The approach makes sense conceptually - definitely. My concern is that even a phased approach to scaling things up will be mishandled in significant manner, along the lines of the healthcare.gov debacle, but on a much larger scale.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Elizabeth Warren releases Medicare For All plan: no middle class tax increase
- Thread starter Deleted member 4482
- Start date
Because I'm paying into the public good. You really don't get it. What are you even arguing?
That I shouldn't want to pay taxes even as part of the working poor?
The French dodged the wealth tax in the 90s via EU freedom of movement
Her plan is also far more strict and targets hundred millionaires and billionaires. It's the ultra wealthy that would threaten to pack up and leave forever right? And then her exit plan comes into play....
It's a start. The real roadblocks are the constitution and the IRS' inability to assess certain ultra rich ppl shit like art... I dont think you can throw money at either of those issues
If someone is living paycheck to paycheck they shouldn't be taxed more if it isn't needed. We're not at the point in society where we have mandatory living wages and a robust social safety net. When raising taxes on the lower class amounts to less revenue than raising taxes on a few ultra wealthy people....
Nobody is disputing the benefit of taxes and government funded programs.
I'm saying that if I barely have enough money to buy groceries, I am not interested in throwing away even more money towards some vague "public good", especially when there are already enough billionaires to cover that public good anyways. I'm not sure why you're so hellbent on hurting those who are disadvantaged when it's completely unnecessary.
To lower the medical care you need to regulate hospitals to pay physicians less, pay less to pharmacists and pay less to nurses. But even a Democrat doesn't dare do that . United States has one of the highest incomes for those in medical field anywhere in the world. You know how much talent will run back to their country of origin it US starts paying their physicians less ?
Well, that website debacle was something... I get that. But that was also a situation where people were buying their insurance through the website, and that insurance was from the companies we all love. Blue Cross... cigna... etc. So it was like a middle man to the middle man. But it is a valid concern, but I think it actually will just make things easier in the long run, for patients and doctors.
Its really not. People think taxing the rich will generate enough revenue for all these programs - no, it won't. This stuff is expensive, and the 'rich' aren't hoarding Trillions of dollars they can magically pay.
Taxing the rich will certainly generate lots of revenue, but not enough.You need to tax everyday things everyone does to generate the recurring revenue you need.
This description elides the distinction between government providing care at the point of service (NHS model) and the government providing payment to private service providers (NHS, M4A). I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but this is a common conservative trope - "the gummint gonna take over your health care!"
How much do we need to raise taxes to pay for current spending on social security, medicare, and defense?
I've lived uninsured with health costs, and I've also lived insured without health costs.
It's enough to make massive improvements over our current state.
Take every cent Bezos has in tax. Not even as a tax, just take all his money. And Bill Gates, and Tim Cook, and Warren Buffet, etc. You are hilariously short of the money you need for these programs.
Example 1: Those health costs would go down, your taxes will go up, but your overall cost will go down. This is good for you and everyone else.
Example 2: Your insurance costs less, you pay more in taxes, but your overall costs go down. this is good for you and everyone else.
There's no point in just considering taxes and not considering the total cost, especially in regards to your ability to buy food.
So you think Warren is just lying through her teeth when her team crunched the numbers on this plan or what
It isn't JUST about taxing individuals
If you have an employer, your employer is likely paying thousands of dollars for "health insurance". You might pay a few hundreds out of your check, but that doesn't mean that is all it costs for you to have "insurance". Much of healthcare costs is kept from employees, but when they maintain your position at the job, it is apart of the costs to maintain you there.
Huh, why would she do that?
This plan actually looks like a fight we could win
That's true -- I agree. And in the end, I'll support Warren all the way if she's the nominee. On a related note, I can't even imagine the fuckery that will ensue from the private insurance industry and those that benefit from it if M4A is coming to fruition... :-(
There is a tier of poverty that has health costs, but does not pay them and they just live with being sick. For instance I made about 12k per year for 3 years when I was younger, and when I got sick or injured I just had to deal with it on my own (one time I got hit by a car, just had to limp home and wrap myself up the best I could). Even with that small amount of money I still had to pay around 1k in taxes per year, which was always devastating. Increasing taxes on people like that should not be necessary. I am totally fine with increasing taxes for people making a 35k salary and above. Currently I make more money than I need and I would be fine with my taxes increasing, but there was a time I needed every penny I had.
FWIW, most people earning $20k are not paying income taxes into programs like. You're likely net beneficiaries of any government programs.
I know everybody's circumstances are different, but wouldn't you have qualified for medicaid, or perhaps your state medicaid expansion? Federally, individuals are covered by medicaid if they earn less than 133% the federal poverty level ($1250/mo or so, so that's about $1600/mo). State by state it usually goes up, for instance, the Massachusetts medicaid expansion program, MassHealth, covers anybody earning less than 400% the federal poverty level ($5000/mo with progressive coverage split between medicaid and MassHealth). MassHealth is generally the best in the country, or among the best, but many liberal states offer similar programs that expand Medicaid (even a handful of conservative states, like Oklahoma has a 200% FPL for the state Medicaid expansion program).
Last edited:
My main concern with Warren's tax plan (including her asset tax, which I completely agree with) is that it's too easy to skirt. How is she going to ensure that the people can't avoid it?
I expect there to be a third party candidate in the hopes to spoil any chances for the left and maintain the status quo. Media would probably go along with it anyway because Trump is good business for them.
This is important to note.
The vast majority of big policy promises in campaigns are largely for show, or to show intent. They will try to get things pass but you just can't have it all unless you have a super majority.
It's why Obamacare was so gutted.
There's also the issue that realistically she would need to concede some republican legislation issues in order to get shit passed.
And the tough part with Med For All is you can't have a gutted policy. And we all know republicans are more than willing to purposley try to get Med For All to fail. They did so with Obamacare both on the national front and within their own states.
--
Her plan includes loads of taxes on business and transactions, that's where she gets the money from. It also doesn't really reduce taxes on Middle Class, it simply re-appropriates some of it (You pay less for insurance, so the extra tax isn't more tax).
My point is the people running around saying "I don't want to pay more myself, take it all from the rich" are way off base with how much money the rich actually have, and how much these programs cost. You need more taxes everywhere, on everyone.
She clearly is the best all rounder. She has a bigger base than Bernie already, has more variety in her speeches, more policy changes with better details, is just as progressive and has a better chance at winning the general than he does.
She's not as progressive, she doesn't believe in mass mobilization like Sanders, she followed the trend Sanders started with small donations and is behind him both in how much money she has raised and the number of individual donors. Sanders won all of the rust belt states in the 2020 primary which were lost by very small margins by Clinton. Even if he loses some of the larger margins in other states, he should still carry most of the other states Clinton won in the General. Sanders beats Trump in basically every national poll and has been doing so for awhile.
The polls are also only taking into account likely democratic primary voters while Sanders is openly going after non-likely voters. Even if only a small percentage of those non-likely voters go for him, it's still a large number of voters who could sway early primaries and caucuses. Sanders is in a great spot and he is the best candidate in the race. Warren is definitely the 2nd best and then there is a large distant behind her in my rankings.
I'm sorry but how is being behind in donations a sign of her being less progressive. Or literally anything else in your post.
And it's pretty rediculous to claim she doesn't actually believe in mass mobilization and is just following trends considering she didn't run for President in 2016.
This is kinda why as a Bernie supporter that if he doesn't win I'd still be ok with it. Because if we don't get a super majority and the M4A plan isn't shit hot perfect out of the gate I could see M4A AND Medicare proper being axed.
I'm not qualified enough to go over her numbers and see if they even could finance a M4A solution but I do think it's obvious that at some point middle class taxes will have to go up. I mean if the whole point of being a progressive is closing this obscene wage gap, and assuming you're somewhat successful then taxes on the middle class would have to be revisited at some point, even if initially her bill would work. I've never been against middle class taxes going up, I mean, just take what I pay in premiums and instead of sending that money to Blue Shield or whatever send it to the IRS and wala, paycheck's the same, taxes went up, life goes on. But seriously, if her plan did curb business and rich people's obscene cash grab from the middle class, and her numbers did work today, they'd have to be changed in the future as more of that money makes its way back to the worker.
Elizabeth Warren is one of my top candidates for the Democratic primary, but I think people finding issue with the plan are that there's at least a $7.7trillion shortfall that's accounted for in the proposal, as written, in pretty uuhh .... creative ... ways. Presented as no middle class income tax is a little disingenunous, over $1.2trillion is funded in increased taxes on the middle class earned income, but arguably offset as you move away from private insurance. Even after that $1.2t, you're left with $7.7t that's going to be made up for with some ideas that are difficult to implement even if you have a strong mandate for it. Things like 1% taxes and wealth taxes are relatively easy to implement compared to the loosely described "Immigration Reform" and "Military budget cuts."
I don't think they're lying. I think they're presenting a bold plan and a bold financing plan. Bold financing is difficult to achieve realistically. Even if you grant her things like the wealth tax, 1% tax, and 35% tax on foreign income (all difficult things, but probably possible if she had a strong mandate for four years), at least two of her proposals for closing that remaining gap are going to be very difficult to achieve.
Still, you can't hold it against her for being bold... As she said herself, why bother running if you're going to accept business as usual. But boldness can still be criticized as unrealistic or unworkable from both the further left and center of the Democratic primary.
Sanders says he will keep his group of supporters active and will use his bully pulpit to go after causes. He will call on mass protests to get his agenda passed.
Sanders ran in 2016 and normalized a lot of the ideas which were once radical and fantasy in 2016, but are now the norm in 2020.
I believe in Sanders. You can believe in Warren and that is okay. I believe Sanders is a better candidate in terms of his ideology and his ability to win in the General Election. I think he will be less compromising and use the massive power of the executive branch to do good and reform in a transformative way.
The massive power of the executive branch can't unilaterally turn bills into laws. Whoever is president will have to compromise in some areas.
especially if we flip the Senate, because barring a shift in fundamentals we're gonna be negotiating down to Sinema or Manchin
It's the power of public pressure and becoming a less electorally-focused movement.
Sanders winning in 2020 won't be the end. He will use the legitimacy of the Presidency and the massive free press it receives to keep his troops mobilized to pressure legislators into doing the will of the people. Sanders saying he will use the bully pulpit in this way is exciting.
Now go all the way down to the 100-million club. There are a lot more of those.
Could you learn me up then? I'm afraid I don't understand your or the other poster's rationale.
Unless we can somehow get like +5
Also, speaking of compromising and the Senate, Bernie doesn't want to nuke the filibuster which means pretty much all of his plans are dead in the water.
This is the big issue where a hotswap of emoloyer premiums for employer taxes doesnt let you kill the employment based system and let you get the US off of a massively distortionary funding method.
A long term phase in and change is the best wqy to get to a point where we kill that aspect off whether its ultimately SP or MP. But many single payer supporters would riot because like Veruca Salt, they want it now.
heads up: you're not gonna get a rational explanation because the only difference here is pretending Sanders is the only person capable and willing to use the pulpit of 1600 Pennsylvania to get Better Things passed
They prefer Bernie and think he'll magically retain everything progressive about all of his plans while Warren is an evil centrist who has just been virtue signaling to consumer rights, anti-bank sentiments and progressives for the past 30 years.
Out of the current top candidates, only Pete is less likely to get the Senate than Bernie in my eyes.
"Can't trust anyone not named Bernie" is the rationale, the rest is pretext.
but she can't get the million berner march that will descend upon DC and scare the seante to pass everything that Bernie wants. Without that, why even vote?
Yeah. The means by which people live or die is similar to a spoiled brat wanting chocolate.
You can't mass call deep R senators and expect them to shift their entire value set and constituency. It isn't magic. Like how loud the outrage to Kavanaugh was, it couldn't even convince a Senator in a purple state vulnerable to re-election (Collins) whose constituency didn't want Kavanaugh.
Sanders isn't the only politician who tells his base to make noise over issues.
Ok. Do it. Run the numbers. You are not only Trillions short, it's not recurring. You need to pay the money every year, not just once.
Of course, even if the Dems got a super majority in the Senate (won't happen anyway). There are middle of the road Dems that won't go for everything Bernie or Warren are proposing. It's not happening without massive compromise and if the GOP keeps the Senate not at all.
future kidney dialysis patient here who will have to rely on current Medicare for the duration of that + 3 years following a transplant: I'm considerably more comfortable with plans that don't literally require 1/6 of a $20 trillion economy to be retooled in 4 years because it's infinitely less likely I'll fall through the cracks