent this country from being truly great.
A great country does not have mentally ill on their corners begging for money, and Go Fund Me campaigns for our neighbors.
149
@Jim When the US leads education charts across the rest of the world then I’m definitely putting my health in Elizabeth’s hands. NOT.
1
@person of interest most Americans do not care what Europeans think of us.
1
The US definitely lead in more expensive healthcare without being best one. I guess some people love to overpay for mediocre product
3
An unrealistic timeline for an unrealistic proposal.
11
This is a smart move by Elizabeth Warren. She is deftly blunting attacks from her right flank while still defining herself as a leader.
As an aside, my Canadian and European friends are dumbfounded by the opinions expressed by US conservatives that single-payer healthcare “won’t work” here. It works just fine for most other developed countries ...
222
@Ed Martin
Recently waiting times were published. In Great Britain, average wait time is 4 hours in the emergency room. It's much longer for seniors. According to the CDC, the average wait time in the US is 30 minutes.
In Canada, the wait times are actually similar to Great Britain even though the way the system is run is different.
3
@Dave
Dave, they spend half the amount that we do on healthcare. If they chose to spend the same amount we do, they could have cadillac level service for everyone.
26
@Ed Martin Warren is slowly but surely edging back towards the center on health care, which is smart. Having seen her fortunes rise in the Democratic primary, she's now moving toward policy positions that will make her very competitive in the general election. We can say what we will about her, but she is smart.
I have many Canadian and European friends who have said the same thing to me - i.e., what is it about your country that makes Americans think they're so different from the rest of the world? That universal health care can't work there?
I have two answers. The first one is the most obvious one: we aren't different. Of course universal health care can work here. And of course it would work out reasonably well (just look at Medicare and the VA, which, despite their problems, enjoy enormous popular support among the Americans fortunate enough to be covered by these programs).
The second answer is admittedly cynical: FREE - DUMB!!!
We're stuck in our petty political grievances, racial animosity, senses of entitlement and superiority and short-sighted anti-government stubbornness that seduces too many Americans into assuming that we're somehow more special, or indeed different, than the rest of the world. That we don't need a strong government that will catch us when we fall.
Until we fall.
And when that happens, I don't know which is worse - the impact of hitting rock bottom at full speed with no safety net. Or the knowledge that it did not have to be this way.
38
You get a new car. You get a new car. You get a new car.
11
@A2CJS
Let me fix that for you, my economist friend.
You get to pay astronomical costs for emergency care for the uninsured. You get to pay astronomical costs for emergency care for the uninsured. You get to pay astronomical costs for emergency care for the uninsured.
33
Creating a public option for health insurance as a stepping stone to an eventual taxpayer funded single-payer healthcare system is a give-away? How so?
8
Bravo, Elizabeth!
At least there is a vision and a plan, as compared to other candidates who want to be the President still only offer "talking points"...
Being President, drawing salaries and perks on the job, is not for people with talking points or criticism to other peoples proposals...
56
@paul Free Stuff isn't a plan, it's a rally cry for votes.
1
I support Warren but was very wary of the MFA proposal and was hoping she would say that after hearing from people around that country she was going to make it voluntary and not take away people's insurance which would be a loser in the general election, This basically finesses that. Making MFA voluntary immediately and going for the full proposal three years later does the job.
54
There must be a transitional period, otherwise massive disruption of the healthcare delivery systems will occur. If the public option is not everything Trump promised in the 2016 cycle then there is no reason to move to 100% Medicare-for-All.
3
A disruption to the health care industry IS exactly what is needed. Will it happen in the first 100 days? No. But a massive disruption is exactly what’s needed. I am a healthcare worker. I don’t have health insurance. I had an emergency 18 months ago, depleted all of my savings, I live paycheck to paycheck. I make an okay salary. But I know, the next emergency (if I even have insurance) I’ll end up losing everything. And by emergency, I’m only talking about $10,000. Health care in this country is absolutely screwed up. When not-for-profit healthcare CEOs are making $25 million a year, we are all screwed.
5