Elizabeth Warren proposes axing many millions of middle-class workers

[RuleNumberOne]

Her Medicare for All funding plan was revealed today. Assumes cost of Medicare for All is $20.5 trillion over 10 years by reducing administrative costs and drug prices and provider payments.

 

35% of the job growth over the last 10 years has been in health care. So what she is proposing is removing all the millions of middle-class administrative paychecks that total into the trillions. Millions more nurses and others will take pay cuts due to reduced provider payments.

 

More tricks lurk in her proposal. Too little time to go over them.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-01/warren-pays-for-medicare-for-all-by-taxing-companies-wealthy?srnd=premium

 

"Her advisers also lowered the estimate of Medicare for All’s price-tag to $20.5 trillion over 10 years from the $34 trillion the Urban Institute predicted, by using the new Medicare-for-All negotiating power to slash administrative spending, drug prices and provider payments."

[Castanza]

Makes perfect sense. Didn't you know we have an over supply of healthcare professionals!

[RuleNumberOne]

For once Lying Liz could not promise everything to everyone. I was accosted by a nurse with flyers at a recent Medicare-for-All "gathering" in front of City Hall. She was a supporter of Elizabeth.

 

Poor woman doesn't realize Medicare for All is going to cut her pay. What are all the administrative workers supposed to do if Elizabeth cuts their jobs and salaries?

 

Elizabeth proposes cutting the Medicare-for-All bill by nearly half - $34 trillion to $20.5 trillion.

 

Makes perfect sense. Didn't you know we have an over supply of healthcare professionals!

[RuleNumberOne]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/warren-to-tax-wealthy-americans-companies-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all-11572614846?mod=hp_lead_pos2

 

Elizabeth's proposal also includes taxing unrealized capital gains

 

"Ms. Warren would raise about $2 trillion more by revamping capital-gains taxation. She would require people to pay taxes on unrealized gains as they accrue them, even if they don’t sell an underlying asset, and they would pay at ordinary-income tax rates.

 

The Democratic candidate has outlined $20.5 trillion over 10 years in spending on health care:

 

$8.8 trillion in new taxes on employers; typically excludes companies with fewer than 50 employees and people who are self-employed

$2.9 trillion from higher taxes on large corporations

$2.3 trillion from tougher enforcement of tax laws

$2 trillion from additional nonretirement capital-gains taxes

$1.4 trillion in additional revenue generated by higher take-home pay for workers under existing tax laws

$1 trillion from an expansion of previously proposed wealth tax

$900 billion from higher taxes on financial firms

$800 billion in military spending cuts

$400 billion from tax receipts from expanded legal immigration

 

Medicare for All critics have doubted that administrative savings would be as steep as often projected by advocates of the plan. And hospitals and physician groups have said steep cuts in payments would lead to job losses and closures.

Companies that already pay some employee health costs and have more than 50 employees would make an “Employer Medicare Contribution” to the government"

[cameronfen]

For once Lying Liz could not promise everything to everyone. I was accosted by a nurse with flyers at a recent Medicare-for-All "gathering" in front of City Hall. She was a supporter of Elizabeth.

 

Poor woman doesn't realize Medicare for All is going to cut her pay. What are all the administrative workers supposed to do if Elizabeth cuts their jobs and salaries?

 

Elizabeth proposes cutting the Medicare-for-All bill by nearly half - $34 trillion to $20.5 trillion.

 

Makes perfect sense. Didn't you know we have an over supply of healthcare professionals!

 

We have an oversupply of healthcare administrators.  This is a fact.  We need more doctors but have more admin than most countries (I believe).  We also have more government spending per person than countries like Great Britian, even though the NHS covers everyone and they live longer.  We currently spend 3.2 trillion per year and 1.1 trillion is already government funded so this basically funds the rest.  Unless you are argueing that a government run system is less efficient than a private one with insurance which runs counter to basically EVERY OTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS A GOVERNMENT SYSTEM compared to the US, this tax should be more than enough to cover it.  And you can't argue that cutting admin is going to be bad and yet 20.5 trillion over ten years won't be enough to pay for it. 

[Cardboard]

Raise taxes to fix problems or a solution that has never worked in the history of mankind.  ::)

 

If you want to solve healthcare in the U.S. then first order of the day should be to go after predatory lawsuits and lawyers.

 

Because of these, you have doctors covering their a.. by calling for a crazy number of unnecessary tests to diagnose patients. Then same doctors have to pay very large insurance premiums to again cover their a...

 

Eventually as a society you have to decide if you want an extreme level of diagnosis to catch all possibilities and prevent outliers from ever happening or lower costs to care for the masses while accepting a few rare incidents. Boils down to a philosophical discussion.

 

Places like Canada have chosen the latter hence why the country can afford it. Don't be fooled thinking that level of care is the same as it is not. Malpractice and medical errors are very common in Canada.

 

 

[Spekulatius]

Her Medicare for All funding plan was revealed today. Assumes cost of Medicare for All is $20.5 trillion over 10 years by reducing administrative costs and drug prices and provider payments.

 

35% of the job growth over the last 10 years has been in health care. So what she is proposing is removing all the millions of middle-class administrative paychecks that total into the trillions. Millions more nurses and others will take pay cuts due to reduced provider payments.

 

More tricks lurk in her proposal. Too little time to go over them.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-01/warren-pays-for-medicare-for-all-by-taxing-companies-wealthy?srnd=premium

 

"Her advisers also lowered the estimate of Medicare for All’s price-tag to $20.5 trillion over 10 years from the $34 trillion the Urban Institute predicted, by using the new Medicare-for-All negotiating power to slash administrative spending, drug prices and provider payments."

 

Actually, cost cuts is the only way to keep the health care inflation in check. There is a reason why health care costs in Europe are half what they are in the HS, despite covering everyone - the states use their negotiation power to keep costs for medication and procedures in check.  This is one thing that makes perfect sense to me.

 

Since you are so concerned about the middle class, the Health care costs are the biggest tax on the middle class in the US.

[RuleNumberOne]

Yeah, but so far she has gotten away by promising everything to everyone. The wealth tax raised just $1 trillion of the $20.5 trillion she needed.

 

Evasive Elizabeth has not specified who will pay the $2 trillion in taxes on unrealized capital gains. Presumably that tax bracket will again fall on $250k MFJ just like Obamacare taxes. Also, there is another $1.4 trillion that will come from "existing tax laws".

 

I don't believe any political party has the courage to reduce administrative costs in healthcare or in universities. Can someone pin down Evasive Elizabeth on how many healthcare workers will lose their jobs or get pay cuts?

 

Her Medicare for All funding plan was revealed today. Assumes cost of Medicare for All is $20.5 trillion over 10 years by reducing administrative costs and drug prices and provider payments.

 

35% of the job growth over the last 10 years has been in health care. So what she is proposing is removing all the millions of middle-class administrative paychecks that total into the trillions. Millions more nurses and others will take pay cuts due to reduced provider payments.

 

More tricks lurk in her proposal. Too little time to go over them.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-01/warren-pays-for-medicare-for-all-by-taxing-companies-wealthy?srnd=premium

 

"Her advisers also lowered the estimate of Medicare for All’s price-tag to $20.5 trillion over 10 years from the $34 trillion the Urban Institute predicted, by using the new Medicare-for-All negotiating power to slash administrative spending, drug prices and provider payments."

 

Actually, cost cuts is the only way to keep the health care inflation in check. There is a reason why health care costs in Europe are half what they are in the HS, despite covering everyone - the states use their negotiation power to keep costs for medication and procedures in check.  This is one thing that makes perfect sense to me.

 

Since you are so concerned about the middle class, the Health care costs are the biggest tax on the middle class in the US.

[cameronfen]

Yeah, but so far she has gotten away by promising everything to everyone. The wealth tax raised just $1 trillion of the $20.5 trillion she needed.

 

Evasive Elizabeth has not specified who will pay the $2 trillion in taxes on unrealized capital gains. Presumably that tax bracket will again fall on $250k MFJ just like Obamacare taxes. Also, there is another $1.4 trillion that will come from "existing tax laws".

 

I don't believe any political party has the courage to reduce administrative costs in healthcare or in universities. Can someone pin down Evasive Elizabeth on how many healthcare workers will lose their jobs

 

It is likely she won't need to fill all 2.1 trillion hole between public and private spending as I reiterate that government healthcare reduces overall spending on health by something like a factor of 2.  Obviously to be taken seriously she needs to have at least some nominal sources of revenue, but its likely over the long run decrease in admin costs, increase in bargining power, and internalizing externalities (ie government has more incentive and the means to encourage people to be healthier), leads to totally lower costs. 

 

Who knows if Warren or anyone else has the courage to axe admin.  But there is precedent of US presidents sticking it to lower middle class workers (read: farmers) in order to improve the economy (read: stick it to China).  But that guy is certainly one of a kind.