Home | About | Donate

How Warren’s 'Medicare for All' Plan Hurts the Cause

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/11/06/how-warrens-medicare-all-plan-hurts-cause


Bernie’s plan seems to remove as much potential for gaming the system as possible, would be anathema for predatory capitalism. Bernie 2020!


First we must realize that neither Sanders or Warren plan will become law without private insurance. The insurance industry has too much power to be pushed aside. We can still eventually come up with a system far better than what we have. Other nations have a public/private system that works reasonably well.


Why do people who bitch that they might have to pay a small amount of taxes to have M4A NOT bitch when their tax dollars are used to buy bombs, missiles, drones, and other war-like spending?!

Also, the tax would be GRADUATED! This is a fact that keeps getting skimmed over. If I recall Bernie’s plan correctly, those making $30,000 or less would pay next to NOTHING and those earning less than $30,000 would pay NOTHING!

Another point: Those taxes go into a “pot” for when someone needs it. Since not EVERYONE is sick ALL THE TIME, their should never be a shortfall (i.e. Reason to RAISE the taxes).

Last point: Personally, I would pay this tax with a SMILE on my face knowing what it is for and who it helps instead of having my taxes go to kill brown people or subsidize ANY destructive stoopidity of the u.s. government. You?


In another article regarding Sen. Warren’s plan it says she gives more $$$ to doctors and large hospital systems. For dealing with their political objections/silence/support: which is a form of pre-surrendering or a " quid pro quo " ( extortion ) by already wealthy and powerful groups. This, and her way of dealing with " contract employees " tells me Sen. Warren is " sheep dogging " for negotiations on a fallback net or catch-all Public Option. Sounds like potentially throwing good money after more mediocre bureaucratic results.
Sen. Sanders has the guts and a much better plan, period.
Go Bernie!!!


Sorry. No more incrementalism or gifting profits to those who have been screwing us.

Please explain your first sentence. Do you have facts to back that statement or is it just opinion?


Compared to Warren’s “tax the rich” funding mechanism, Bernie’s plan is much more aligned with the concepts of shared responsibility for one another as expressed through financial skin in the game.

My very wealthy friends say that they feel better about paying their share when others are paying their share. And a couple of them fully realize that their current health insurance is a rip off.

With that in mind, Liz is just too cowardly to take the heat for raising taxes.


“Warren’s funding scheme is getting major criticism from the left”…

…whereas, in the corporate media, the approach has been to praise Warren for presenting a ‘detailed’ plan, quibble over her math…and mostly ignore that Sanders’ plan even exists…

…i.e. - Warren’s plan suddenly becomes the only discussed proposal for M4A - thus advancing the ‘Sanders media blackout.’


I have mentioned more than once, here and in other places, that it suddenly seems as though Elizabeth Warren just invented Medicare For All.

I was told to stop being so negative and Vote Blue, No Matter Who.
And that we can’t have nice things, so just shut up.


Why do people who bitch that they …

I think because we are dealing with Cult ideology and people that have been programmed for most of their lives. We can’t get through that barrier with logic, facts, history, reality accept over years of de-programming.


For what it’s worth - my discussion thread response to an 11/5 nyt piece on the ‘new and previously unheard-of’ warren M4A plan by ‘public-option-ist’ jacob hacker:

Hacker writes that, “With her new blueprint, Ms. Warren…has shown how financing could be done in a way that minimizes new burdens for most Americans while delivering big new benefits.”

[Response:] Less burden w/new benefits is “new,” Hacker? You seem to be forgetting how - below - you admit Sanders’ earlier plan also “minimize[d] new burdens for most Americans while delivering big new benefits.”

Remember? The part about how Sanders’ plan calculates people paying less in new government taxes than they pay for private health insurance?

So…now that you’ve got two methods of cutting costs/increasing benefits - both axing private insurance - wouldn’t it make sense for you - as a public policy writer - to evaluate Sanders payroll increase on rich people plan alongside Warren’s?

Or is that a prob’ because, jeeze, Sanders seems like he actually wants to drive it through, and might get a lot of poor people behind him too?..so let’s just not talk about him?



“[N]either Sanders or Warren plan will become law without private insurance. The insurance industry has too much power to be pushed aside. We can still eventually come up with a [better]system…Other nations have a public/private system that works reasonably well.”

One: Sanders or Warren will be elected not on the promise to pass M4A, nor to overcome the private health insurance lobby, but on the promise to a) fight for and b) mobilize a constituency for it.

Everyone who votes for an M4A candidate knows “the insurance industry” and political right will oppose it: the political gambit is, if a pro-M4A candidate is elected, it will be seen as a mandate, and that the bully pulpit will boost rising popular and movement support and, ultimately, make opposition a liability.

Two: Thus, the real question is not whether M4A supporters compromise, but whose plan and which candidate can get on board the non-voting poor crucial to politically beating the private insurance lobby and its right wing opponents.

That candidate is not Warren.


“Liz is just too cowardly to take the heat for raising taxes”

That or it’s pure political calculation - ‘How else can I set myself off from the M4A movement author’?


Her campaign meme – “Steal the Bern” – says it all, baby.


yep, then the progressive demographic is split and the consequently front-runner-loser can be nominated…


Or maybe the 712 un-pledged delegates will vote for Bernie. Haha just kidding; they’re holding out for Chelsea who gets more coverage than Bernie anyway.


Thank you Ilana Novick for reporting this and especially this quote from Higginbotham.


My first sentence was common sense. I don’t believe in pie in the sky. The best anyone could hope for without private insurance included is half of democrats votes and no republican votes.

1 Like

I remember when my Senator Walter Mondale promised he would raise taxes when he became President.

1 Like

You seem to think that in our so called democracy, the bully pulpit will magically steal the power from wealthy interests. It is a pleasant way of thinking, but it only works if powerful interests are willing to bend. In this case, those interests are asked to destroy themselves. Do you see the problem!!

1 Like