How long will Warren dodge on health care and taxes?

[Gothmog]

Link to tweet

None other than late-night host Stephen Colbert made it painfully clear that Warren is ducking. He asked twice about whether taxes will go up and practically begged her to level with voters. “I’ve listened to these answers a few times before," he said, "and I just want to make a parallel suggestion to you that you might defend the taxes, perhaps, you’re not mentioning in your sentence: ‘Isn’t Medicare for All like public school? There might be taxes for it, but you save money sending your kids to school, and do you want to live in a world where your kids aren’t educated? Do you want to live in a world where your fellow Americans are dying?’”

Let’s be clear: If Colbert and debate moderators can figure this out, her opponents in the primary and, more important, the Republicans in the general election will hit her again and again.

It is not simply a matter of the viability of her health-care plan. It goes to her core critique of the moderates: They are too timid and too scared to do the big things. Well, perhaps they have figured out what the big things cost and don’t see they are economically or politically viable.

Warren’s brand is truth-telling about the rich and powerful, but you simply cannot get the rich and big corporations to pay for all of it. The Medicare-for-all plan introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is presumably the basis for Warren’s idea — despite all her other plans, she has little specifics on health care. Sanders’s plan posits a number of funding sources and specifies a premium for families (“a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All — just $844 a year — saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium”). Now, there are a lot of people who consider themselves middle-class who might have to pay more, but at least Sanders makes some effort to spell out the costs and the savings.

[Gothmog]

1. Colbert called out Warren over her consistent refusal to say whether middle-class will increase

Link to tweet

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. She is right to reject the RW gotcha framing of "will taxes go up?"

Which BTW, Colbert didn't use last night- he said how will M4A be paid for, and helpfully gave the example you quoted above, which Warren agreed with.

I agree that she does need to come up with a better standard response to explain the overall financial impact that M4A would have on each family/household.

[NeoGreen]

6. Apparently, it's no longer just a RW gotcha question (nt)

[Gothmog]

7. We need to know exactly how much her plan will cost and how it will be paid for

So far Warren is being very careful not to tell us the answer to either question

[sharedvalues]

52. We just put $2 trillion on a credit card

Let’s ask Republicans how they’re going to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.

If they don’t need to pay for their tax cuts, Warren shouldn’t be asked either.

[DrToast]

8. Being evasive looks worse on her.

If she’s going to raise taxes, she needs to own it. She needs to explain why it’s worth it.

[Gothmog]

10. Warren's refusal to answer the question looked bad on the Colbert show

[Thekaspervote]

23. It did!! Besides, those that have employer based plans will not look on favorably

[jcgoldie]

27. Which is a silly argument also

When my union negotiates my contract, just like every other union negotiated contract, a huge part of that time energy and negotiated compensation is over health care benefits. Take that out of that setting and everyone will get a substantial fucking raise on their next contract.

[dem4decades]

28. Really? How do you know management will raise compensation? They could just take the money.

[Thekaspervote]

30. This!! Corporations are greedy. like the tax break- going to invest into new jobs & infrastructure

That didn’t exactly work out

[jcgoldie]

50. Sounds like a good argument for Liz!

[jcgoldie]

49. Evidently you've never negotiated a union contract

I have multiple times. If you give something up, you get something. Thats why unions are so good for workers and thats why republicans and corporations hate them.

[Bidenator]

53. unions giving up raises and benefits for "job security" the past 10yrs has not worked so well n/t

[jcgoldie]

54. oh so you are anti-union?

The point that the last person was arguing against was that if unions are not spending negotiating capital on health care, then they have more chips to play elsewhere.

[Celerity]

60. Steven Cozen is most definitely anti-union

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/biden-boasts-strong-early-support-from-unions-union-busters.html


https://www.cozen.com/practices/labor-employment/labor-relations-disputes

Cozen O’Connor represents a broad spectrum of private and public sector employers in labor relations and disputes. For our unionized clients, we handle unfair labor practice proceedings and grievance arbitrations; negotiate individual and multi-employer collective bargaining agreements; prepare for and respond to picket lines, strikes, lockouts, and other economic campaigns; and work with employers during union election campaigns. We also help employers avoid unionization through positive employee relations and regain nonunion status when employees indicate they no longer wish to be union-represented. We are experienced labor litigators, appearing frequently before federal, state, and appellate courts; federal agencies and departments (such as the EEOC, NLRB, DOL, IRS, OSHA, and ICE); state agencies and departments; and arbitration panels.

SERVICE AREAS

Defend clients in unfair labor practice proceedings and handle grievance arbitrations
Negotiate individual and multi-employer collective bargaining agreements
Prepare for and respond to picketing, strikes, lockouts and other economic tactics
Work with employers to avoid unionization through positive employee relations or to regain nonunion status when employees no longer wish to be union-represented
Advise clients on the labor relations consequences of business events, including mergers, spin-offs, acquisitions, and bankruptcies
Represent employers in significant labor-related litigations, mediations, and arbitrations

EXPERIENCE

We secured a victory for a university in connection with a union's petition to represent non-tenure track faculty members. The representation included coordinating all aspects of the university's campaign, ensuring compliance with the NLRB's election rules, and representing the university before the Chicago Regional NLRB when the union challenged 120 ballots believed to have been cast in the university's favor. This challenge led to two years of proceedings before the agency, including two Requests for Review to the NRLB in Washington, D.C., ultimately resulting in a unanimous ruling that all remaining challenged ballots should be opened. These ballots revealed that the university had won the election.

We secured an injunction against union picketers who impeded ingress and egress at a hospital construction site to protest our client’s employment of non-union construction workers. The injunction, which prohibited representatives from multiple unions from participating in the protest within 25 feet of the site, was issued under an exception to Pennsylvania state law generally precluding injunctive relief during labor disputes.

We secured victory in a high-stakes and closely watched appeal before the NLRB centering on efforts by the football team at Northwestern University to form the first union of scholarship student athletes. The Cozen O'Connor team persuaded a staunchly pro-labor Board to decline jurisdiction in a unanimous decision. In reaching this successful result, we marshaled the support of nearly one dozen amici, including the NCAA, the Ivy League schools, several major conferences, private universities, and even members of Congress to submit briefs to the Board. The case was covered by every major media outlet, and the unprecedented issue spawned Congressional hearings and nationwide interest.

[customerserviceguy]

56. It did

It's not like Colbert is a reich-wing nutjob, unlike the character he played on a previous show. He would have accepted any real answer she would have given him without tearing her apart for it.

[Thekaspervote]

62. This!!

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Warren does need to come up with a clear, concise response to the question of M4A taxes

The closest she's come so far was last night on Colbert in response to the quote above, she said simply "I agree with everything you just said".

She will need to do better; perhaps something along the lines of Bernie's "premium" framing, emphasizing there will be no deductible, no copays, along with her standard "overall out of pocket cost reduction " standard response.

[George II]

5. I think she's relying on BS to address Medicare for All taxes, since it's his plan she's going with.

[JI7]

36. i think her support for MFA is more political strategy. she is trying to get Sanders supporters

and it has worked with her rising in polls.

[Cha]

44. That was my thought.. but will

it backfire?

[customerserviceguy]

57. Yep

She's letting him take all the flak for it, and that is her strategy for the rest of the primary season. It's probably one of the reasons that she has not gone after Bernie in the debates.

[Gothmog]

66. Societal savings are not tax revenues and not pay for Warren's program

Such a plan in theory may generate societal savings but such savings would not pay for a program. Governments can only spend tax revenues and/or borrowings. This study does not say how one would pay for such a program in the real world. I note that Prof. Krugman like the concepts of such a plan in theory but notes that taxes will have to be raised a great deal to pay for such a plan
Back in 2016, here is his position Prof. Krugman compares Sanders hoped for health care savings to the GOP tax cuts. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0

On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.

To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.

Today, Prof. Krugman says that such a plan is feasible if you are willing to pay a great deal more in taxes
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/paul-krugman-explains-why-single-payer-health-care-entirely-achievable-us-and-how

If we went to government provision of all insurance, we’d pay more in taxes but less in premiums, and the overall burden of health spending would probably fall, because single-payer systems tend to be cheaper than market-based."

The amount of higher taxes are not quantified in this article by Krugman. To pay for any such plan will require massive tax hikes

Again sanders has utterly failed in his attempts to get Vermont to adopt his magical single payer plan because the state of Vermont cannot use hypothetical societal saving to pay for this plan. Even Krugman admits that much higher taxes are needed

[stopbush]

4. I really don't understand how Sanders can say a family of four

would pay under $1000 a year to be on MFA.

My wife and I just started on Medicare. We pay a combined MONTHLY premium of $310 for Medicare, or $3750 a year. In addition, we still pay Medicare taxes on our earned income. Our individual deductibles are each $4500 a year. We have co-pays.

I believe we are typical Medicare recipients, and that our costs are pretty much in line with those of most Medicare recipients. How in the hell a family of four is going to get the same Medicare coverage as us paying 75% LESS in premiums than us, with no copays, deductibles etc? Sounds like bullshit.

I really believe that most people have no idea that there are costs associated with being a senior on Medicare. It seems that most people think that Medicare is free, with no monthly premiums, copays, deductibles, etc. Folks, it ain’t so.

[wysimdnwyg]

9. I don't know that I agree with the $1,000/year figure...

But keep in mind that once young, healthy people are added to the rolls, EVERYONE'S premiums will go down. That's just how insurance works.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. Here. For the most part, by stopping the looting that's been going on for 40 years.

People are so used to get fucked by the wealthy I think we have a bit of Stockholm syndrome going on. Businesses used to pay a much larger share of the overall budget and wealthy taxpayers used to pay a much higher marginal rate. Yeah, yeah, I know, there used to be more loopholes (says every republican ever born) but the numbers don’t lie - the burden has been massively shifted to the working class for the last forty years. That’s undeniable.

Making businesses pay their fair share is not a radical idea. At least it shouldn’t be.

We just printed $130 billion dollars in the last two days to bail out the overnight credit market without much of a peep “hOw ArE wE gOinG tO pAy foR it!?!!”

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

Options to Make the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share
Make the Personal Income Tax More Progressive Revenue raised: $1.8 trillion over ten years.
Another option is to reform the personal income tax system by strengthening progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as work income, limiting deductions for the wealthy, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and requiring derivatives to be marked to market.
o Progressive income tax rates.
Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:
§ 40 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
§ 45 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
§ 50 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2014, only 136,000
households, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10
million.)
§ 52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2014, only 16,700 households, just 0.02
percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)
o Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.
Warren Buffett, the second-wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. This is because he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This option would end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000, treating this income the same as income earned from working.
Taxing all income received by the rich at the same rates would simplify the tax code and eliminate the opportunities to game the system by making other types of income appear to be capital gains or dividends. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 68 percent of the benefits of the special income tax rates for capital gains and dividends went to the richest one percent of Americans in 2013.

Limit tax deductions for the wealthy.
Wealthier households are able to take advantage of various itemized deductions that generally do not provide any benefit to lower income workers. Under this proposal, itemized deductions would be capped at 28 percent for households making over $250,000. In other words, for every dollar in tax deduction a high-income household could save at most 28 cents. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich.

Establish a Wealth Tax on the Top 0.1 percent
Revenue raised: $1.3 trillion over ten years.
Over the past several decades America has experienced an explosion of wealth
concentration. Today the wealthiest 0.1 percent – just 160,000 households – own nearly the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Meanwhile, a report from the Institute on Policy Studies concludes that America’s 20 richest individuals now own more wealth than the entire bottom half of the American population.
This severe inequality threatens to warp our democracy by concentrating too much power in the hands of a tiny elite. It also holds back our economy, funneling resources to a few families rather than creating the broad base of middle-class consumers that can drive economic growth.
This option would establish an annual 1 percent federal wealth tax on the net worth of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of U.S. households. The tax would apply to net worth exceeding $21 million for a household. That means a household with $21.5 million would pay 1 percent of $500,000, or $5,000.

Close the Gingrich-Edwards Loophole and Create Parity for Wealthy Business Owners Revenue raised: $247 billion over ten years.

This option closes the Gingrich-Edwards loophole which allows individuals who own and run an S-Corporation to game the system and avoid paying payroll taxes by claiming some income as business profits. Under current law, these business owners are required to report a “reasonable” amount of salary income and pay the appropriate amount of payroll tax. However, many times these individuals deliberately under-report a reasonable salary in order to avoid these taxes.
Additionally, this option would ensure that all business income of high-income people would be subject to the existing 3.8 percent tax to fund Medicare, either through the net investment income tax or the additional Medicare tax on earned income. These taxes were designed to ensure that high-income people pay the 3.8 percent Medicare tax on all income, regardless of the
source. However, some business income slips through the crack and is not subject to either tax. This proposal would close that loophole.

Options to Make Wall Street and Large, Profitable Corporation Pay Their Fair Share
Impose a one-time tax on currently held offshore profits Revenue raised: $767 billion over ten years.
For years corporations have been avoiding paying their fair share of taxes by stashing their cash in the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens where there is no corporate income tax rate. This situation has become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is the “home” to close to 20,000 companies.
Today corporations hold a staggering $2.6 trillion offshore in order to avoid paying taxes in the U.S. Under current law, a corporation does not pay corporate taxes on these profits until it sends, or “repatriates”, the money back to the U.S. This option would require these companies to pay a one-time tax now, based on what they owe under current law.

Impose a Fee on Large Financial Institutions Revenue raised: $117 billion over ten years.
Today, the six major financial institutions in this country have over $10 trillion in assets, equivalent to 56 percent of our entire GDP. The largest financial institution, JP Morgan Chase, has received more than $22.2 billion in tax breaks since 2008. Meanwhile, during the financial crisis, JP Morgan Chase received a $391 billion bailout from the Federal Reserve. It is time that Wall Street start paying its fair share in taxes. One option would be to impose a fee of seven basis points (.07 percent) on covered liabilities of financial institutions with $50 billion or more in total assets, as proposed by President Obama.

Repeal Corporate Accounting Gimmicks Revenue raised: $112 billion ten years.
This option would eliminate the “last-in, first-out” (LIFO) accounting method that allows corporations to manipulate their inventory and make it appear like they have lower profits. They do this by deducting the higher cost of newer inventory, rather than the lower cost of older

inventory, resulting in lower profits and lower taxes. Democrats and Republicans have both supported repealing LIFO in various budget and tax reform proposals.

[stopbush]

17. So, basically, if we institute all of those new tax initiatives, Sanders's MFA claims make sense?

Is that the deal?

Next question: if so, what are the chances?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. Zero if we don't try.

[roody]

31. It will be based on your income.

[redstateblues]

59. It is not free healthcare. Far from it

[emmaverybo]

11. Transforming healthcare is but one of the investment-intensive promises she is running on.

She needs to account for the following as well:

1) canceling 95 percent of student debt
2) universal child care
3) free public two year and four year colleges
4) reparations
5) 0pioid addiction epidemic—she vows to invest 200 billion dollars
6) Erasing Puerto Rico’s debt
7) Three pronged green energy plan, including over a trillion dollars in research, “Green Marshall Plan,” federal purchase of domestic clean energy products
8) Minority entrepreneurship fund
9) Funding for a number of critical programs for Native Americans
10) Affordable Housing
11) 200 more per month n Social Security payments for every recipient

Each plan is well thought out, detailed, and certainly worthy.

At the same time, we have to hope that any Democratic President will protect Social Security even at existing rates, support extensive investment in infrastructure, fund a variety of social programs that exist now but with inadequate funding at federal and state levels, revive the VAWA, strengthen our EMS system in many areas of the country where it is not adequately resourced, rescue rural hospitals and clinics....

Your wish list?

[5starlib]

13. She has no plan to pay for anything

It's just all a bunch of policies to get votes, that's all. Also, none of will get it passed...filibuster or not. You can't get 50 Dem senators to agree on any of her policy plans.

[Thekaspervote]

24. This.... it will not be passed into law with a gop senate. Thing is she's knows that!!

That’s the frustrating thing to me. She’s a senator, yet she keeps promising these pie in the sky things..... great to have big ideas, but tell us how we get from point A, the big ideas, to point B Passing the legislation and then point C the cost

[Doremus]

12. How long will we keep repeating repuke talking points?

[emmaverybo]

16. That was her answer when asked about paying for M4All at the first debate. It is a non-answer.

[Doremus]

34. Here's an answer for you: The same way we pay for GOPuke tax cuts, that's how.

The ink isn't even dry on the last one, a dilly of a treat to the 1%ers to the tune of $1+TRILLION.

Where were the teeth gnashers then? And are they still up in arms that their tax bills have shrunk to such a degree?

Here's a question for you now: Why are we repeating Repuke talking points? Are we self-loathers? Do we enjoy pain? Are we just so stupid that we think they're helping us? Do we think we'll be wealthy one day in the far, far future? What? Why are you and others like you so fucking worried about how we'll pay for medical care when we are already paying for it in many different ways and to a greater degree than if we bought into a highly-efficient system like Medicare?

[emmaverybo]

39. Democrats want answers. And not all of us believe that Warren can overcome a Republican senate

or, that should we win the senate and house, she can convince Dem moderates to raise all this money or that all the money her proposals would take can be raised with her tax proposals. She was given and continues to be given a chance to answer, not to greedy and immoral Republicans, but to people trying to decide which Dem they will vote for.

[Doremus]

45. I wish to comfort all prospective Dem voters who are so worried.

Elizabeth Warren will have no problems raising money from the Dem caucus in the event that we hold all 3 branches. I guarantee it.

Please rest your worried soul. It's not the Dems we have to worry about, remember?

[ms liberty]

55. Everything you said. n/t

[FloridaBlues]

15. Good question. I would like hear more about plan B if the ultra rich tax

She plans doesn't pass. How can she fulfill a lot of her other goals such as debt relief from college loans or several other plans that hinges on this tax for ultra wealthy.
If she ends up being the nominee voters would want to know.

[question everything]

18. So that she will be able to "pivot"

I think that for many, the limiting factor of supporting her is her maybe stand on private insurance. If an when she wins the nomination she can then move to the center - as traditionally been done - and support to add a public option to the ACA.

[jcgoldie]

19. How long will Democrats on DU continue to oppose universal health care

“By the way, great drug companies out there — except a couple of opioid outfits,” the former vice president told donors at the Dallas home of David Genecov, a craniofacial surgeon.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-15/biden-praises-pharma-to-donors-despite-complaints-about-prices

[Gothmog]

21. Just tell us how much this plan will cost and how will be pay for it?

Vermont tried and failed to adopt a single payer plan a while back. We need to have a plan that will work and can be paid for

[jcgoldie]

22. According to her plan as she has answered directly repeatedly..

Costs will go down because insurance companies making billions off the private system will be cut out of the loop. All this debate is about is certain Democrats mimicking some George HW Bush gimmick to get someone to say the "T" word and send everyone scurrying in fear. Last I checked, Democrats were in favor of government addressing social problems using the tax system. Especially one involving a universal human right like health care which every other Western industrialized nation provides. Oh but please get someone to say "I'm going to raise your taxes," even when you know their costs will go down. Its pretty disingenuous and its how Republicans have been framing this debate for decades.

[Thekaspervote]

26. This!! As long as she evades the answer of cost there are going to be objections.

[Doremus]

63. These are REPUKE talking points. Why do you want to help them?

I swear to god we are our own worst enemies. Here we are on DEMOCRATIC Underground repeating REPUKE talking points ad infinitum.

Are you simply unaware that these are repuke talking points? Do you not care that you are helping the opposition party?

[Thekaspervote]

25. I don't think DU'ers are against some kind of universal health care, not at all

We have to start somewhere. The ACA was originally designed to have a public option, if you know the hx, then you know that was a non starter, so we went forward with what we could get. Reworking the ACA, a bill that is already law with the idea of moving forward to the PO or SP is the goal

[DrToast]

33. Depends. How long will people pretend that MFA and universal health care are interchangeable?

I haven’t seen anyone on DU that’s against universal health care, but feel free to point them out.

[Demsrule86]

29. Neither Sanders nor Warren explain how all these great policies including MFA

will be paid for and implemented. I don't see it happening anytime soon. But we can start small with infrastructure, repeal tax cut...fix the ACA if we get the Senate and keep the house...and of course win the presidency.

[dflprincess]

32. She may be worried about the sound byte

"Taxes will go up but your total expenses will go down." Becomes "Taxes will go up."

Followed by sinister music and scary voice guy if it's used in an ad.

[Hoyt]

35. Warren gave Obama and Clinton hell for supposedly not having transparency in trade agreements, now

she is avoiding transparency with voters on healthcare.

She bashed Obama and Clinton, perhaps costing us votes in General Election.

Seems simple to me -- Ask the CBO to score her healthcare proposal and put up a calculator on her website where folks can input their family size, income, etc., to see what it is going to cost in increased taxes.

Her and Sanders' "Look, we are already paying for it, so everyone -- except the filthy rich -- will come out better" just doesn't cut it.

I get it's complicated, especially when they also have to factor in what all the other stuff is going to cost in taxes -- Bolstering Social Security, child care, college debt relief, free college, deficit and debt reduction, and whatever promises are yet to come as the race tightens.

[JI7]

41. maybe cutting the military budget

[Hoyt]

42. Fine with me, spell it out. Of course, a lot of Democrats work for military contractors & insurance

companies. They won't be happy. For that matter, a lot of that wealth she plans on taxing comes from military related, and insurance, companies.

Hope someone figures out how to get us out of the mess we are in.

[NYMinute]

37. The fact that she is dodging

means the price tag is extremely high.

Like a restaurant where the menu lists no prices. You know in your heart that it will be a $250 meal.

[Mike Nelson]

38. She has been better...

... just tell the truth. It's not free... nothing is free... public education is something we all pay for and benefit from... we all need health care, and will benefit as a nation. We're for a stronger, healthier USA!

[Gothmog]

40. She refuses to answer the question because the answer is yes

Link to tweet

[highplainsdem]

43. K&R! Thanks, Gothmog! I noticed that during her Late Show appearance last night, too. Frank Bruni

praised her for her evasiveness

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287277107

but I don't think it helps her.

[Blaukraut]

46. The easiest solution is to not call it a tax, but a premium, because that's what it is n/t

[DrToast]

47. But you got Bernie's specifically saying zero premiums

[Blaukraut]

48. This is where Warren needs to part ways with Sanders.

It would be a lot more palatable to people if they were presented with a Medicare premium as opposed to a Medicare tax, even though it would amount to the same thing.

[EveHammond13]

51. stop

[Prosper]

58. Reality fact is the working class is already paying more

Per person than MFA will cost them but they are getting low to know benefit. Assuming premiums, deductibles, copays and medicine the working class will achieve a net gain. Already spending over 3.5 trillion for health care and millions getting virtually nothing. Sanders and Warren represent healthcare for the lower half for the first time at an overall saving.

[BlueMississippi]

61. The more she dodges

the more people will get suspicious of the tax implications.

[comradebillyboy]

64. I suspect Warren is looking for a graceful way to back away from MFA.

I am very interested to see how well she manages that since it will take considerable political talent. She also needs to get out of Bernie's shadow.

Neither Warren nor Biden were in my top five back in March but my top five aren't going anywhere so now Liz and Joe are my top two.

[Gothmog]

65. Buttigieg tells Medicare-for-all proponents to show their cards

Against my better instincts, I am slowly beginning to like Mayor Pete.

Link to tweet

Now, I’d like to get more detail on those “cost savings” and the “corporate tax reform” (and why aren’t Democrats promising to raise the capital gains tax rate to equal or nearly equal the rates for salary income, a much bigger revenue-generator?). Buttigieg also promises “additional plans to address issues such as drug pricing, innovation and health equity,” which will need to come with funding mechanisms.

Nevertheless, Buttigieg has a compelling argument: Candidates are obligated to offer bold ideas that are doable. He argues, “Rather than flipping a switch and kicking almost 160 million Americans off their private insurance, including 20 million seniors already choosing private plans within Medicare, my plan lets Americans keep a private plan if they want to.” The latter is a reference to Medicare
Advantage, which would go away under a strictly single-payer system.

The approach favored by Buttigieg, Biden, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and other moderates would be cheaper and allow people to gradually migrate to Medicare (if that is what they want). Moreover, if Democrats want to accomplish anything, it likely will require a Democratic majority in the Senate and use of reconciliation; they would at least need a majority. There is not, as we speak, a majority of Democrats in both houses who support Medicare-for-all.

Part of the problem with this discussion is that the Medicare-for-all advocates are adept at deflecting pesky questions about cost, logistics and political feasibility. They shouldn’t be allowed to skate by on ad hominem attacks (That’s a Republican talking point!) or non sequiturs (Let me tell you how great Medicare-for-all is!) or platitudes (We’re going to fight!).