Elizabeth Warren's 52 Trillion dollar health plan
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/11/01/...e-for-all.html
Quote:
|
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?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Can you explain the downside to this? I don't see one. |
Quote:
Kudos to Warren! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"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. |
Quote:
Maybe add programs for combating obesity or educating people about minor illnesses that contribute to needless or preventable hospital visits. |
CMS.gov
2018: Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
And if you were not employed / between jobs? Also, would you need to renegotiate health insurance if you changed jobs? |
Quote:
I am currently un-insured. I had a policy with Aetna that I paid for out of pocket up until the end of last year when they- as their letter read- "no longer offered individual policies in my area". The policy was not all that great, costing over $500 per month. And Aetna had replaced it many times over the years that I had it with a new plan (each time accompanied by a letter telling me that the one I had was "no longer being offered"). When I went looking at the beginning of the year, what I found that was calling itself "insurance" was- as far as I can discern- little better than a scam. The "policies" cost so much that they negate my ability to come up with the deductible when needed, so the things that are recommended by my doctor (on the partially covered visits), like Colonoscopies, would only be affordable if I were not paying for the "insurance" Sorry. Rant. On the plus side, If I have a stroke, you all can pay for my E.R. visit. Thanks in advance! |
Quote:
ETA: Plugging in a downtown Philadelphia zip code, exchange plans start around $350 a month with a $6,000 deductible, before subsidies. https://www.healthcare.gov/see-plans/#/household |
Quote:
If health care continued to increase by 4% every year for the next 10 years it would increase from 3.5 Tril to 5.18 Tril. That increase over a 10 year period would total 1.68 Tril. Adding a total of 52 Tril spread out over the next 10 years is a very big deal. An almost 31 times big deal, or 3100% if you prefer that metric. |
From first impressions, it seems like an American twist on single payer. The way I see it, there are two options.
A) Pay by taxing everyone. Everyone pays some, but overall pay less. Companies no longer have to deal with paying for healthcare for their employees. One criticism I've seen of this is that there is no guarantee that companies will pass on their savings in not paying premiums to workers in the form of increased wages. B) Use taxation to keep costs on employers, and additionally have a stricter progressive tax for the highest earners. No tax increase on the "middle class", but companies still have to deal with paying for healthcare, which puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Also, the rich are quite good at dodging taxes. People, like Bernie, are usually suggesting A. Warren's plan B fits the "no middle class tax raise" talking point without trying to explain tax vs total cost, but it keeps our traditional American system of the cost burden, which is IMO generally less effective. I didn't see mention of it, but I think part of the problem in the US is doctor pay. There's a weird spiral where doctors have to take extreme amounts of debt, and the AMA restricts the number of doctors trained to keep salaries extremely high, and doctors shift to specialty and leave GP so now we have NPs trying to fill the gap, that I think needs to be addressed. And staff shortages leads to overworking and burnout which leads to staff shortages and so on. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
A left critique focusing on head vs payroll tax:
Quote:
|
Quote:
And besides, we know it won't work - because a Democrat proposed it. No need to look any closer... Quote:
|
Quote:
This means that the current system would be more expensive and serve less people. |
This is a "we're not ready for it" fail. Let a candidate who advocates for "keep your private insurance but here's Medicare if you need it" proceed and let people gradually conclude Medicare for all is better. Maybe we will adopt a system like most of Western Europe. Just don't risk four more years of Trump over it.
|
Quote:
|
Splain the math: Currently Medicare covers about 1/3 of the population. Warren is going to cover 3 times as many people for the same cost? I call Pie-in-the-sky.
|
Quote:
There is something to be said for just pulling the bandaid. The other also risks becoming an inefficient mess that stays for decades like subsidized flood insurance. In that state, the GOP can beat the Dems over the head with how much it 'proves' government can't work while the Dems have to try to keep it afloat because the Dems aren't immoral asshats who don't care if people die. As an entitlement the GOP can still try to sabotage it, but then it costs them politically like when they keep trying to break social security and Obamacare. |
Seems like a political ploy to get elected, and retreat to the more sensible tax-the-middle-class-but-they're-better-off approach after the office is in hand.
The proposal seems to include an increase of her proposed wealth tax to... 6%! I'm very open to a wealth tax, but this is an absurdly high number. |
Quote:
|
At least Warren has a plan which is more than can be said of the Republicans. Remember when it was going to be fantastic and cheaper and so easy? Here we are 3.5 years later and they still haven't produced a plan. Quelle surprise.
|
Quote:
This would be single payer. They would not be covering everyone for the same as Medicare currently costs. They would be covering everyone at the same overall cost as what Medicare, employer-related health insurance, and uninsured people already pay as a whole - except this way the uninsured and under-insured would get much better care than currently. No more yachts for the CEO of the Health Insurance company any more than the CEO of the hospital company. It's pretty socialist, but our current health system is a cash cow for people who are already wealthy, and we only get poor service in return. We've tried full private enterprise health care and its the worst in the developed world. So then lets try a nice mix, with single payer and government regulation of the costs charged by the private providers. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Unless that is another in the long list of things that are part of Medicare that isn't going to be part of Medicare. Medicare 4 All is the ship of Theseus of Medicare. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.