Elizabeth Warren releases Medicare For All plan

[Born To Slay 10,996]

Elizabeth Warren released her plan today to finance Medicare For All without raising middle class taxes. Check it out:

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/paying-for-m4a

[Petie Estie 5,707]

me after the last debates: I bet she's avoiding the tax answer because she's working on a plan that taxes the middle class less than Bernie's. 

 

Y'all: NO
 

me now: 

[Deagan 608]

And the US is exactly the country that will fail in pushing this through.

Americans are not even willing to give up guns, let alone this "american dream" of becoming a billionaire.

Regardless, Bernie is the only candidate who sounds convincing enough to me, as in he is truthful and could achieve this if people get behind him and nominate him. Why more convincing? Trump will use her being a woman to wipe her under the table as a whiny woman, and even though I don't agree with this, i'm pretty sure a lot of people still think that way. She is talking about seeing women with a baby coming in unable to take care.. people really aren't sensitive to that.

Under Bernie, not only healthcare would be good, but also education and development. More socialist policies is really what the US needs. If Warren is the nominee, I fear she will lose to Trump.

[JevyDuty 2,961]

1 minute ago, Deagan said:

Regardless, Bernie is the only candidate who sounds convincing enough to me, as in he is truthful and could achieve this if people get behind him and nominate him.

So she's in the pocket of the banks?

[Deagan 608]

3 minutes ago, JevyDuty said:

So she's in the pocket of the banks?

I don't think this matters much. It's about her narrative.

[Othon 34,299]

38 minutes ago, SEANGT said:

me after the last debates: I bet she's avoiding the tax answer because she's working on a plan that taxes the middle class less than Bernie's. 

 

Y'all: NO
 

me now: 

That's not what she's done with this plan at all.

She's attempting to provide a metric for paying for whatever her medicare for all plan ends up being (she still hasn't put out a M4A plan detailing exactly what would be covered like Sanders has) that simultaneously allows her to use the talking point in debates and in the press that she's not raising taxes on the middle class, but the metric through which she funds this plan ultimately charges them much more over time. Her plan charges individual workers a specific amount of money rather than a percentage of their earnings, which shifts more of the burden onto poorer workers. 

Instead of charging workers a small amount of money through direct taxes that then provides universal coverage and saves the average family thousands of dollars a year (Sanders' plan), middle class and poor workers pay what is essentially an indirect tax that ultimately charges them more by charging them a fixed amount of money.

This plan for coverage is also easily avoided by employers. It exempts companies with less than 50 employees and also exempts companies that list their employees as independent contractors. All companies have to do to avoid head tax charges is spin off workers into independent contractor status or spin them off into firms with less than 50 employees that they then contract with for services. Companies like Uber, Lyft and other delivery services have been doing that for years, and it allows corporations to exploit their workers by creating avenues through which they can avoid covering them and providing benefits. This plan encourages that behavior. The direct payroll tax that Sanders has proposed doesn't have that problem. Every dollar of labor income, even independent contractor income, is charged the same. No restructuring can save you from it.

To summarize: She's attempting to play both sides here.

1. She wants to claim that her plan doesn't increase taxes on the middle class, when her plan charges them an indirect tax (that she's just not calling a tax because it isn't contingent on income).

2. Her plan charges the poorest workers more money over time, 

3. can easily be avoided by employers,

4. and encourages bad corporate behavior that harms workers.

5. She still has not released an actual medicare for all plan that details exactly what would be covered, while Sanders has.

It's totally unworkable, and she's only produced a payment plan structured in this specific way because she wants to be able to claim that her plan doesn't raise middle class taxes, when it absolutely does. She's just not calling them taxes. It's totally disingenuous.

[Deagan 608]

4 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

That's not what she's done with this plan at all.

She's attempting to provide a metric for paying for whatever her medicare for all plan ends up being that simultaneously allows her to use the talking point in debates and in the press that she's not raising taxes on the middle class, but the metric through which she fund this plan ultimately charges them much more over time. Her plan charges individual workers a specific amount of money rather than a percentage of their earnings, which shifts more of the burden onto poorer workers. 

Instead of charging workers a small amount of money through direct taxes that then provides universal coverage and saves the average family thousands of dollars a year (Sanders' plan), middle class and poor workers pay what is essentially an indirect tax that ultimately charges them more by charging them a fixed amount of money.

This plan for coverage is also easily avoided by employers. It exempts companies with less than 50 employees and also exempts companies that list their employees as independent contractors. All companies have to do to avoid head tax charges is spin off workers into independent contractor status or spin them off into firms with less than 50 employees that they then contract with for services. Companies like Uber, Lyft and other delivery services have been doing that for years, and it allows corporations to exploit their workers by creating avenues through which they can avoid covering them and providing benefits. This plan encourages that behavior. The direct payroll tax that Sanders has proposed doesn't have that problem. Every dollar of labor income, even independent contractor income, is charged the same. No restructuring can save you from it.

To summarize: She's attempting to play both sides here.

1. She wants to claim that her plan doesn't increase taxes on the middle class, when her plan charges them an indirect tax (that she's just not calling a tax because it isn't contingent on income).

2. Her plan charges the poorest workers more money over time, 

3. can easily be avoided by employers,

4. and encourages bad corporate behavior that harms workers.

5. She still has not released an actual medicare for all plan that details exactly what would be covered, while Sanders has.

It's totally unworkable, and she's only produced a payment plan structured in this specific way because she wants to be able to claim that her plan doesn't raise middle class taxes, when it absolutely does. She's just not calling them taxes. It's totally disingenuous.

Oh wow thanks for your analysis on this. I wasn't aware, but that is a good reason to support Bernie over Warren.

[Othon 34,299]

1 hour ago, Born To Slay said:

Elizabeth Warren released her plan today to finance Medicare For All without raising middle class taxes. Check it out:

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/paying-for-m4a

This isn't a medicare for all plan. It's a payment plan. She hasn't released a M4A plan.

[Born To Slay 10,996]

4 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

This isn't a medicare for all plan. It's a payment plan. She hasn't released a M4A plan.

In the plan, she explains that under this proposal M4A will cover all the same **** that it does in the current bill. She basically took what wa sin that bill and then added stuff in here.

[Othon 34,299]

10 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

In the plan, she explains that under this proposal M4A will cover all the same **** that it does in the current bill. She basically took what wa sin that bill and then added stuff in here.

That's the language she's used on her website, but it's intentionally vague. Again, she hasn't released a M4A plan of her own, she's repeatedly waffled on Sanders' bill, and has said that she's "open to multiple plans" when it comes to healthcare. 

She's gesturing to the multiple plans out there without detailing exactly what her version of M4A would cover, while making the entire issue much more complicated than it has to be. 

She didn't release a M4A plan today. She released a payment plan, and one with serious problems.

[Born To Slay 10,996]

7 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

That's the language she's used on her website, but it's intentionally vague. Again, she hasn't released a M4A plan of her own, she's repeatedly waffled on Sanders' bill, and has said that she's "open to multiple plans" when it comes to healthcare. 

She's gesturing to the multiple plans out there without detailing exactly what her version of M4A would cover, while making the entire issue much more complicated than it has to be. 

She didn't release a M4A plan today. She released a payment plan, and one with serious problems.

It’s not vague tho, she outright says that her bill would cover everything that the current bill would. I don’t see how that’s vague. 
Furthermore, in the beginning she wasn’t super consistent on M4A but for months now she has been and it seems clear with this that she’s firmly in the single payer camp. 

[Sanne Godijn 2,203]

I wonder who gaga will support?

[Othon 34,299]

11 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

It’s not vague tho, she outright says that her bill would cover everything that the current bill would. I don’t see how that’s vague. 
Furthermore, in the beginning she wasn’t super consistent on M4A but for months now she has been and it seems clear with this that she’s firmly in the single payer camp. 

That hasn't been my view of it at all. It's been pretty clear that she actively avoided committing to M4A, explicitly, in writing, until she was pressed on it from both centrists and leftist activists and was forced to release this payment plan. And the way in which she's attempting to market this payment plan is extremely misleading. And given the language in her plan, this leave open the possibility for private insurance, which isn't M4A at all. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

Just now, OG Gaga Stan said:

That hasn't been my view of it at all. It's been pretty clear that she actively avoided committing to M4A, explicitly, in writing, until she was pressed on it from both centrists and leftist activists and was forced to release this payment plan. And the way in which she's attempting to market this payment plan is extremely misleading. 

She’s committed in all the debates so far and stood with Sanders in defending Medicare For All against the so called “moderates” on the stage. 

She released the payment plan because she was getting **** about dodging the taxes question, not because she waffled on Medicare For All. That dodge btw was good politics in her end tho because it avoided writing her own campaign ad. 
 

Finally, her payment plan is mostly fine. I just wish that instead of this stupid “Medicare Contribution” BS, she just thru a new payroll tax of like 10% on the employer side, that’d raise the sameish amount of money without the technocratic garbage. That said, her plan did bring plenty of good ideas to the table and finally got us a non think tank biased view of about how much the plan would cost, so overall even tho imperfect, I’m happy she released the plan as it does prove her critics wrong.

[Othon 34,299]

29 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

She’s committed in all the debates so far and stood with Sanders in defending Medicare For All against the so called “moderates” on the stage. 

Several other candidates committed to M4A on the debate stage and then waffled off stage. She did the same exact thing.

29 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

She released the payment plan because she was getting **** about dodging the taxes question, not because she waffled on Medicare For All. That dodge btw was good politics in her end tho because it avoided writing her own campaign ad. 

It was absolutely both. She's been hit relentlessly from the left for waffling on M4A. 

The dodge was relatively disastrous politics. She's created this entire mess for no reason, and she's made explaining to the public how her version of M4A would be paid for much, much more complicated. M4A is popular because the proposal is straightforward. This payment plan isn't. She's muddied the waters for no apparent reason.

29 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

Finally, her payment plan is mostly fine. I just wish that instead of this stupid “Medicare Contribution” BS, she just thru a new payroll tax of like 10% on the employer side, that’d raise the sameish amount of money without the technocratic garbage. That said, her plan did bring plenty of good ideas to the table and finally got us a non think tank biased view of about how much the plan would cost, so overall even tho imperfect, I’m happy she released the plan as it does prove her critics wrong.

I mean, it's not "mostly fine." It's just not, for all of the reasons I listed above. There were multiple payment plans put forth from leftist activists and economics (several of which Sanders has pointed to as potential options to fund his M4A plan) that detail much more comprehensive and progressive ways to pay for the proposal (here's one: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/10/30/how-to-approach-medicare-for-all-financing/). She's added (like you said) technocratic garbage to what was a straightforward proposal. 

If anything, this could very effectively be used against her by conservative dems like Buttigieg or Biden, as she's claiming she won't raise taxes on the middle class when her plan absolutely does, indirectly. She's just not calling it a tax. Now, not only has she made the entire issue extremely complicated for no reason, she's being disingenuous about her plan to pay for it.