Elizabeth Warren releases Medicare For All plan

[Economy 53,171]

Love the fact she wants to introduce it...

 

US Healthcare system is just too expensive tho so covering ppl would cost a lot...

 

If the US switched to a universal system it would eliminated the extra costs from profit margins of not only hospitals but also the middle men (insurance companies)

 

Most Countries with very good coverage have to raise taxes on middle class as well not only the top 1% like she proposes and their healthcare is less expensive than the US system

 

Look at countries with full coverage in Much of Europe. Taxes are higher for everyone not just the rich

 

im not saying it isnt worth it. Im saying her promise of paying for it without raising taxes on middle class a penny could prove very difficult

 

Here in Canada our middle class taxes are comperable to the US but our Universal healthcare system is not as Universal as in most of Europe (a lot of healthcare is still private) and we also don’t spend the same as US on military which is already a budget constraint

[HorusRa2 5,005]

Not much left to add here except to say that Warren’s version is a means-testing method that still comes off as Medicare for All who can afford it whereas Bernie’s Medicare for All is universal in its benefits and its cost is paid in a progressive way. We can argue the semantics until either camp is blue, but the essence of the difference between Bernie and Liz lie in this very issue. So many argue that Bernie is divisive but I would argue Liz is the divisive policymaker because of her means testing policies (I.E. student debt cancellation as well). 

[Morphine Prince 110,034]

Still voting for Bernie. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

The messaging is great. Especially the calling out people who are still out here trying to peddle asinine plans that don't fix **** like "Medicare for all who want it" and w.e Klobuchar and Harris have planned  

Unfortunately she was so constrained by the "raising taxes!? immoral!? talking point that Republicans love to use as a cudgel against any social programs or safety nets (read: they don't like to help people hurt by the problems they cause)  that she made it more convoluted than it needed to be, with potentially a new hole to be taken advantage of on the side of employers.

While I do think exploring multiple ways to fund this is good intellectually,  I don't think this particular means is nearly as straight forward or effective as what Sanders, Jayapal, etc. have proposed.

The idea that that bill was ever "partially funded" or whatever is also a mischaracterization. We don't have to raise $30 trillion to pay for M4A, It's possible to re-use the funds we spend and plan to spend on our current health care system to pay for it as well, which is why those avenues are additional and may not all be necessary, factors depending. 

Imo, Bernie and Elizabeth need to go at this from "see, now we have 2 plans to pay for Medicare 4 All where the middle class pays less and overall costs go down, meanwhile you clowns are trying to argue its impossible to work, we *need* private insurance that gouge people and kill thousands a year..." and not "whose plan is better!"

But its slippery territory. I could see Warren's camp wanting to inch ahead with there "ours is the most detailed" (hint; its not) rhetoric. Similarly, Sanders has been drawing more distinctions between him and his opponents recently, so he might go on the "okay, cute but mines just flat out better" stance (and hes right, but yeah~)

[Miracle 14,068]

1 hour ago, Sanne Godijn said:

I wonder who gaga will support?

Very possibly the one that wins the Primaries

[Morphine Prince 110,034]

2 hours ago, Sanne Godijn said:

I wonder who gaga will support?

Biden, I’m almost certain. 

[Sanne Godijn 2,203]

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

Biden, I’m almost certain. 

Why?

[Economy 53,171]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

The messaging is great. Especially the calling out people who are still out here trying to peddle asinine plans that don't fix **** like "Medicare for all who want it" and w.e Klobuchar and Harris have planned  

Unfortunately she was so constrained by the "raising taxes!? immoral!? talking point that Republicans love to use as a cudgel against any social programs or safety nets (read: they don't like to help people hurt by the problems they cause)  that she made it more convoluted than it needed to be, with potentially a new hole to be taken advantage of on the side of employers.

While I do think exploring multiple ways to fund this is good intellectually,  I don't think this particular means is nearly as straight forward or effective as what Sanders, Jayapal, etc. have proposed.

The idea that that bill was ever "partially funded" or whatever is also a mischaracterization. We don't have to raise $30 trillion to pay for M4A, It's possible to re-use the funds we spend and plan to spend on our current health care system to pay for it as well, which is why those avenues are additional and may not all be necessary, factors depending. 

Imo, Bernie and Elizabeth need to go at this from "see, now we have 2 plans to pay for Medicare 4 All where the middle class pays less and overall costs go down, meanwhile you clowns are trying to argue its impossible to work, we *need* private insurance that gouge people and kill thousands a year..." and not "whose plan is better!"

But its slippery territory. I could see Warren's camp wanting to inch ahead with there "ours is the most detailed" (hint; its not) rhetoric. Similarly, Sanders has been drawing more distinctions between him and his opponents recently, so he might go on the "okay, cute but mines just flat out better" stance (and hes right, but yeah~)

Yeah the taxes thing to me seems unrealistic

 

Countries with high healthcare coverage like in Europe typically tax the middle class more as well not just the wealthy.

 

im not sure how feasable it is to make the promise that taxes wont go up

 

she can say people wont pay more in the sense that any higher taxes they pay is more than offset by healthcare cost savings which in the end is what matters most

 

but dont promise u wont have to raise any taxes on everyday citizens. Shes only gonna back herself in a corner if it turns out to be necessary

[JevyDuty 2,961]

Pro-Bernie supporters remain as... loud as ever.  I don't find him or y'all helpful most of the time. I'm voting for Warren but if Bernie wins the primary,  I'll vote for him too because I'm not stupid............

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

23 minutes ago, Economy said:

Yeah the taxes thing to me seems unrealistic

Countries with high healthcare coverage like in Europe typically tax the middle class more as well not just the wealthy.

im not sure how feasable it is to make the promise that taxes wont go up

she can say people wont pay more in the sense that any higher taxes they pay is more than offset by healthcare cost savings which in the end is what matters most

but dont promise u wont have to raise any taxes on everyday citizens. Shes only gonna back herself in a corner if it turns out to be necessary

That's not really my opposition to it.

Bernie's plan explicitly would raise taxes on everyone, but progressively. That coupled with the money that would have been spent on premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc. leaves the average person at a net gain in yearly income, less spending on health care as a nation - which is the messaging the media should be focusing on, but I mean hey we love centrism.. The average spent on trips to the doctor for single people under a certain income bracket and families of four predict that those groups of people will save money, possibly thousands. But for example a single bachelor making $70,000 a year that is deceptively healthy and never goes to the doctor may make slightly less. To me its negligible, and not entirely predictable for statistics sake (though there are calculators you can use to find out easily how much you would make/save).

Warren's plan does not tax everyone's income, BUT it does create a tax on the money that employers will now be redirecting from private insurance to the government, so it indirectly does tax people. It is more expensive than Bernie's plan for the sake of not taxing the middle class's direct income but to its credit it does have work arounds in the odds that their projected funding is not met that target stock bonds and more. So I'm not worried in 2 years she'd be like "oops we do have to raise taxes!" because it kind of already does that.

I do think it would probably work in that sense that the average person is not paying more out of their own income/pocket in taxes (even though they are being indirectly taxed). My problem with it is that this flat rate will disproportionately worsen things for poorer people and tying things to employers payment to the government to me is a disaster waiting to happen where employers will be more pressured into hiring less workers (to pay less), using so-called "independent contractors" to avoid having to pay for those people, etc. There are things I like about this plan - cutting the slush fund money from defense spending and redirecting it here, the progressive framing of immigration reform as being a part of the funding, etc. but why create this potential problem when we could just go with Bernie's plan, which makes it much harder- neigh, impossible for the wealthy to avoid completely being taxed in this way, AND which redistributes wealth more equally where the money saved by poor people is significant to their income bracket and doesn't punch down. (10% of $30,000 is a lot more significant than 10% of 100,000 basically).

At the end of the day Warren's plan would also save money by cutting these things. It's still a "your net income will most likely go up by the cutting of premiums" but the ("despite paying more in taxes") bit is now whispered because its not directly coming from your income. It's great political theater if she could weaponize it, but Mainstream media hates progressive policies even though they are highly popular, so it won't surprise me if the questioning from moderators and other candidates evolves from "but how do you pay for it!?!?!" to "won't this result in insert specific numbers on employment, corruption, etc" Basically I could see them having the nuanced criticism of this plan that is highly warranted because they want to tear it down, meanwhile Buttigieg and Harris and Klobuchar and Biden's plans are all dead on arrival and receive no such criticism.

[Economy 53,171]

9 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

That's not really my opposition to it.

Bernie's plan explicitly would raise taxes on everyone, but progressively. That coupled with the money that would have been spent on premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc. leaves the average person at a net gain in yearly income, less spending on health care as a nation - which is the messaging the media should be focusing on, but I mean hey we love centrism.. The average spent on trips to the doctor for single people under a certain income bracket and families of four predict that those groups of people will save money, possibly thousands. But for example a single bachelor making $70,000 a year that is deceptively healthy and never goes to the doctor may make slightly less. To me its negligible, and not entirely predictable for statistics sake (though there are calculators you can use to find out easily how much you would make/save).

Warren's plan does not tax everyone's income, BUT it does create a tax on the money that employers will now be redirecting from private insurance to the government, so it indirectly does tax people. It is more expensive than Bernie's plan for the sake of not taxing the middle class's direct income but to its credit it does have work arounds in the odds that their projected funding is not met that target stock bonds and more. So I'm not worried in 2 years she'd be like "oops we do have to raise taxes!" because it kind of already does that.

I do think it would probably work in that sense that the average person is not paying more out of their own income/pocket in taxes (even though they are being indirectly taxed). My problem with it is that this flat rate will disproportionately worsen things for poorer people and tying things to employers payment to the government to me is a disaster waiting to happen where employers will be more pressured into hiring less workers (to pay less), using so-called "independent contractors" to avoid having to pay for those people, etc. There are things I like about this plan - cutting the slush fund money from defense spending and redirecting it here, the progressive framing of immigration reform as being a part of the funding, etc. but why create this potential problem when we could just go with Bernie's plan, which makes it much harder- neigh, impossible for the wealthy to avoid completely being taxed in this way, AND which redistributes wealth more equally where the money saved by poor people is significant to their income bracket and doesn't punch down. (10% of $30,000 is a lot more significant than 10% of 100,000 basically)

Yeah. I dont like that idea for the same reasons u said. Could decrease employee hiring and possibly have costs passed on to consumers who knows

 

i think raising taxes across the board would be better

 

This way, everyone contributes a little so not all of the burden has to be on Corporations and Wealthy alone (cuz too severe a hike can also have negative consequences)

 

But the poorer you are the more youd save in relation to the increase in ur taxes so on a net basis it’s still a wealth redistributer

 

Between military cuts tho and a reasonable hike on Capital Gains tax (the main way wealthy compound their wealth at a rediculous rate) that would pay for a very good chunck of it

 

the the tax hikes on average citizens could be very modest

[Azor Ahai 18,861]

2 hours ago, Sanne Godijn said:

I wonder who gaga will support?

Hopefully not Biden... 

[Morphine Prince 110,034]

2 hours ago, Sanne Godijn said:

Why?

Just a guess considering she supported Hillary in 2016 so I’m guessing she’ll support a centrist this time around. And Biden is the most popular one. 

[Economy 53,171]

46 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Just a guess considering she supported Hillary in 2016 so I’m guessing she’ll support a centrist this time around. And Biden is the most popular one. 

Probably. Bernie or Warren would both tax her with a wealth tax if they managed to pass those plans

 

Gaga may want positive social change but its also hard not to be biased at how a candidate may work against you individually. Its human nature to always he a little selfish with these things

 

I myself am skeptical of some of their plans like a wealth tax but... Gaga would have a real personal reason to not want it lol

[Born To Slay 10,996]

5 hours ago, Economy said:

Love the fact she wants to introduce it...

 

US Healthcare system is just too expensive tho so covering ppl would cost a lot...

 

If the US switched to a universal system it would eliminated the extra costs from profit margins of not only hospitals but also the middle men (insurance companies)

 

Most Countries with very good coverage have to raise taxes on middle class as well not only the top 1% like she proposes and their healthcare is less expensive than the US system

 

Look at countries with full coverage in Much of Europe. Taxes are higher for everyone not just the rich

 

im not saying it isnt worth it. Im saying her promise of paying for it without raising taxes on middle class a penny could prove very difficult

 

Here in Canada our middle class taxes are comperable to the US but our Universal healthcare system is not as Universal as in most of Europe (a lot of healthcare is still private) and we also don’t spend the same as US on military which is already a budget constraint

Here’s the thing about taxes tho, just so ur aware. The American public actually already pays taxes for much of the healthcare system either to government programs or subsidies for private insurance companies. About a third of Americans are on either Medicare or Medicaid. So that’s 35% right there directly insured by the government. On top of that, people buying insurance under Obamacare plans are often eligible for subsidies to buy private insurance and employers can deduct significant health insurance expenses as well. So when u redirect the public funding and end the tax breaks, you’re already a significant portion the way there. So that’s why in America taxes on the employer side and taxes on the rich COULD work.