Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[Shadows]

This is failure on the level of the Native American thing. She walked into a trap because she couldn't handle any pressure & folds easily. If Biden, Pete & Klobuchar are smart they will attack Warren mercilessly over everything from the impossible Medicare Head Tax which Corporations can avoid through Independent contractors or a buffet of options, everything from Immigration funding to absurdly low inflation rates.

They have enough material to paint "Medicare for all" as a pie in the sky stuff for the next 2 debates. This whole debate could have been about Biden's SuperPAC & other areas & instead she ends up hurting Medicare for all & proved that she is not a serious GE Candidate.

[GeneralMacArthur]

This reminds me of the Green New Deal.  Utopia can not happen in a vacuum, so the only way to promise some sort of utopian plan is to make the entire rest of the country a utopia as well.

So we can't solve climate change unless we have single-payer health care and a universal jobs guarantee.  We can't eradicate private insurance unless we have comprehensive immigration reform.

Any single one of these items would be the heaviest, most substantial legislative change in decades.  The progressives are saying, not only are they going to do them, but they're going to do them all at the same time, and in fact they HAVE to because just doing them in isolation won't work.

At this point, why not just promise a perfect economy that delivers 5% YOY GDP growth, and say that will fund M4A?  Oh wait, Sanders tried that in 2016 and got laughed out of the room (by the ivory tower neoliberal elites with their "PH.Ds")

[GP270watch]

 Warren will eviscerate Amy and Pete if they go after this plan. What are they going to argue that the administrative costs of M4All will be higher, that's a clear lie. Are thye going to argue we shouldn't tax the rich and corporations instead of shifting costs to workers directly?

 50% Of American Workers Make Less Than $33,000 A Year, her plan is better than the idea of paying for M4All with more taxes on workers which is insane. What is a person making 30K going to pay in taxes to get full health insurance coverage? By sending what employers already spend directly towards the government for a universal system you have efficiency. You save workers the headache of wasting their time and money picking between limited plans with so-so coverage, out of pocket costs, and the paperwork and hassle private insurance places on every customer only to turn around and charge more money for their own administrative costs.

 And we do need to radically transform American society because the current trajectory is not sustainable. We can not be a country that burdens workers with medical debt and its rising costs in a for profit system that doesn't give one damn about quality healthcare. We can not be a country that continues to increase military spending while saddling our students with college debt. We can't keep giving banks and finance free money that they squander with idiotic speculation into junky investments, only to shift the burden to workers again when it all blows up. All of these issues are related.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Warren will eviscerate Amy and Pete if they go after this plan. What are they going to argue that the administrative costs of M4All will be higher, that's a clear lie. Are thye going to argue we shouldn't tax the rich and corporations instead of shifting cost to workers directly?

50% Of American Workers Make Less Than $33,000 A Year, her plan is better than the idea of paying for M4All with more taxes on workers which is insane. What is a person making 30K going to pay in taxes to get full health insurance coverage? By sending what employers already spend directly towards the government for a universal system you have efficiency. You save workers the headache of wasting their time and money picking between plans with so-so coverage, out of pocket costs, and the paperwork and hassle private insurance places on every customer only to turn around and charge more money for their own administrative costs.

I haven't read any analysis, just the plan itself, so this is just off the top of my head.  The manifold avenues of attack on this "plan" are:

1) It was supposed to cost $30T a year.  Now it only costs $20T a year?  But what's $10T between friends.

2) It makes wild promises about what we'll be able to pass.  Oh yeah, this health care plan is 10x more expensive, controversial, and impactful than Obamacare, but yeah sure, let's just do comprehensive immigration reform while we're at it.  Because that was so easy in 2006 and 2013.  Does anyone actually believe that's possible?

3) All those taxes on "corporations" are just going to get passed on to consumers.  Warren wants you to believe that every corporation is Wal-Mart, raking in the cash while screwing over the little guy.  But what's going to happen far more often is that wages and benefits will be cut or prices for consumer goods+services will increase.  So "we'll charge big corporations $10T and the middle class won't pay a penny" is nonsense.  What do you really think is going to happen?  The big corporations will just eat the tax hit?  That they'll cut their CEO's salary and call it a day?

4) The Medicare rates thing is a real issue.  In the original study that gave the $30T number, there was a massive, massive caveat that "this $30T number is bulls**t, and the likely number is far higher, because this is using the Sanders assumption that you can pay hospitals at Medicare rates, which you can't."  It's insane to think that you can pay hospitals dramatically less than they're currently making, and none of them will have to shutter, none of them will have to reduce quality of service, none of them will have to cut doctors.  Yet Warren not only asks us to believe this but acts incredulous that anyone would believe otherwise.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Warren will eviscerate Amy and Pete if they go after this plan. What are they going to argue that the administrative costs of M4All will be higher, that's a clear lie. Are thye going to argue we shouldn't tax the rich and corporations instead of shifting costs to workers directly?

Good God am I sick of this.  Warren and Sanders are all about this "if you're not with me, you're with the big corporations and the rich" thing.  Is it not possible that I could be opposed to their particular plan, but just want a different plan?

This is why people say Warren is about revenge, not good policy.  She acts like hurting rich people and corporations is a BENEFIT of her plan.  Like that's a REASON we should do it.  And the fact that Biden and Buttigieg have a plan that achieves the same end goal of universal health care, but without torching the rich and corporations with enormous tax hikes, is BAD because they're not hurting the rich enough.

And that they're somehow aligned with big corporations because they don't want to double their taxes just for the sake of it.  I mean why not go a step further and say you want to burn Wall Street to the ground and nuke Silicon Valley, and the fact that Biden doesn't want to do that means he's on the side of big corporations and the wealthy?  It's basically a more extreme version of what Warren's saying.

Biden = UHC + slight tax increase on wealthy
Warren = UHC + punitive, malicious tax increase on wealthy

It's not about UHC at this point.  It's about hurting the wealthy.  And Warren's core appeal has become that she will hurt the people you don't like.

[GP270watch]

I didn't read the plan but let me go on a big uninformed diatribe against it...

[GP270watch]

Warren will eviscerate Amy and Pete if they go after this plan. What are they going to argue that the administrative costs of M4All will be higher, that's a clear lie. Are thye going to argue we shouldn't tax the rich and corporations instead of shifting costs to workers directly?

Good God am I sick of this.  Warren and Sanders are all about this "if you're not with me, you're with the big corporations and the rich" thing.  Is it not possible that I could be opposed to their particular plan, but just want a different plan?

This is why people say Warren is about revenge, not good policy.  She acts like hurting rich people and corporations is a BENEFIT of her plan.  Like that's a REASON we should do it.  And the fact that Biden and Buttigieg have a plan that achieves the same end goal of universal health care, but without torching the rich and corporations with enormous tax hikes, is BAD because they're not hurting the rich enough.

 Do you know how stupid you sound?
 
 "Hurt rich people" is just dumb sounding. Do you have any concept how much money is a billion dollars?

 We'll never have good policy in this country because people like you have been brainwashed to have massive inequality in our society and not only be ok and accept it but actively defend it. You're fighting to keep millions poor, in debt, and unhealthy for the benefit of a few. Who does this?

[GeneralMacArthur]

I didn't read the plan but let me go on a big uninformed diatribe against it...

I said I did read the plan, I just didn't read any analysis of it, so I could make up my own mind.

[GP270watch]

Are you illiterate?  I said I did read the plan, I just didn't read any analysis of it, so I could make up my own mind.

 You clearly didn't.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Warren will eviscerate Amy and Pete if they go after this plan. What are they going to argue that the administrative costs of M4All will be higher, that's a clear lie. Are thye going to argue we shouldn't tax the rich and corporations instead of shifting costs to workers directly?

Good God am I sick of this.  Warren and Sanders are all about this "if you're not with me, you're with the big corporations and the rich" thing.  Is it not possible that I could be opposed to their particular plan, but just want a different plan?

This is why people say Warren is about revenge, not good policy.  She acts like hurting rich people and corporations is a BENEFIT of her plan.  Like that's a REASON we should do it.  And the fact that Biden and Buttigieg have a plan that achieves the same end goal of universal health care, but without torching the rich and corporations with enormous tax hikes, is BAD because they're not hurting the rich enough.

 Do you know how stupid you sound?
 
 "Hurt rich people" is just dumb sounding. Do you have any concept how much money is a billion dollars?

 We'll never have good policy in this country because people like you have been brainwashed to have massive inequality in our society and not only be ok and accept it but actively defend it. You're fighting to keep millions poor, in debt, and unhealthy for the benefit of a few. Who does this?

I'm literally not.

I support a public option, which would guarantee affordable, quality health care to everyone, and rebalance the market to drive down rates across the board.  This is the universal health care model followed by the vast majority of first-world countries.

I support giving it for free to people who can't afford it, with a graduated scale of payments according to income.  If you are in poverty, you get free health care.  If you are lower-middle class, you pay less.  This is MORE progressive than what countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. have.

I support increasing taxes on the wealthy to pay for it.  Fortunately, a public option is not particularly expensive, at least compared to single payer.

I do NOT support eliminating an entire sector of the economy for no good reason other than because "they're the bad guys and we gotta get 'em"

I do NOT support picking a more expensive option because it leads to higher, more punitive taxes on the rich, which is supposed to be a good thing because "they're the bad guys and we gotta get 'em"

or, as you're implying, "they're so rich they won't notice a difference"

The problem with progressives like you is that you can't argue on the merits, so you lie and distort, and then demonize anyone who disagrees with you.  You demonize and attack anyone who would be hurt by your plans.  You turn everything into an us-vs-them.

[GP270watch]

 You're literally exasperated at the idea of taxing the rich. Look at the language and reaction you have to even the idea of it happening in this thread. We've had massive inequality for decades, while the wealthy have got more and more of the economic gains while workers get less and less. The effective tax rate has fallen below what workers pay for the richest families in America. Nobody is punishing them by raising taxes, they've gotten away with manipulating the tax code for decades. Putting an end to that isn't punitive, the fact you think it is is quite disturbing.

 There are Americans working two and three jobs with no healthcare coverage because they work too few hours at each job and their employees don't think they're worth covering because for profit healthcare is so expensive. Where is your exasperation and defense for them?

 Other countries with "private insurance" look nothing like our private insurance system. People keep trying to explain this to you and you just gloss over it.

Healthcare in Germany

[GeneralMacArthur]

You're literally exasperated at the idea of taxing the rich. Look at the language and reaction you have to even the idea of it happening in this thread. We've had massive inequality for decades, while the wealthy have got more and more of the economic gains while workers get less and less. The effective tax rate has fallen below what workers pay for the richest families in America. Nobody is punishing them by raising taxes, they've gotten away with manipulating the tax code for decades. Putting an end to that isn't punitive, the fact you think it is is quite disturbing.

 There are Americans working two and three jobs with no healthcare coverage because they work too few hours at each job and their employees don't think they're worth covering because for profit healthcare is so expensive. Where is your exasperation and defense for them?

 Other countries with "private insurance" look nothing like our private insurance system. People keep trying to explain this to you and you just gloss over it.

Healthcare in Germany

Yeah that's why I want to change the private insurance system.

I'm not exasperated by the idea of "taxing the rich" I'm exasperated by people continually insisting that this $30, or is it $20, trillion plan is remotely feasible or has any chance of actually happening.  The whole "we'll just tax the sh*t out of the rich, and then accuse anyone who disagrees of loving rich people" tactic is just the latest in a neverending stream of bullsh*t attempting to defend this indefensible idea.

Funny thing is, public option advocates have never, not once, had to change strategy.  We've been using the same arguments all along and been right for thirty years and will continue to be right long after this Bernie Sanders "progressive" fad is dead and gone.

[GP270watch]

I'm not exasperated by the idea of "taxing the rich"

This is why people say Warren is about revenge, not good policy.  She acts like hurting rich people and corporations is a BENEFIT of her plan.  Like that's a REASON we should do it.

 Your own language betrays you.

[YE]

You don't change the private insurance system by leaving it largely in place. You make the private insurance system less profit driven in general. The problem with the public option is it leaves it largely entact, resulting in a two tiered system of sorts. Rich, healthier people will end up keeping their plans they get from their employer while the uninsured and/or sicker people will end up on government plans, and without healthy people to subsidized the latter and without the former to be subsidized by less healthy people, the concept of insurance becomes almost broken.

This is why single payer IMO is arguably more practical than a mutli-payer system in the US from a policy standpoint.

[GeneralMacArthur]

You don't change the private insurance system by leaving it largely in place. You make the private insurance system less profit driven in general. The problem with the public option is it leaves it largely entact, resulting in a two tiered system of sorts. Rich, healthier people will end up keeping their plans they get from their employer while the uninsured and/or sicker people will end up on government plans, and without healthy people to subsidized the latter and without the former to be subsidized by less healthy people, the concept of insurance becomes almost broken.

This is why single payer IMO is arguably more practical than a mutli-payer system in the US from a policy standpoint.

Have any economists heard about this?  You should call the 95% of economist who support a public option and oppose single payer, and let them know.  Maybe write a dissertation!

I'm so sick of this debate.  The reason Warren and Sanders have to release these ludicrous plans with 15 new taxes, can't make up their minds as to whether it will double or triple the national debt, and have to justify their plans with populist us-vs-them rhetoric and lies rather than facts, is because the academic community, economics experts, health care experts, doctors, etc. almost uniformly oppose the idea of single payer on principle, even if it were politically feasible.  And as anyone who lived through the 2009 Obamacare war (not to mention the 1994 Hillarycare war) can tell you, it's absolutely not politically feasible.

We are wasting all this breath talking about something that is not going to happen.  Single payer exists as a purity test.  Warren's "funding mechanism" exists as a lever to help her pull support from Bernie.  None of this is real policy and none of it is ever actually going to happen.

[GP270watch]

We are wasting all this breath talking about something that is not going to happen.  Single payer exists as a purity test.  Warren's "funding mechanism" exists as a lever to help her pull support from Bernie.  None of this is real policy and none of it is ever actually going to happen.

 So why are you wasting so much time and energy posting in the Warren thread if you don't believe any of this can happen? That seems dumb.

[GoTfan]

Ob behalf of Sanders supporters, I do apologise for Shadows everyone.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

There's **** everywhere.

[Beet]

I'm just getting to this because I didn't have time to read and digest the whole plan and some of the commentary at work.

This plan is really, really good and if enacted would save lives. First of all it gets to the goal of universal coverage for everyone. No more health treatment being missed because you couldn't afford it. No more premiums, copays or deductibles. Secondly, no more worrying about who is in-network and who is out-of-network. You go and see the doctor and get the treatments that are best for you, period. This will drastically simplify the health care system for everyone. Third, providers will save a huge among of money on lower administrative costs that are currently spent dealing with insurance companies.

Shifting the employer contribution straight into Medicare is genius. It minimizes the disruption to the economy and highlights the cost we are currently paying for private health insurance - not only workers but companies. Meanwhile, average workers actually get a raise because they no longer have to pay the employee contribution.

Some of the criticisms I've seen here are overwrought. For one thing the quibbling over whether it's a tax - who cares? Overall costs for the middle class will go down. That has been Warren's point all along. Basing an argument on semantics is political scaremongering is usually a sign of an agenda. The idea that huge corporations will suddenly find it profitable to break up into dozens or hundreds of 50-person firms all contracting with each other does not seem credible to me - if that was the case it would have happened after the Obamacare mandate. Putting immigration reform in there is brilliant because critics will attack it and inadvertently raise awareness that immigration reform would save money - while it only covers 2% of her plan and is not really necessary to be in there. The notion that "it will never pass" is hardly a new argument. But the point of a democracy is to put what you want out there and then run on it to demonstrate public support. Over time, this can result in real changes in policy. You don't get change by pre-emptively reducing the scope of your proposals and never even talking about what your end goal. Finally, the people arguing over the projections of her numbers - fair, as she admits herself no one can predict the future. But it's worth noting she starts here from the Urban Institute estimate, which is hardly a far-left group, as it has taken money from insurance companies and has people like Bush economic chairman Greg Mankiw (no fan of Warren) on the board.

Bottom line is - after this, Warren is the only candidate in the race who supports Medicare for All and a fully fleshed out plan to pay for it. This will get us towards lower costs, universal coverage, and a simplified system for everyone. And this is not even "her" issue. Or at least not until today.

[Mr. Smith]

This reminds me of the Green New Deal.  Utopia can not happen in a vacuum, so the only way to promise some sort of utopian plan is to make the entire rest of the country a utopia as well.

So we can't solve climate change unless we have single-payer health care and a universal jobs guarantee.  We can't eradicate private insurance unless we have comprehensive immigration reform.

Any single one of these items would be the heaviest, most substantial legislative change in decades.  The progressives are saying, not only are they going to do them, but they're going to do them all at the same time, and in fact they HAVE to because just doing them in isolation won't work.

At this point, why not just promise a perfect economy that delivers 5% YOY GDP growth, and say that will fund M4A?  Oh wait, Sanders tried that in 2016 and got laughed out of the room (by the ivory tower neoliberal elites with their "PH.Ds")

And just exactly what do you think The New Deal and Great Society were? Were they not a bunch of sweeping changes themselves?

[adamevans]

I love the optics of Warren’s healthcare plan, but I’m still concerned with the thousands of corporate money she transferred from her Senate to Presidential campaign.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://economics21.org/warren-plan-paper-over-medicare-for-all-costs

To summarize, the Warren proposal understates M4A’s costs, as quantified by multiple credible studies, by about 34.2%. Another 11.2% of the cost would be met by cutting payments to health providers such as physicians and hospitals. Approximately 20% of the financing is sought by tapping sources that are unavailable for various reasons, for example because she has already committed that funding to other priorities, or because the savings from them was already assumed in the top-line cost estimate. The remaining 34.6% would be met by an array of new and previous tax proposals, most of it consisting of new taxes affecting everyone now carrying employer-provided health insurance, including the middle class.

Warren's plan bizarrely assumes that ending employer-provided insurance would increase worker take-home pay, even though the employers will be paying it as a tax instead.  It also double counts a large portion of the reduction in payments to providers.

[ProudModerate2]

We are wasting all this breath talking about something that is not going to happen.  Single payer exists as a purity test.  Warren's "funding mechanism" exists as a lever to help her pull support from Bernie.  None of this is real policy and none of it is ever actually going to happen.

 So why are you wasting so much time and energy posting in the Warren thread if you don't believe any of this can happen? That seems dumb.

What's so "dumb" about it?
It seems much of Warren's new M4A plan is being discussed here, so what's the problem?

[GP270watch]

Warren's plan bizarrely assumes that ending employer-provided insurance would increase worker take-home pay, even though the employers will be paying it as a tax instead.  It also double counts a large portion of the reduction in payments to providers.

 It will because right now labor spends too much time and effort negotiating healthcare benefits and compensation. If we have a public healthcare system that is resolved. Even if employers are still spending on healthcare costs the price will be stabilized and more easy to budget going forward. Employers will be dealing with the government and essentially paying a tax vs. private for profit companies who rise prices that are tied to nothing but their bottom line.

[GP270watch]

We are wasting all this breath talking about something that is not going to happen.  Single payer exists as a purity test.  Warren's "funding mechanism" exists as a lever to help her pull support from Bernie.  None of this is real policy and none of it is ever actually going to happen.

 So why are you wasting so much time and energy posting in the Warren thread if you don't believe any of this can happen? That seems dumb.

What's so "dumb" about it?
It seems much of Warren's new M4A plan is being discussed here, so what's the problem?

 He's arguing there's no chance it passes and people are dumb for discussing it but he's discussing it. That seems weird to me.