With Detailed Pay-For Plan, Warren Touts Medicare for All as 'Bigger Than the Biggest Tax Cut' in US

[andym]

"If you're not in the top 1%, Wall Street, or a big corporation — congratulations, you don't pay a penny more and you're fully covered."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/01/detailed-pay-plan-warren-touts-medicare-all-bigger-biggest-tax-cut-us-history#
Joe Queally

It won't be a burden. It will be a relief. And for the large majority of those living in the United States—a huge tax break.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren released a 'Paying for Medicare for All' proposal on Friday morning, laying out her detailed approach to financing a federal health care plan that would provide comprehensive coverage to all Americans by demanding the top 1% and corporations take the brunt of the costs while promising "not one penny" more in taxes for working-class and middle-class families.

"No middle class tax increases," Warren said of her plan in a detailed blog post as she vowed to put "$11 trillion in household expenses back in the pockets" of U.S. families. That figure, she said, is "substantially larger than the largest tax cut" in the nation's history......

"There's a reason the American people support [Medicare for All]. It's because when it comes to the cost of health care, we are in the middle of a full-blown crisis."
—Sen. Elizabeth Warren
------------------
This is how MFA becomes a winning issue-- greater cost savings than the biggest tax in history. Lets hope all the candidates jump on the bandwagon.

[Progressive2020]

1. Elizabeth Warren Is Great

She is always on top of things in her Campaign, and has a well thought out plan for most everything. She is very smart, organized, and disciplined. She responds to criticism by improving herself and her plans. She had been criticized about how she was going to pay for her Medicare For All proposal. Instead of getting hostile or defensive, she simply developed an effective plan.

I think that this woman would make an excellent President. She is a smart policy wonk but also a sharp campaigner. I would like to see her poll numbers versus Trump. I am still undecided, but if the election were today, I would vote Warren. I am also encouraged that Warren is the second choice for many Democrats. I think as more Democrats drop out of the primary race, Warren might pick up a lot of their votes. Anyway, I like Professor Warren.

[Gothmog]

2. Elizabeth Warren Wants To Pay for Medicare for All With a $9 Trillion Tax That Will Hit the Middle C

Link to tweet

Right now, Warren's plan says, employers spend about $9 trillion a decade on health insurance coverage. Her plan aims to move the private spending onto the federal budget. Under her proposal, large employers who currently pay for health coverage would be required to pay a comparable amount (equivalent to 98 percent of what they pay now, adjusted for the number of workers they employ) in order to help finance Medicare for All.

Warren shies away from calling this a tax, and she even claims "we don't need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny to finance Medicare for All." Instead, she refers to it as an employer Medicare contribution, under which companies "would send payments to the federal government for Medicare."

But there is a commonly accepted term for a plan that requires companies to send payments to the federal government in order to finance government programs. That word is tax. And that is essentially what this is—a nearly $9 trillion payroll tax (or, perhaps, a head tax with some small-business carve outs). It is thus hard to see this as anything other than a massive middle-class tax hike.

[andym]

3. The article you quote does not explain how the 9 trillion dollar tax hits the middle class

Last edited Sat Nov 2, 2019, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

instead it actually makes the point that the tax (which it is) will be on companies-- and essentially replaces the private payments with government payments -- yes a tax (but not on individuals!). The article then claims the tax is on workers, when even they stated before that it is not, but on companies. Maybe they are just conflating companies with their workers, but that is flawed thinking.
Basically companies will pay a tax to the government instead of paying insurance companies.

I'm not sure why the author of that article focused only on that tax, there are quite a few in her proposal-- the thing is they are not on middle class individuals.

[forthemiddle]

5. What if my company doesn't provide my insurance now?

I am covered under my husbands insurance, and don’t take my company provided plan.
Do you still tax my company for something they never provided in the first place?
If the answer is yes, you are going to put a lot of businesses in deep financial trouble.
My husbands employer is 10 times as big as the company I work for (and provides much better coverage), so do they still pay extra tax for me, or only for my husband, transferring that obligation back to my employer?

[PETRUS]

7. The article is from a right-wing libertarian magazine.

[andym]

8. That makes sense

That article was clearly written to invoke an emotional reaction against any tax.

[forthemiddle]

4. Help me understand

If I no longer have my company provided insurance, I will no longer have a premium to pay.
I am middle class, so if I don’t have a tax increase, we’re does my premium money go? Do I just transfer the money I now pay to United Healthcare to the government? Do you still call the money my premium?, or is it now a tax?
If it’s a mandatory payment to the government, I call it a tax, ie a middle clad tax increase.
What am I missing?

[andym]

6. Your premium money would go into your own pocket

AFAIK. It appears you would NOT be paying a premium under the plan.