She had and still has time. She is working within the parameters given. I believe she can explain her policies well enough because she has explained her legislation in the past. She has provided numbers and will adjust respond as needed.
Warren's health care plan "probably unconstitutional": Specifically, Warren’s tax plan suffers from the following Constitutional defects: The wealth tax itself does not comply with the limitations placed on Federal tax authority set by Article I, Section 9 and the Sixteenth Amendment; Her plan to retroactively tax the premiums paid for by employers would appear to violate the bar against Ex Post Facto laws also set forth in Article I, Section 9; and, Her plan to extract revenue from state and local governments would appear to violate the Supreme Courts’ anti-commandeering doctrine that generally speaking forbids the Federal Government from requiring states to take actions simply because the Federal Government wants it. If a hypothetical President Warren ends up at the losing end of the court battle, then a significant part of her revenue stream will disappear into thin air. Finally, her attempt to get more than $6 trillion into Federal coffers by getting money from the states carries with it Constitutional and practical concerns and raises the prospect that even many of her fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill and in Governor’s Mansions and state legislatures would oppose the plan. Additionally, such a demand would cause significant fiscal problems for the states that would reverberate across the country and, most likely, cause the biggest problems for blue states such as New York and California. More at the link. Conclusion? For all her claims to “have a plan for that,” Warren has yet to explain how she’d get all of this through Congress. First of all, as McArdles notes one of the first things that would happen after such a plan is introduced is that it would face scrutiny from the Congressional Budget Office, which will most likely work from far more realistic economic and taxation assumptions than Waren is working from. This is what happened to early versions of the Affordable Care Act, of course, and it led to major revisions to the plan to address the questions raised by those initial CBO scores. Second, it assumes that Warren could keep her own party united behind such a radical change to both health care, tax law, and the relationship between the Federal Government and the states. Third, it assumes that Democrats will gain control of the Senate and ignores the reality of the legislative filibuster which, despite the urging of progressives, is not going anywhere. Finally, it fails to even recognize that it would be competing for revenue with all of Warren’s other ambitious “plans.” Taking all of that into consideration, it seems clear that, much like her other plans, Warren”s “Medicare For All” plan is unrealistic, probably unconstitutional in at least its taxation ideas, and politically impossible to pass into law. Other than……. https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/e...lan-is-utopian-and-probably-unconstitutional/
Update . I read warrens plan I like it , a few thoughts 1) she’s a bit vague / hasn’t presented yet the transition details... which IMO is one of the cruxes of this discussion (not faulting her ... this **** is hard , she’d have to write up 100 pages which no one is gonna read and will be taken out of context by political opponents ) 2) my favorite thing about her plan is something she has in common with Yang . The way to negotiate with pharma to get drug prices down A) allow government to negotiate B) prices have to be within international norms C) if not liscence govt to manufacture D) be able to create an actual facility where we manufacture IMO that’s the best hammer to get pharma to fall in line . They can either make some slight markup , or we produce ourselves at marginal cost . As far as the numbers adding up , I agree with her assertion at the beginning that the estimates vary wildly . This isn’t some thing where you can just project 1:1 , or assume things are gonna stay constant I don’t think at our current level of public discourse , we can have a substantive and genuine argument about costs. The devil is in the details , and the legislative process is another boondoggle entirely . I disagree with warren and Bernie’s principle that private insurance shouldn’t exist. I think that there are underlying problems that need to be fixed to realign the incentives ... if that happens the private insurance has a place to provide value and carve out a niche
Don't know how that is different, the same thing is gonna happen to whoever is President. They will know they don't have the votes and will compromise on any bill before it is brought into congress. Remember what happened to the house and the Senate after they passed ACA? They lost both.
Why do you go with the slogan I have a plan for that but then you can't speak on that plan and ignore key questions? Nobody gave her the parameters to run on the slogan I have a plan for that. Do you not see the disconnect?
The parameter isn't that she doesn't need to answer the questions. The parameter is how much time she has to answer them.
Here is how it is different. Whatever is brought to the table no matter what it was will be forced to have compromises. So you bring as much to the table as possible even if you know that some things won't pass. That way the other side can feel like they won something as well. They can say sure the idea passed but it's totally different than they wanted. We got them to drop this and drop that from the plan. If you drop everything you know they don't like before starting the negotiation the other side will ask what are willing to give up to get it to pass. It won't pass without giving something up. So if it is already bare-bones, it just becomes even less effective.
I disagree that she flubbed it. I approve and there are economists that are also in line with her thinking. But even if you think she did, she still has time to hammer it out before she's the nominee.
It's open enrollment time and I just saw the new plan -- premiums up, max out-of-pocket up, coinsurance up, and now a penalty to insure the spouse if the spouse has other access to insurance. I'm feeling pretty well disposed toward Medicare For All today. I guess we'll just have to let all the rich people continue to hoover up all the wealth our nation produces because it might upset capital markets if we change anything.
Jeez, I'm real afraid that Elizabeth Warren's plan compares poorly to "Bunch of rich corrupt ****ers who want to take away everybody's health care, especially those with preexisting conditions..just...because" - can we run some cost-benefits analyzers on those two plans?
the phrase "hoover up" suggests that wealth gets sucked in by "all the rich people" and stays there, but in fact that is a gross exaggeration. Take just example, that of Bill Gates. The Gates Foundation has an endowment somewhere around $50 billion, $28 billion of which has been contributed directly by Bill Gates (2017 figures). That money gets redistributed mostly to public health projects in the developing world but also to educational institutions for all kinds of things. I don't think "hoover up" does justice to any of that. And again, that's just one example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
Thanks, but I don't want to fund our society on the beneficence and magnanimity and at the direction of the rich. What Gates might choose to do with the wealth he hoovers up has nothing to do with the mechanics of how that wealth was procured in the first place.
Headed toward a derail into debating the merits if unfettered capitalism, so I'll stop here. Let's say I find species of argument that we shouldn't upset the lives of rich people to be unconvincing. I'll just register that and I will try to let future articles you post go by with just that tacit understanding.
fair enough--I don't know about "unfettered capitalism" but I do think people often ignore or downplay the societal impact of philanthropy, and the money for philanthropy has to come from somewhere.
The same reason you wouldn't rely on rich people's whimsy and largess to fund the federal budget is why relying on it to fund national health care is a bad idea. A "philanthropy economy" sounds a whole lot like feudalism. I'm perfectly happy for the Koch Brother to forego whatever he is "donating" to "charity" in order to pay his tax bill. If it's easier for you to wrap your mind around, swap Koch for Soros.
well I've run several not-for-profits over the years and without wealthy people those groups could not survive
Fair enough. Thanks for your service, you dont need to worry about people's healthcare anymore because everybody is insured, in the same way we dont need nonprofits passing a hat around to fund a new aircraft carrier for the Navy. I get that that might have a larger personal impact for you, and I'm genuinely sorry that that is a side effect. I'm sure its personally very rewarding work and I'm sure on small scales you destroy the efficiency of a big state apparatus.
