Regardless of the merits of the argument, it's a real problem that she has a detailed plan on every topic around except for the single biggest one in the Dem primary. And that she wants to talk details and nuance *except* on this topic. Even if you buy everything she says and we agree that costs overall would go down and be paid for/etc/etc. Each person out there is still affected differently. If I use health care a lot, I'll be saving more than someone that doesn't. She's more than willing to share what we will save, so we can both calculate that. But both of us are paying higher taxes and neither us of can evaluate the net effect on us if she won't tell us what we're paying. That's a problem when you're talking about redesigning 16% of the US economy and basically asking people to vote for you on a "trust me, you don't need the detaiils - it'll all work out" platform.
I think the Moody's model is extremely flawed - it's based on economics and stuff of that nature and people's willingness to overlook everything else. But the dislike of Trump is *personal* in a way we've never had. As much the whole "I could shoot someone in NY and not lose votes" thing is true, the opposite is true as well. Trump could lower taxes to 0% and have 10% GDP growth and a good chunk of the country would never vote for him. Trump has broken all the polling and traditional analysis based on prior elections. We can use 2018 as a model - economy was great, we had a huge tax cut, everything is going swimmingly, and the GOP got obliterated for it. I think Trump's chances are way overstated - any non-offensive, relatively sane moderate will wipe the floor with him. The only chance to lose is to throw a wildcard in the mix - a far-left candidate, a scandal, a 9/11 type event, etc. This was the same to me in 2016 - Hillary was a shoe-in against Cruz/Rubio/Bush/etc. The only real way to beat her was a wildcard that didn't fit the mold and could create chaos amongst traditional models, and that's what Trump was.
I gotta say , I read the article and I agree with the other people here saying that the attacks were factual One of the main points was that Pete was trying to create a “gotcha” moment where Warren says she will raise taxes It says that it’s disingenuous because I’ll quote a bit “It's very obvious why Warren refuses to say this outright, and it is arguably more accurate for her to do so. In the hegemonic neoliberal framework of American political rhetoric, taxes are always a net cost by definition “ I don’t even understand what this means , and I don’t think I agree with it . I think most people can see scenarios where taxes go up but something else gets better in return. People are used to considering trade offs. I understand that total costs may go down once everyone gets on insurance and maybe we can take advantage of some economies of scale , but then just say that . If part of the the money comes from projected better health outcomes and estimated savings from that .... then say it .
Yes, taxes go up, but the individual cost of healthcare goes down. On my paycheck, it is listed as paid benefits. So it is on my paycheck. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that if that deduction was on my paycheck, the paycheck would go up. The payment is substantial. Having that added to my paycheck each month while paying a slightly higher income tax rate would work out as a huge savings to me.
It varies depending on what your employer does. Where I work, company pays all of employees' heath insurance but the employee must pay for spousal or family coverage if they want the coverage it appears as a deduction on the paycheck.
I'll just input my reasoning for preferring a single payer system. I believe a single payer system with private supplemental coverage for elective procedures is the most efficient model. I believe essential healthcare services such as cancer treatment or life saving ER treatment doesn't work well in a free market due to their inelastic demand as in cost of said services does not effect the demand curve as a parent of a child who is diagnosed with leukemia will file for bankruptcy if necessary to make sure their child receives the life saving treatment. Competition in this case doesn't work because of game theory which results in pseudo cartels that are legal. A single payer system means we have public health insurance put private hospitals and clinics. Currently we are being double dipped by two entities with a profit motive, the insurer and the hospital hence why private insurance has far higher overhead costs than public insurance since private insurance has to also generate a profit. Having multiple segmented private insurance companies also increases the cost per consumer because a method in which insurance premiums for individuals is reduced is when an insurance company increases their customer pool which distributes risk to more people which lowers cost. Think of it this way. In a private insurance model, 20-40 year old healthy individuals who only use their coverage for at most yearly check ups disproportionately pay for the costs of those who use their insurance for expensive treatments. In a public insurance model, that burden is shifted from healthy 20-40 year olds to people who make more than 500 thousand dollars in yearly income. Also, in a single payer public insurance model, there is far more leverage for one insurance entity to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies.
Realistically, with a warren or sanders presidency, M4A would also never pass. Unless the Dem win a super majority in the senate (they aren’t even favor to win the senate) and more, it is just not happening. By the time 2022 comes, chances are the republican pick up seats. The best chance of any form of m4a passing is Trump supporting it in 2020 and winning re-election.