Elizabeth Warren releases Medicare For All plan: no middle class tax increase

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
Does her m4a plan effectively eliminate private insurers for the same services? Its good if you want to shift all of the burden onto the rich and corporations but it has to actually include the point of m4a which is erasing private control of the marketplace. The 52 trillion cost is nothing if it is less than what the current system will cost
 

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,080
It is really funny that CNN was always talking about HOWYAGUNNAPAYFOR IT and their site barely mentions her announcement.
 

FeliciaFelix

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,734
I’m assuming these companies will contract with the federal government to help administer M4All. For example, care firstblue cross blueshield handles the adminstration for FEP, the federal employee program.

Otherwise CMS is going to have to start hiring more people and Maryland is going to be getting a lot of jobs.
I'll be honest, I have zero problems with M4A and private insurance co-existing. It already kinda does with kidney care. Medicare pays all kidney care in the USA. Some insurance covers kidney care, but if it doesn't, theres Medicare.

The problem is not so much the insurance but the out of control hospital prices that is driving up insurance premiums. And I mean specifically hospitals. Typical clinics do ok.

You see it at least in Florida Blue were they bend over backwards for you to come to your PCP to catch your illness before it balloons to something requiring hospitals. You also see it in those new stand alone Urgent care clinics and the clinics at Target and stuff like that.

There is a real industry effort to catch people before they have to go to the hospital.

M4A still needs to deal with that price problem.
 

BlackGoku03

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,641
I'll be honest, I have zero problems with M4A and private insurance co-existing. It already kinda does with kidney care. Medicare pays all kidney care in the USA. Some insurance covers kidney care, but if it doesn't, theres Medicare.

The problem is not so much the insurance but the out of control hospital prices that is driving up insurance premiums. And I mean specifically hospitals. Typical clinics do ok.

You see it at least in Florida Blue were they bend over backwards for you to come to your PCP to catch your illness before it balloons to something requiring hospitals. You also see it in those new stand alone Urgent care clinics and the clinics at Target and stuff like that.

There is a real industry effort to catch people before they have to go to the hospital.

M4A still needs to deal with that price problem.
Correct. And for the reasons you've listed, we've seen a significant drop in patients year over year for the past 5 years. Our ER is equipped to handle 40k patients a year. Up until 2017, we were getting 60k+ a year but it's subsided a bit and continues to go down.

Meanwhile, new clinics pop up every six months which offers another avenue for healthcare.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
926
The whole argument to eliminate health insurance companies to me is silly because it doesn't matter. All you have to do is ensure everyone accepts Medicare and everyone pays into Medicare and from that point on I don't see why anyone would worry in the slightest if some rich guy wants to pay another insurer on top of Medicare for gold crutches or some shit not in Medicare. They'd never have the bargaining power of the Federal government, it's silly to eliminate them out of spite or misguided principle.
 

RailWays

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
7,826
a whole lotta folks itt being all "better things aren't possible"
Just another day.
"It'll never happen" vs "she'll just drop it in the GE anyway so we need Bernie"
She just can't win. I'm glad that high-polling candidates are making an honest effort for single-payer in spite of this.
 

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
2,079
The whole argument to eliminate health insurance companies to me is silly because it doesn't matter. All you have to do is ensure everyone accepts Medicare and everyone pays into Medicare and from that point on I don't see why anyone would worry in the slightest if some rich guy wants to pay another insurer on top of Medicare for gold crutches or some shit not in Medicare. They'd never have the bargaining power of the Federal government, it's silly to eliminate them out of spite or misguided principle.
If it's anything like Bernie's plan, it's wanting to get rid of duplicative care. I haven't had the chance to thoroughly review it but one good analogy I've heard is imagine your house is on fire. You aren't going to shop around for which fire department is going to come to your need. It just comes. M4A would reduce the need to shop around by means of insurance plan, what job to take, etc. Your service would be taken care of when medically needed.

Private supplemental insurance would still exist so that rich guy can get that plastic surgery if he so desires, but at least everyone else's medical necessities would be covered.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Does her m4a plan effectively eliminate private insurers for the same services? Its good if you want to shift all of the burden onto the rich and corporations but it has to actually include the point of m4a which is erasing private control of the marketplace. The 52 trillion cost is nothing if it is less than what the current system will cost
Yes
 

Psychoward

Member
Nov 7, 2017
25,599
do you have specific criticisms, or are you just following the chorus of "if cap likes it must be bad in some vague way" replies to the tweet
Well this left leaning think tank that isn't as left leaning as I am likes it and that means we have to scrap it entirely so it never even comes close to being passed even though it severely taxes the ultra wealthy and corporations and provides healthcare to everyone

/s
 

Servbot24

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
22,628
Well this left leaning think tank that isn't as left leaning as I am likes it and that means we have to scrap it entirely so it never even comes close to being passed even though it severely taxes the ultra wealthy and corporations and provides healthcare to everyone

/s
I wish this were not a realistic comment. Sadly we spend a lot of time choking/woking ourselves to death.
 

TheGhost

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
17,472
Long Island
Just read it and saw no mention of what she considers “middle class”

give me numbers ERA, what salary range are we talking here. What combined income.
 

BADMAN

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,682
Not familiar with CAP Action, why is it a red flag?
It's John Podesta's think tank headed up by Neera Tanden. They're the most influential public policy research groups on the democratic side. There's a lot wrong with them so I'd say do you own research but for brevity, they're extremely neoliberal and are representative, and in some ways responsible for, everything that sucks about the democratic establishment.
 

Psychoward

Member
Nov 7, 2017
25,599
It's John Podesta's think tank headed up by Neera Tanden. They're the most influential public policy research groups on the democratic side. There's a lot wrong with them so I'd say do you own research but for brevity, they're extremely neoliberal and are representative, and in some ways responsible for, everything that sucks about the democratic establishment.
So would it be better for you if one of the biggest liberal think tanks was opposed to M4A and her plan had less support? Honestly

It's a ridiculous complaint that doesn't attack anything of substance
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
12,998
You're stanning a corrupt DC think tank. Why would any of your questions be worth answering?
That's not even close to what's happening here. You're saying a policy is suspect because a DC think tank supports it without any substance. You're basically saying "these fuckers support it so it must be bad". That is psychoward's point.
 

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,399
So, let's be clear, CAP opposes the wall. Is that suspect? Because that's the extent of what you're saying without any specifics.
A group that's been very against M4A suddenly coming around to it is suspicious.

If they've genuinely come around on it then it's good, but I'm gonna be thinking there's an ulterior motive.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,904
The middle class needs to share some of the burden for something this massive, whatever happened to all that talk on costs?
 

BADMAN

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,682
Please point me to the post where I defended the think tank itself.
Alright alright fine. There's two reasons CAP would support this.

One, because they think the plan will fail, either because they think they can talk Warren out of it like Harry Reid was saying or because they don't feel threatened by her ability to accomplish it.

And/Or Two, they want to keep pushing Warren as the Progressive™️ of choice because they are fucking terrified of Sanders and his ability to actually change Washington and possibly pass M4A.

The reason this is a red flag is that, at best, it further confirms that Warren is being used as a tool by these assholes to divide the progressive vote so that Bernie has trouble winning and that she's *possibly* a fake leftist.

Just to do a disclaimer here, I DO like Warren and will definitely vote for her as a second option, but she's not Sanders and CAP giving her the thumbs up is confrimation of that.
 

Tfritz

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,408
they are fucking terrified of Sanders and his ability to actually change Washington and possibly pass M4A.

and that she's *possibly* a fake leftist.
imo if you believe there is even a possibility that elizabeth warren is a "fake leftist" then i don't understand why you think sanders will "actually change washington" or be able to pass M4A. she is quite literally his closest ally in the senate, the person who has been voting alongside him 95% of the time she's been in congress, and if she's not going to support his policies when he's president then literally who is
 

Psychoward

Member
Nov 7, 2017
25,599
imo if you believe there is even a possibility that elizabeth warren is a "fake leftist" then i don't understand why you think sanders will "actually change washington" or be able to pass M4A. she is quite literally his closest ally in the senate, the person who has been voting alongside him 95% of the time she's been in congress, and if she's not going to support his policies when he's president then literally who is
Basically confirms what I thought though, that the reason for the dislike is conspiracies against Warren and not that the actual plan is bad

Also CAP did release a UHC plan that stressed minimal tax increases on the middle class almost 2 years ago. It's not single payer but...
 

legacyzero

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,252

BADMAN

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,682
she is quite literally his closest ally in the senate, the person who has been voting alongside him 95% of the time she's been in congress, and if she's not going to support his policies when he's president then literally who is
Which is why I still like her and will support her as a second choice. I don't believe she's a *fake leftist* but I don't trust that she's dedicated to the working class like Sanders. And even with the clear camaraderie between Sanders and Warren, I don't think it's one based on having the exact same ideologies.

Warren left the Republican party back in 1996 because of what they were doing to the middle class. To *me* this means that her core ideology does not revolve around the working class. I believe that we need to unify the working class and make the change happen from the bottom up. Sanders has been fighting for the working class his entire life and continues to campaign on their behalf. That's why he's number one.

Basically confirms what I thought though, that the reason for the dislike is conspiracies against Warren and not that the actual plan is bad

Also CAP did release a UHC plan that stressed minimal tax increases on the middle class almost 2 years ago. It's not single payer but...
It's fair game though. No one should trust what a politician has to say unless they give you a reason to trust them. I think Warren has done good work towards being trustable but shit like CAP giving her a wink and a nudge should be concerning to everyone.
 

papermoon

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
1,435
Just read it and saw no mention of what she considers “middle class”

give me numbers ERA, what salary range are we talking here. What combined income.
In terms of how individuals (as opposed to corporations) are affected, this is what I'm reading:

If your household ranks in the top 1% in terms of wealth, the way you get taxed on capital "gains" will change. If your capital assets increase in value during a taxable year, you'll have to pay tax on that increase even if you don't sell the asset. Retirement accounts are exempt from this method of taxation. And again, this tax is just for the top 1% wealthiest households. What the cut off is exactly I don't know.

If you're a billionaire, there'll be an additional wealth tax: 6% tax on your net worth that exceeds one billion dollars.

If you trade stocks, bonds, derivatives, there'll be a 0.1% tax on the proceeds of any sale. This can apply to anyone in any income bracket.

The biggest change for most people is that they'll no longer be paying health insurance premiums through their job. THEY WILL GET THAT MONEY BACK. So, people who have employer-sponsored health insurance will actually see an increase in their take home pay. There'll be no more need for tax-exempt healthcare savings accounts. People who put money into those accounts can now spend that money elsewhere. And obviously, since that money won't be in a tax-exempt account anymore, it'll be "taxable." But if these situations apply to you, you'll necessarily have more money under this plan.

The middle class needs to share some of the burden for something this massive, whatever happened to all that talk on costs?
Do they really though? I know that's what some think tanks have concluded. I guess there seems to be some room for debate on that.
 

legacyzero

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,252
this is a fascinating way of responding to someone asking for your specific issues with warren's plan
Name two reasons why you personally don't like the plan that actually talks about the plan itself.
The post I'm responding to has less to do about the plan and more about CAP being shady. Was that not obvious? Strange that people like Neera Tanden, CAP, and Third Way would dog Sanders at every turn, but suddenly, Liz's plan is good? Cmon.

Also, how many times does Liz say "long term plan"?

Also Also, the fact that shes so afraid to admit that taxes would go up, scared about the media narrative. The Head Tax is also a concern I'm reading
 

Psychoward

Member
Nov 7, 2017
25,599
The post I'm responding to has less to do about the plan and more about CAP being shady. Was that not obvious? Strange that people like Neera Tanden, CAP, and Third Way would dog Sanders at every turn, but suddenly, Liz's plan is good? Cmon.

Also, how many times does Liz say "long term plan"?

Also Also, the fact that shes so afraid to admit that taxes would go up, scared about the media narrative. The Head Tax is also a concern I'm reading
Yes it would need to be a long term plan even if Bernie were to be in office. An immediate, overnight switch from a system that doesn't even have UHC to M4A is not feasible in any capacity. The ACA was also a gradual roll-out.

And of course she's cautious of the media narrative, she's trying to win an election.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Proposing a head tax to be able to claim "no tax increase" is staggeringly cynical.

Bravo?
The whole thing is a political exercise anyway since the median Democratic Senator doesn’t support Medicare for All.

If we put 22 more senators in office during Warren’s victory then I will definitely call them and ask them to revise the funding mechanism because a head tax is dumb. Although if we’re going to do that a flat wages tax is probably not the most progressive choice either!

But the entire discourse about “will Medicare for all raise taxes?” in every single debate was itself breathtakingly cynical and so I’m fine with a cynical response. My suggestion was to say we’d pay for it with the economic growth caused by job creators having more freedom to start small businesses. This is less cynical than that. And probably less cynical than just saying “I don’t have a plan to pay for it and I refuse to write one.”