Elizabeth Warren's 52 Trillion dollar health plan

[applecorped]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-releases-plan-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all.html

Edited by zooterkin: 

Quote box added.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged Friday not to raise middle class taxes to fund her "Medicare for All" plan, responding to pressure she faced as she emerged as one of the frontrunners for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

In a new outline, Warren's campaign said her single-payer health care plan would cost the country "just under" $52 trillion over a decade, which includes $20.5 trillion in new federal spending. It estimates the proposal would cost just less than the estimated $52 trillion in spending for the current system over 10 years.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Oooh, such scary numbers. And you say it'll still cost less than the current system, while covering the entire population? Is that supposed to sound like a bad deal?

 

[Upchurch]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-releases-plan-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all.html

Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged Friday not to raise middle class taxes to fund her "Medicare for All" plan, responding to pressure she faced as she emerged as one of the frontrunners for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

In a new outline, Warren's campaign said her single-payer health care plan would cost the country "just under" $52 trillion over a decade, which includes $20.5 trillion in new federal spending. It estimates the proposal would cost just less than the estimated $52 trillion in spending for the current system over 10 years.

It's customary to quote things you are quoting. Makes it look less like plagiarism. Just sayin'.

 

[Belz...]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-releases-plan-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all.html

Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged Friday not to raise middle class taxes to fund her "Medicare for All" plan, responding to pressure she faced as she emerged as one of the frontrunners for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

In a new outline, Warren's campaign said her single-payer health care plan would cost the country "just under" $52 trillion over a decade, which includes $20.5 trillion in new federal spending. It estimates the proposal would cost just less than the estimated $52 trillion in spending for the current system over 10 years.

Sounds like it's time to cut down on military spending a bit.

 

[crescent]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-releases-plan-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all.html

Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged Friday not to raise middle class taxes to fund her "Medicare for All" plan, responding to pressure she faced as she emerged as one of the frontrunners for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

In a new outline, Warren's campaign said her single-payer health care plan would cost the country "just under" $52 trillion over a decade, which includes $20.5 trillion in new federal spending. It estimates the proposal would cost just less than the estimated $52 trillion in spending for the current system over 10 years.

You are describing a plan that will cost less, and which will probably provide better health care overall.

Can you explain the downside to this? I don't see one.

 

[Distracted1]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-releases-plan-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all.html

Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged Friday not to raise middle class taxes to fund her "Medicare for All" plan, responding to pressure she faced as she emerged as one of the frontrunners for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

In a new outline, Warren's campaign said her single-payer health care plan would cost the country "just under" $52 trillion over a decade, which includes $20.5 trillion in new federal spending. It estimates the proposal would cost just less than the estimated $52 trillion in spending for the current system over 10 years.

That would be awesome if she can get it done!!!
Kudos to Warren!

 

[Trebuchet]

You are describing a plan that will cost less, and which will probably provide better health care overall.

Can you explain the downside to this? I don't see one.

A Democrat proposed it, and it would help poor and working people. That's always a downside to the Republican Party.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You are describing a plan that will cost less, and which will probably provide better health care overall.

Can you explain the downside to this? I don't see one.

It probably costs more than she estimates, though. Vox had a good piece this morning comparing her estimates to the Urban Institute. Obviously each individual assumption is justifiable. She is smart and has a very smart team. But probably not a good sign when your five assumptions are all more optimistic just to reach your target.

 

[Arcade22]

Sounds like it's time to cut down on military spending a bit.

Maybe it's time Americans actually paid for public spending instead of pushing it further and further into the future.

 

[theprestige]

That would be awesome if she can get it done!!!
Kudos to Warren!

It would be even more awesome if she can include some kind of metric or criteria for determining whether its working, and how well it's working; and if the plan includes some kind of rollback option if it turns out it isn't working.

 

[rdwight]

I guess it's not possible since her claim is 'no middle class tax increase' but I'd be more interested in what the back up funding plan is when inevitably her projected funding sources run lower than what is needed. No matter how well planned, this will be a messy transition. There will be shortfalls in funding and borrowing to cover.

I just don't believe any Medicare-for-all plan that doesn't include tax hikes for the middle class. And they should still be able to sell it with that eventuality.

 

[CORed]

Although I'm firmly convinced that single payer is the best option, I'm skeptical of the claim of no middle class tax increase, and cynical enough about politicians in general to think that the real plan is to get it passed, and push for the tax increases later (maybe in her second term, if any) as deficits mount. Even with a tax increase, increased taxes should be offset by reduced out-of-pocket costs for health insurance, co-pays, deductibles, etc.

I still think Warren's or Sanders' single payer or "medicare for all" is ultimately better than Biden's plan of "Make the ACA work", as I strongly suspect that the latter option is impossible.

 

[CORed]

A Democrat proposed it, and it would help poor and working people. That's always a downside to the Republican Party.

It's also going to deprive insurance companies of huge revenue stream, and likely reduce revenue for doctors and hospitals as well, so expect a massive propaganda campaign to convince people that the government's going to kill Grandma, while "destroying the best healthcare system in the world" (unless you can't afford insurance, or can't get it at all due to a pre-existing condition or whatever).

 

[CORed]

Maybe it's time Americans actually paid for public spending instead of pushing it further and further into the future.

That's crazy talk. Why raise taxes when we can just tack a few more digits onto the national debt? The Chinese will never stop buying our bonds, right?

 

[fishbob]

I guess it's not possible since her claim is 'no middle class tax increase' but I'd be more interested in what the back up funding plan is when inevitably her projected funding sources run lower than what is needed. No matter how well planned, this will be a messy transition. There will be shortfalls in funding and borrowing to cover.

I just don't believe any Medicare-for-all plan that doesn't include tax hikes for the middle class. And they should still be able to sell it with that eventuality.

Between me and my employer, we pay somewhere around $8000 / year for my health insurance premiums. Plus I have several thousand in deductible and additional in co-pays. If all that went to Medicare for all, I have no change in overall costs and a bunch of other people also get coverage. Not a bad deal.

 

[Distracted1]

Between me and my employer, we pay somewhere around $8000 / year for my health insurance premiums. Plus I have several thousand in deductible and additional in co-pays. If all that went to Medicare for all, I have no change in overall costs and a bunch of other people also get coverage. Not a bad deal.

My SO's employer pays nearly $14000 per year for hers- and she still has copays and deductibles (albeit low ones- her plan is a good one)
"Policies" available to me cost in excess of $6000 per year, with copays and deductibles that are laughable.
It would take some pretty serious ineptitude ,IMO, to not be able to run the healthcare system better than "we" already do.

 

[Venom]

Between me and my employer, we pay somewhere around $8000 / year for my health insurance premiums. Plus I have several thousand in deductible and additional in co-pays. If all that went to Medicare for all, I have no change in overall costs and a bunch of other people also get coverage. Not a bad deal.

I think this is the sticking point for many conservatives.

Maybe add programs for combating obesity or educating people about minor illnesses that contribute to needless or preventable hospital visits.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

CMS.gov

2018:

U.S. health care spending grew 3.9 percent in 2017, reaching $3.5 trillion or $10,739 per person. As a share of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, health spending accounted for 17.9 percent.

Just for perspective, mind you.

52 trillion over a decade is a BS number since it predicts increased costs and that is uncertain data. In addition, that 3.5 trillion from last year would be growing every year as well.

 

[Trebuchet]

It's also going to deprive insurance companies of huge revenue stream, and likely reduce revenue for doctors and hospitals as well, so expect a massive propaganda campaign to convince people that the government's going to kill Grandma, while "destroying the best healthcare system in the world" (unless you can't afford insurance, or can't get it at all due to a pre-existing condition or whatever).

I don't know that that's true. Insurance companies LOVE Medicare. The government takes on most of the risk and they get to sell supplementals and Medicare Advantage plans. I'd expect many employers will provide supplementals as a benefit to employees.

What really concerns me is that a new Democratic President will push for a health plan too rapidly. That happened in 1993 and 2009 and resulted in the disastrous elections of 1994 and 2010; handing the government over to the likes of Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell. I see no sign that the party has learned from those mistakes.

 

[Bob001]

The key problem with Warren's plan is that it would require people to give up what they have now in exchange for an unknown. The plan proposed by Klobuchar, Buttigieg and others is basically "Medicare for All Who Want It." If you don't have or don't like your employee or other private plan, you could buy into an expanded Medicare, which is already well-established and familiar. Over time, more and more people might go that way. Employers might decide to get out of the insurance business and just subsidize their employees to join Medicare. We might move to single-payer over time. But it wouldn't be an abrupt, "stop that, start this" transition that would disrupt a major part of the entire economy and doubtless leave some people worse off.