LOL! Warren campaign says she's looking for other revenue options for MFA, won't say what

[highplainsdem]

I guess she FINALLY realized just how bad she was making herself look with all the evasiveness dodging the question of how she'd pay for Medicare for All. All it took was other candidates and the media pointing this out to her repeatedly.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/politics/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all/index.html

"She's reviewing the revenue options suggested by the 2016 Bernie campaign along with other revenue options. But she will only support pay-fors that meet the principles she has laid out in multiple debates," a Warren campaign aide said in a statement provided to CNN.

The campaign aide also said that the total cost of Medicare for All is unknown and that estimates vary by trillions of dollars. They did not provide details on what "other revenue options" the campaign is studying, and declined to comment on whether Warren may eventually put out her own details on paying for Medicare for All.

A new study by the Urban Institute, released Wednesday, said that federal spending on health care would increase by roughly $34 trillion under a single-payer plan similar to Medicare for All. That's in line with earlier studies that pegged the cost at around $32 trillion.

-snip-

Warren's repeated dodges on questions about whether Medicare for All would result in higher taxes are notably out of character for the senator, whose candidacy for the White House has gained steady political momentum in large part thanks to her abundance of policy plans and a knack for explaining and advocating for those ideas clearly out on the campaign trail.

-snip-

Tuesday's debate laid bare the political risks of Warren's backing of Sanders' Medicare for All, and foreshadowed that she is likely to continue confronting questions and criticism about tax hikes that could result from Sanders' proposal.

South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg summed up Warren's predicament this way: "Your signature, senator, is to have a plan for everything. Except this." Former Vice President Joe Biden accused Warren of being "vague."

-snip-

"At least Bernie is being honest here, saying how he's going to pay for this -- taxes are going to go up," Klobuchar said. "Sorry Elizabeth, you haven't said that. We owe it to the American people to tell them where we will send the invoice."

-snip-

Btw, I'm glad she's finally realized she created a problem for herself here.

And I'll be interested in seeing what she finally comes up with as a source of revenue for MFA.

[LonePirate]

1. However she decides to finance the plan, it will still be better than the current system.

It's distressing how so few Dems actually support strong, positive change for this country.

[highplainsdem]

3. A public option would be a strong, positive change. Also a feasible one.

[JoeOtterbein]

21. And still a "public option" from back in the day is just...

...a half a loaf.

Why? 70% like the idea of MFA.

How much more do we need to claim the MFA Healthcare loaf as our own?

[highplainsdem]

24. No. That poll was useless because the question was so vague it was probably misread as

Medicare for All who want it.

When polls specifically ask about plans doing away with private insurance, with no options, MFA doesn't poll as well as the public option.

[JoeOtterbein]

28. So what's your number? 50% is enough for any issue to pass.

It does make sense in a democracy.

[highplainsdem]

32. I posted a poll here to ask liberal DUers this. Only a small fraction thought MFA could get

through Congress:


https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287226281

[Otto Lidenbrock]

4. As Amy said....her idea is not the only strong positive change

[Cha]

5. That's right.. they all have Postive Changes.

[LonePirate]

8. Some of us prefer to cut out an incremental middleman that merely delays the implementation of MFA.

[boomer_wv]

16. legislation.

The boldest, most progressive plan isn't worth the paper it's printed on if it never reaches the Presidents desk. M4A doesn't have the support to get through congress, even with a democratic majority and no filibusterer.

[LonePirate]

18. Once a DEm president starts pushing for MFA, the public and a Dem Congress will soon follow.

Your defeatism sounds an awfully lot like Republicanism.

[highplainsdem]

27. It's realism, not defeatism.

[boomer_wv]

35. Obama

Had to pull out everything he had to get ACA through, took nearly two years, and needed every last vote of the supermajority he had in the Senate. The 2020 winner will have no chance at holding a supermajority.

After it passed, it caused a total bloodbath for Democrats. We lost Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in freaking Massachusetts. That came from passing a plan that Republicans had wanted at one point.

[Thekaspervote]

46. Thank you! A voice of sanity. We cannot afford another 2010.

[highplainsdem]

53. And the only reason Obama had a supermajority is that Biden convinced Arlen Specter to switch

parties, after he'd first convinced Specter and a couple of other Republicans to vote for the stimulus:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287262162

Polls have shown that there's more support for a public option now, including among Republicans. It still won't be easy. But it will be more feasible than MFA.

[Thekaspervote]

48. Yes, we have to be realistic. Looking at the whole picture, winnowing out what won't work- mfa

Far from a defeatist attitude

[Thekaspervote]

49. Nailed it!!

[Midnightwalk]

20. Some of us want to win elections so we can make changes

If we can’t answer the obvious RW attacks on M4A in a convincing way we won’t win enough control to get anything.

I don’t need to be convinced. It’s the general election voters. I have yet to hear anything better than “yes you lose your work insurance and taxes will go up but trust us you’ll come out ahead in the end.”

And don’t go accusing me of not wanting healthcare as a right. I just think we have to win multiple elections to get there.

I’m glad to hear Warren might be figuring out how to pivot. I truly hope she finds something convincing.

[highplainsdem]

29. I'm not sure she can pivot away from MFA at this point. But she might have to announce that wealth

tax will be 20% instead of 2% to pay for MFA.

[peggysue2]

55. Exactly!

The question isn't about universal healthcare. All our candidates believe that is the goal. It's how do we realistically get there. A public option would be a huge positive change, something that has a far better chance of passing and is a way for Americans to ease into the idea as the program phases in. Plus, it's far less expensive.

The real obstacle that requires a solution and a lot of work and real strategy is getting control on healthcare service costs and pharmaceuticals. It was the primary lesson drawn by Governor Shumlin who attempted to construct Vermont's version of statewide, universal healthcare, Green MountainCare. Those costs absolutely need to be corralled and reduced or universal coverage falls flat on its face. The math just doesn't work.

Elizabeth Warren is smart. She knows, certainly after last night, that she won't get away with being vague or refusing to answer the funding question, not when the cost is $32-34 trillion dollars over ten years. A non-answer just will not fly.

[UniteFightBack]

12. It's distressing that so many Dems aren't realistic and don't seem to grasp just how difficult it

is to bring the American people along. It took what over 10 years for the ACA to catch on...and it's just starting to catch on .....the masses STILL DON'T realize how many protections it affords to them personally.

I want positive change but I'm realistic and we need to take STEPS to get there and not just shove it down people's throats even if it is what they really need and they don't even know it.

[LonePirate]

14. MFA requires a massive communication strategy from the WH. The ACA never had that.

The Dem president who signs it into law will need to spend months before and after with weekly/monthly televised MFA fireside chats explaining everything about the bill. If the President sells it and sells it well, the American public will eagerly support it.

[wasupaloopa]

34. That is not true. You can't sell something you can't prove. Congress will decide

any new healthcare legislation which will be a bipartisan compromise.

[LonePirate]

64. It will be as bipartisan as the ACA.

[emmaverybo]

59. Quite an expenditure of political capital. M4All will not be the only plan to fight for, to build

consensus on.

[Thekaspervote]

44. This!

[wasupaloopa]

31. No matter if no one can afford it it will still be better! WTF? 34 trillion!

I can’t support that.

It Is a shame that we are acting like trump’s base. Just believe, no critical thinking needed.

[Thekaspervote]

51. Who is going to support 32 trillion over 10 years? This out today by the CBO

[Cha]

2. Good.. that was Bewildering!

Thank you, highplainsdem for the latest!

[highplainsdem]

6. You're welcome, Cha! The article gave me a great laugh, especially after seeing so much

angry criticism from Warren supporters of other candidates and the media pointing out Warren's evasiveness. The problem with her stance has been obvious for a long time.

[Cha]

13. I know.. the primaries actually suck..

all this vetting!

[JoeOtterbein]

22. Seriously?

I hope not!

[BlueMississippi]

7. Unicorns, magic beads and pixie dust time nt

[highplainsdem]

11. LOL!

[Thekaspervote]

42. I really like unicorns and magic beads..like ice cream too... can't live on it

[ritapria]

9. How can you run on your plans

and not produce your plan to provide the revenue for MFA ? ... It was an untenable situation...

[highplainsdem]

10. It's been obvious for months that it was untenable. Amazing it took so long for her to realize that.

[Hoyt]

15. Whatever tax source she finds will fall on us, although it might be worth it.

The idea that someone else is going to pay for most of our healthcare is just BS. Again, if everyone is covered, costs are controlled, providers embrace it, etc., it might be worth it.

Not completely convinced and other people are even more skeptical, so prefer Public Option to try. We need to win next year.

[Mr.Bill]

17. Whenever I mention an idea for a government program that will cost a fortune,

and some one asks me how will we pay for it, I usually say "By taxing the living shit out of people who are so rich you could take half their money and they wouldn't even notice."

If Warren had said that the cheering would have been deafening.

[JoeOtterbein]

23. +1000!

[wasupaloopa]

38. What a good campaign ad. We are going to take half of your wealth away!

[Mr.Bill]

40. But only from a very small amount of people.

[mjvpi]

19. I don't see this fact in the discussions on MFA.

We are all ready spending the most money per capita of any of the 36 industrialized countries in the world. We need to spend that money in a different way. Cover everybody like every other industrialized nation. If you receive health care through your job, that is part of your compensation package. Your wages should go up by the amount that your employer is paying for your healthcare insurance.

We are already spending these amounts of money on healthcare. We are debating how money moves around and trying to copy systems that achieve better per dollar results while delivering coverage to their entire population.

[JoeOtterbein]

26. Yep!

[wasupaloopa]

41. No we are not! We are talking about raising $34 trillion dollars over 10 years.

All thee simplistic ideas have no real proof. They are not worth the paper you could write them on. There are no studies that support your M4A claims. They are just words

[mjvpi]

58. 2018 healthcare was 17.8% of US GDP

GDP was 19.39 trillion. That’s $3.45 trillion a year.

[tonedevil]

71. Math is hard. /nt

[ritapria]

25. The problem with the Public Option

The insurance companies would dump high risk people onto the taxpayers …..We need universiality to keep costs down ……. Social Security would go bust if folks, particularly the rich , had the option to opt out ….

[Mr.Bill]

33. You will always hear people calling SS a Ponzi scheme.

But there is a fundamental difference. In a Ponzi scheme they rely on people talking others into joining. It works until people stop joining in large enough numbers.

With SS, membership is mandatory with a few exceptions. People have to contribute. Allow people to opt out and it will be a Ponzi scheme.

[wasupaloopa]

43. The public option will compete with private insurance.

[subterranean]

57. Yes, it will compete "on a level playing field."

That means it will not be allowed to undercut private insurance too much. Here in Washington State, our government passed a public option this year, but only after opposition from the healthcare industry forced them to water it down so it will be less competitive than it could be. I suspect the same thing would end up happening with a nationwide public option.

[Bradshaw3]

30. So how many posts a day is it?

Attacking Elizabeth Warren? I'll be interested in seeing the number. They seem to have gone up with her poll numbers.

And weren't you one of those saying that Dems should not be attacking other Dems on here? How about ridiculing them with lines like "Lol"? That's ok now too?

I'm just wondering.

[Thekaspervote]

39. How is this an attack? Voters have a right to know where the money is going to come from

Kinda like Amy said..”voters want to see the invoice before they buy.”

[Cha]

50. They don't mind "attacks" on Joe Biden but

when EW gets vetted with her own words.. that's an "attack".

Sounds like EW is taking those questions asking about the price to heart.

[Bradshaw3]

73. Meh

[Cha]

47. This is called Vetting with EW's own words

"She's reviewing the revenue options suggested by the 2016 Bernie campaign along with other revenue options. But she will only support pay-fors that meet the principles she has laid out in multiple debates," a Warren campaign aide said in a statement provided to CNN.

The campaign aide also said that the total cost of Medicare for All is unknown and that estimates vary by trillions of dollars. They did not provide details on what "other revenue options" the campaign is studying, and declined to comment on whether Warren may eventually put out her own details on paying for Medicare for All.

[PhoenixDem]

36. There are no other revenue options than a confiscatory tax on people

and in many cases, the tax will far exceed the premiums paid to an insurance company.

[mjvpi]

45. Please look up per capita spending for healthcare in the US vs other industrialized nations

We are all ready spending the money. The question is how it’s collected and how it’s spent.

[PhoenixDem]

54. To an average voter , the only thing that will matter is the 65% income tax.

EW and BS are unelectable in the GE for that reason.

[mjvpi]

60. Where did your number come from

Healthcare spending last year was 17.8% of GDP. GDP was $19.39 trillion. We spent $3.45 trillion last year on healthcare. We are all ready more than any other industrial nation, per capita.

[PhoenixDem]

61. Figure out the taxes collected this year

the average % of income that the tax was and then figure out how much will have to be collected to cover the healthcare spending.

Elementary.

[mjvpi]

65. We are all ready spending $3.45 trillion a year

How that money is collected and spent is what we should be talking about. Obamacare was never correctly/fully implemented. It still relied on the very companies that, in no small way, screwed it up from working as designed. I don’t believe that a for profit system is capable of putting expletive over profit.

[emmaverybo]

69. That will not fly with millions who have affordable and good quality plans through employers or

retirement benefits. Although it is true that not all employer-provided or retirement insurance plans (Medicare supplemental) are in an affordable range, but come at financial sacrifice, union negotiated plans are. You can’t pay people back the premium in salary to get them to give these up.

Of course people should be altruistic. Just because in retirement I pay zero premiums and zero for Medicare, have excellent coverage, paid a fraction of the premium while employed, why should I not want others to have what I have potentially, and pay more taxes—lots more?

Well, why should I when we can improve Obamacare by bringing down the premium costs and other tweaks, offer an affordable public option, expand Medicaid, close up the Medicare coverage gap, and cover those left uninsured through subsidy or a sliding-scale clinic system—steps that get us to universal healthcare with the most expedience and less tax raise?

Another doable change is to regulate private insurance so that in emergency and catastrophic care situations out of network costs are paid.

Incrementalism? If incremental, less costly, more doable, quicker changes get us to the same place—providing good and affordable healthcare to all—why not?

Otherwise, I and million others pay at least 50 percent taxes and probably incur out of pocket expenses as many do in single payer countries to get the same quality of care we have now. Unions negotiated these benefits as part of a compensation package we worked for. It is a hard sell to ask folks to pay that much more in taxes and exchange their current plans for an unknown system to be put in place at some unknown future time.

With an election at stake, we don’t need a deal-breaker. I will vote blue no matter, but millions others may not see it my way.

[Thekaspervote]

37. CBO out with a a figure for mfa....32 Trillion over a decade. No wonder she doesn't want to own it!!

Suppose her walking back statement “find other funding” was because she knew the CBO was going to publish?

[Cha]

52. That's a lot of cash!

[emmaverybo]

62. Biden said 30 trillion did he not? Just more optimistic than the reality.

[saljr1]

56. MFA or not in the End

Liz Warren will be the Democratic Nominee. JMHO
Her campaign and ground game is second to none.
But we will see. Wall Street and Corporate America will try and take her down.

[Freethinker65]

63. Switch to a Medicare buy in for those that want it.

Medicare will be available to all. If you want to buy private insurance fine. If your employer provides or subsidizes an alternative insurance and you want that, fine. If you want to retire early or change jobs and want to sign up and pay for Medicare, fine. If you wish to purchase supplemental insurance, fine.

A tax deduction for those that sign up, and subsidies for those that cannot afford the entire cost. Employers will know that Medicare is available when/if choosing to offer insurance. Salaries/wages should increase faster for employees of businesses that no longer pay for employer provided plans.

Give Medicare and private insurance a decade or so to compete with each other. Consumers will figure out what is best for themselves and their families.

[peggysue2]

67. Bingo!

Give Medicare and private insurance a decade or so to compete with each other. Consumers will figure out what is best for themselves and their families.

And when you're talking healthcare? It is personal for each and every one of us. It's going to take time to reach the goal of universal healthcare, just as it has in other countries. The good news? All our candidates favor universal coverage as a goal. The bad news? It will be neither quick nor easy.

I've been reading the history of the Canadian healthcare program. Depending on how you count, it took nearly 50 years to get their National Health Program to where it is now. Even in Taiwan, a small country and relatively new member to universal healthcare (think they're celebrating their 20 or 25 year anniversary), it took 5 years to design the program and sort out implementation problems. Then it took more than 2 years to fight it out legislatively.

So, about a decade with all our special interest groups clawing at one another? That sounds about right to me.

[OnDoutside]

70. Definitely a large part of the solution.

[sheshe2]

66. Lol...

Another dump on Warren thread, with lots of LOL, which you have every right to do in the name of vetting. However LOL is not part of the vetting process. Facts are.

I for one have not dumped on Biden, though I could. Fact is I haven't dumped on any of the DEMOCRATIC candidates.

I have not wed myself to any candidate, yet have a favorite. Is she perfect? Nope. Do I agree with everything she stands for, nope. She is my Senator and I have met her and know her better than you do.

Because I have not dumped all my hopes and dreams into one candidate I will not have to hold my nose to vote for the candidate in 2020. I will be voting for the Democrat because this is the most important elections of our lifetime. I don't think///I KNOW we don't have another four years to make this right. Most of us will be gone by then one way or the other.

[highplainsdem]

72. Like you, sheshe, I'll vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is. As for the LOL --

I had to laugh out loud because of the ridiculousness of Warren's delayed response to the problem she'd created for herself, coinciding with the amazing overreaction by some Warren supporters to her having been asked about how she'd pay for MFA.

We've had lots of posts here, for months, about Warren dodging the question of whether taxes will have to go up. For instance, there were a LOT of posts back in July attacking Chris Matthews for asking her about this repeatedly after the debate then.

But the questions weren't going to go away, and anyone with any knowledge of politics should have been able to see that.

I was stunned by the anger I saw expressed both here at DU and on Twitter toward the candidates who brought this problem up at this week's debate.

I don't know how much attention you paid to those posts, but I saw four-letter words being used in posts about the candidates who'd asked Warren how she'd pay for MFA. I saw dire warnings that the canddidates who'd simply pointed out she hadn't answered that question would face drops in support. I saw them insulted in all kinds of ways.

You'd've thought those candidates were medieval subjects found guilty of lese majeste, rather than simply perfectly typical candidates asking a perfectly typical question of a rival who'd been dodging that question for months.

And then, after all that overwrought reaction from Warren supporters who were absolutely furious that she'd been asked about this again, I ran across that CNN article which showed that while her supporters were dragging out all the rhetorical artillery they could think of to attack those who asked a simple question about revenue, she had FINALLY realized her position was untenable and would have to change.

So yeah, I laughed.

I hope we never again see DUers posting vulgar, nasty messages about candidates who are just asking their favorite how that favorite will pay for programs.

Warren made a mistake, got called on it, and finally admitted to it. If she can find any credible way to raise revenue for MFA that won't raise middle class taxes, this retreat and pivot will ultimately help her.

[Skya Rhen]

68. Looks as if she should have done her research from the start but neglected to do so. Not impressed!