Sen. Elizabeth Warren's "Plan" To Pay For Medicare for All Exists Only In The Realm Of Fairy Tales

According to a NY Times report, Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday revealed her plan to pay for an expansive transformation of our  health care system in her own version of Medicare for All. Notably absent in this "plan"  (which isn't going anyplace anyway unless  the Dems snatch the Senate back from the Repukes)  is any tax increase for the middle class. Which in my opinion shows it totally in the realm of fairy tales or fantasy.  Warren could as well have told her donors and others that the tooth fairy will leave  $20.5 trillion under their pillows to fund it.

What she is proposing  are military cuts of $800b  and huge tax increases on businesses and wealthy Americans to help cover her price tab of $20.5 trillion in new federal spending.   Look, this is pure poppycock and bull pockey. Warren ought to be ashamed to believe that this math mockery (not to mention abandonment of reality) could pass the most remote smell test for any rational person.

First, there is no way in hell she is going to be able to finagle $800 billion in cuts to the military.  We know ever since the military-industrial complex emerged (after WW II)  it has been the devil's own job to try and tame it as it just sucks up more and more $$$ each year.  Much of that is plowed into localities (like here in Colorado Springs) that have multiple military bases, or have a defense contractor making planes, bombs or tanks.    That is the new mode of job creation and there is absolutely no way that those special interests will cede that money to Warren.  Does she "have a plan" that will work? Sure. Possibly in an alternative universe where austerity freaks - not to mention Repugs - disappeared like the Whigs in this universe.

Second,  anyone who does the math knows there is simply not the money in corporations and the wealthy alone to support her far- fetched plan.   Even if a massive new tax on both could be passed  which it won't (so long as Moscow Mitch runs the Senate)   it will still fall far short of the funds needed to support Medicare for all - which most honest brokers and spokespersons estimate is more in the realm of $30 trillion over ten years.  Even Sen. Bernie Sanders admitted this, e.g.  in the last Dem debate:

"At the end of the day the overwhelming majority of people will save money on their health care bills.   But I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up."

To which Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a moderate Dem, replied: "At least Bernie’s being honest here.".

As The Times observes,   her plan "represents a significant bet that enough voters will favor an approach that dismantles the current system and replaces it with Medicare for all, a government-run health insurance program. And it comes after decades in which Democrats have largely tiptoed around policy proposals that relied on major tax increases and Republicans ran on tax cuts."

Hmmm... seems that I recall even in the early days of Obama's administration and when the Dems had a filibuster- proof majority of 60 in the Senate they couldn't even get the most modest public option passed.  So riddle me this:  How would a President Warren manage a feat  that  will cost twenty times more- and through a Senate likely to still be in Reepo hands?

Folks, this is the stuff of fairy tales, no lie. (Hey, I know Reeptards also called it a 'fairy tale" but even a broken clock is right twice a day!)

The Times piece also notes:

"While the proposal allows Ms. Warren to say she is not raising taxes on the middle class, it opened her to renewed charges that her plan is too radical to pass through Congress. "

Doh! Of course it is too radical! Has Warren done a head count of the deficit hawks and austerity cheerleaders still in congress?  Does she believe they will magically vanish if she's elected?  She needs to stop chomping on that special Astra Ultra MJ candy methinks.

Confirming her ingestion of new higher punch candies we then read:

"It represents an extraordinary embrace of the tax system to redistribute wealth and re-engineer one of the pillars of the American economy, with measures that would double her proposed wealth tax on billionaires and impose new levies on investment gains and even stock trades. "

And it possibly could work-- in Canada or Denmark.  But I can tell her right now it will never work here, not if Barack Obama and a Senate with 60 Dems couldn't even get a public option in 2010.

Warren needs to come back to reality, cease imbibing those high buzz candies, and  once that's done, stop babbling nonsense - when most Americans with any sense will see right through it as errant codswallop. 

Those who are honest - like Bernie, a fellow DSA member - know that middle class taxes being raised 15-20 % will be the most pragmatic way to pay for any new health program. 

As I've shown with other large scale liberal Dem plans, such as the Green New Deal, the bugbear or deal breaker in all of them is the failure or avoidance to reckon in the math,  E.g.

Applying Physics (And Some Math) To The Green Ne...

Where I pointed out that omitting nuclear energy from the mix would be a non-starter. As I put it, "Leave out nuclear and the time needed to get to a preponderance of renewables, even using Germany's high standard of adding 0.7 trillion kwh of clean energy per year, would take close to 150 years - by which time this planet would be on the verge of being another Venus. "

The same retreat from reality is evident in Warren's "plans" and defense of Medicare for all.  She seems unable or unwilling to tell voters straight that the choice is one between more taxes or less health care.

Kate Bedingfield, a deputy campaign manager for Joe Biden summed up my own take on Warren's plan when she said:

“The mathematical gymnastics in this plan are all geared towards hiding a simple truth from voters: It’s impossible to pay for Medicare for all without middle-class tax increases,” 

If Warren fails to 'come clean' she may pay a huge price in the primaries if enough D voters get wise to her unworkable math and impossible dreams.  In the meantime, progressive pundits on Left blogs also need to come clean after trying to assert Warren actually does have a plan ...but it will be "attacked" (and 'lied about')  by those nasty, revolting scum from the medical insurance industry.    See e.g.

Elizabeth Warren | Healthcare Policy | Insurance

How Health Insurance Industry Allies Are Going to Lie and Attack Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare for All Plan

No, it will also be firmly questioned by anyone with sense and an IQ over room temperature who grasps political reality and can do the math!   

As an antidote to the preceding B.S.  see the following spot-on take dealing with Warren's dishonest mumbo-jumbo:

Elizabeth Warren | Healthcare Policy

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

Excerpt:

"The Massachusetts senator is adamant that her plan would not impose any taxes on the middle class. According to Tim Higginbotham, a Democratic Socialists of America organizer writing in Jacobin, her plan is “an impossible premise.”

Higginbotham believes Warren’s no-middle-class-taxes claim is dishonest: First, because any Medicare for All plan “will require some form of taxation, direct or indirect, on the broad ‘middle class.’” Second, because her premise ignores the possibility that even with a modest tax increase, Medicare for All will still provide overall health care cost savings in the long run for low- and middle-income families."

And:

How Would Warren Pay for Her Sweeping Policy Plans?

Elizabeth Warren Displayed Unacceptable Cowardice By Not Admitting Higher Middle Class Taxes With 'Medicare for All'

"I still believe that the candidates with the biggest plans need to level with voters about how costly, painful and disruptive transformational changes are likely to be, at least in the short term. Take for instance the transformation of our health insurance system: Whether we are talking about Medicare for All or an expansion of Obamacare with a public option, there is a sticker price.

In other words, treat voters with respect by telling them the whole truth, warts and all, instead of simply dangling jewels in their faces."    - Charles Blow, NY Times, 'Democrats, Dream Big But Tell The Whole Truth'.

Last night Sen. Elizabeth Warren pronounced:

"Medicare for all is the gold standard. We can pay for this and I laid out the basic principles. Cost are gonna go up for the wealthy, for the big corporations. They will not go up for middle class families,"

Fine, but TAXES WILL go up and she dodged the answer to that question asked by one moderator, NY Times National Editor Marc Lacy.  What Warren ought to have said is that while middle class taxes WILL go up this will be more than offset by reduction in the costs derived from high monthly premiums, co-pays, drug costs.  She didn't. She dreaded use of the T word.  A lack of intestinal fortitude-   or plain courage  - to tell the truth about a policy position.

But at least Bernie Sanders was honest and forthright admitting:

"At the end of the day the overwhelming majority of people will save money on their health care bills.   But I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up."

To which Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a moderate Dem, replied: "At least Bernie’s being honest here."

So why wasn't Warren?  Why was it so damned difficult to use the T word and admit that yes, taxes will increase but the benefits from lower medical costs will more than compensate for that.   According to CBS correspondent Major Garrett this morning:

"She made a tactical decision she doesn't have to answer this tax question... She had every opportunity last night to just say what Bernie Sanders  said, she didn't. She tactically decided this is not going to make or break her campaign."

However the voters, in the general election (if she gets that far), if not in the primary, could make the decision they need a more forthright,  honest candidate (and President)  than Elizabeth Warren.

Warren's deliberate tactic was also not a one off.  Time after time last night, in response to questions on how to pay for her Medicare for All plan, Warren tried to dodge using the T-word: and imposing higher taxes on the middle class.  As we watched I told Janice, if she'd just come clean like Bernie had she could avoid a lot of the  challenges and implications that her math is skewed, or non-existent.

Or worse, that she was deliberately being obfuscatory, even dishonest.

"Mayor Pete" Buttigieg was the first skeptic, a few minutes into the debate, after Mr. Lacy posed the question. He had been asked about Ms. Warren’s support for Medicare for All and her squishy responses to the question of whether middle-class taxes would rise under it.  Buttigieg taunted, “This was the candidate with 'a plan for everything,'except this.”

Warren’s head shot skyward as if beseeching the Almighty for inspiration or deliverance, saying quietly. “We can pay for this,” 

She kept repeating the mantra that “costs” would rise only for the wealthy and corporations   but kept on declining to concede — as Bernie had  — that middle-class taxes would go up.

Lack of courage, lack of candor. And not for the first time here with the Dems.  After Bush Jr. left office in January, 2009,  I screeched long and hard in many posts that it was idiocy to extend his tax cuts for the middle class as well as the wealthy, given all the needs that required income. See e.g.

Bush’s Revenge: Or how Zombie Tax cuts Will leave ...

The Dems never got the message, from me or many other wiser economic commenters - including Philip Stephens in The Financial Times. Instead they opted to keep that segment of cuts and digging deficit holes the Reeps would use to prevent increased funding of Medicare, Social Security.

As I've shown with other large scale liberal Dem plans, such as the Green New Deal, the bugbear or deal breaker in all of them is the failure or avoidance to reckon in the math,  E.g.

Applying Physics (And Some Math) To The Green Ne...

Where I pointed out that omitting nuclear energy from the mix would be a non-starter. As I put it, "Leave out nuclear and the time needed to get to a preponderance of renewables, even using Germany's high standard of adding 0.7 trillion kwh of clean energy per year, would take close to 150 years - by which time this planet would be on the verge of being another Venus. "

The same retreat from reality is evident in Warren's "plans" and defense of Medicare for all.  She seems unable or unwilling to tell voters straight that the choice is one between more taxes or less health care.  So if citizens think higher  taxes (by 15 % even for "middle class")  are the worst thing in their lives, what could happen? Well,  what if they are laid up in a hospital bed with severe disability, pneumonia  or prostate cancer? Is going bankrupt more to their liking?  (Without Medicare I''d have had to cough up over $85,000 for two major prostate cancer treatments:  high dose brachytherapy and focal cryotherapy,)

Again, for most Americans - who are tax hating Pollyannas-  they are convinced they're never going to get to that extreme fate so they make the bet those dire medical disasters won't happen to them.  Hence, why agree to pay higher taxes if the odds are so low in getting a medical calamity? But it's a terrible bet because any cancer, or serious accident can happen to any of us!

Make no mistake that 'Medicare for all'  would be the for profit medical  industry's biggest nightmare because they'd no longer be able to reap profits by invoking medical loss ratios - preventing sick people from getting care instead of delivering it. Hence, they and their  political lackeys and extremists will be prepared to fight like junkyard dogs to prevent it, including the perverse use of propaganda.

In this regard, the citizen needs to inform himself as much as possible about what the real arguments are for and against 'Medicare for all'. And also ask himself if he is willing to pay significantly more in taxes to be assured of better access to health care and significantly lower medical costs. Elizabeth Warren's dodging of the issue doesn't help citizens in making a judicious decision.

See also:

Cody Fenwick

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

2020 Elections | Democrats

Here Are 3 Winners and 4 Losers from the CNN Democratic Presidential Primary Debate

And:

Bernie Sanders | Healthcare Policy

Post-Debate Musings: Bernie’s Heart and His Courage Just Fine with Me

Other Voices Weigh In On The Democratic Debates

Scenes from the first (left) and second nights of the Democratic debates.

Once again, the Dem debates - with so many contending voices - and so little time (on that account) to properly address questions-  ended up more helter skelter than focused.  Tuesday night, it turned out, became a battle of the 'moderates' vs. liberals, with a few solid points scored by both sides, but we didn't stay around long enough to be able to expatiate on any particular aspects. We ended out CNN viewing barely an hour into the fracas.

Same on night two, with many of the same complaints, too many debaters,  not enough time for each candidate to deal with the questions.  Because of the number of debaters you also had the desperation factor inducing a number of 'cage matches' - such as Biden vs, Kamala Harris, and Tulsi Gabbard vs, Harris, as well as Booker vs. Biden.   Let's be clear none of these mutual sniper shots redounds to the Dems' benefit,  so the sooner the field is narrowed the better. Fortunately that will occur with the September debate with the much higher threshold for entry: 130,000 different donors, and at least a 2 percent poll rating and in four different polls. That will automatically nullify 13 of the current contenders so we can expect more  time for thoughtful answers, fewer spontaneous cage matehes and also less biased questions.

That there was too much framing, also, by the moderators of both MSNBC and CNN was evident. And one hopes they get their act together by the September debate.   They were, however, right to press the candidates on whether taxes will be raised on the middle class. This is given we already know Bernie  Sanders has conceded $32 trillion will be needed to implement his 'Medicare for All' plan and he has admitted middle class taxes would have to be increased, The bill can't be paid only by the billionaires.   The fact that none of the candidates - save Michael Bennett- was honest about financing (raising middle class taxes)  doesn't bode well for any  Dem in debates vs. Trump.  As MSNBC commentator Ezra Klein put it in the post-debate analysis, they all need to be "more honest about financing."

 Anyway, here are the takes of other voices:

2020 Elections | Democrats

Here Are 9 of the Best Moments and 7 of the Worst from Tuesday’s 2020 Democratic Primary Debate

2020 Elections | Democrats

Here Are 7 of the Best Moments and 4 of the Worst from the Second CNN Democratic Primary Debate

Biden Did Fine. That Might Have Been Enough

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/us/politics/debate-joe-biden.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage


Winners and Losers of the Democratic Debate, Night 2

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/01/opinion/debate-winners-losers.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

2020 Elections | Democrats

Debating Democrats, Please, No Fighting in the War Room

Excerpt:

 "My teeth grind when I see a flurry of post-debate articles headlined, “Winners and Losers.” They reduce this most important presidential campaign of our lives to a game where a single swing or a miss matters more than the heinous presidency we’re enduring or any of the issues vital to all of us terrified about the future for our families and ourselves.

I’m also annoyed by the debate format perpetrated by cable news networks more interested in creating conflict and melodrama than a legitimate discussion. The feigned gladiatorial confrontations CNN hyped in its promotion and then attempted to foment during the actual event serve no one."

New Polls Show Most 'Muricans Don't Want To Pay For A Decent Health Care System

One of the hyper-expensive medical "toys" driving up health care costs - the 3T MRI machine

In his extensive Barbados Advocate column (April 30, 2017, p. 14, ''Addressing the loss of health care professionals') David Jessop shed light on exactly why medical costs are soaring in all the nations of the world. The prime contributing factors he listed as follows:

- A surge in the nature and volume of demand as populations age and birth rates continue to increase

-  The preceding occurring at the same time a desire for low taxes has made it difficult for governments to garner the necessary resources to respond to societal expectations

- Sustained loss of medical professionals causing shortages in many 3rd world nations, because they are picked off by nations such as the U.S.  - which itself is finding it can't cope with the expansion of medical services (e.g. via Medicaid in the ACA) combined with an M.D. shortage.

This combination in addition to overuse of medical resources by certain groups, has led to the condition in which much of the world is in a health care crisis.

The bottom line is this: It is futile to talk about "managing" health care costs when so little money is made available by many nations to support their current medical needs. In effect, medical care today  - from treating cancers to severe disability and chronic disease (e.g. kidney and liver disease) is bloody costly and intensive of medical resources by nature.  This leads to a Hobson's choice for many governments: either raise taxes to support their local populations' access to medical care to the level needed, or cut access.


Meanwhile, on the home front, William Galston in a recent WSJ piece,  has argued that 'Medicare for all' is a "trap", e.g.

https://www.wsj.com › Opinion › Politics & Ideas

As Galston writes:

"The Medicare for All proposal that became popular with Democrats on the stump in 2018 risks pushing Democratic candidates into a trap in 2020. A political party is asking for trouble when it embraces a position on a high-profile issue that most Americans reject. But it’s not easy for a party to avoid this pitfall when a majority of its own members endorse such  a position.

A recent Politico/Morning Consult survey found that endorsing Medicare for All rather than improving the Affordable Care Act did more than any other issue to increase rank-and-file Democratic enthusiasm for a prospective nominee. Fully 57 percent of Democrats said they would be more likely to support such a candidate, compared to just 22 percent who said less likely, and 37 percent said that they would be “much more likely” to do so"

And then we get to the "bugbear" in the proposal (ibid.)

"According to the most recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 56 percent of Americans initially favor the idea of Medicare for All, in part because they believe that they would be able to keep their current insurance if they choose. But when they are told that versions of this proposal would eliminate private health insurance options, support dwindles to just 35 percent.

But here’s the dilemma for Democratic presidential candidates: even when voters who identify as Democrats are told about Medicare for All’s impact on private insurance, 57 percent continue to favor it. The same percentage still favor it after they are told that it would “require most Americans to pay more in taxes,” a consequence that only 35 percent of the electorate as a whole is willing to accept."

In other words, the polls militate against Dem success for attracting the larger electorate, which is essential to knocking out Drumpf.

Thus, though health care has long topped the electorate’s list of concerns, including in the 2018 midterms, surveys suggest that most Democrats want their party to focus on fixing the Affordable Care Act rather than on starting a long-shot bid for a single-payer health care system.  The tax depressive factor on the polling is particularly nettlesome and tells me too many Americans are still blinded by Neoliberal propaganda that private insurance or the Affordable Care Act tweaked is the best they can do.  But this is tantamount to batting on a losing wicket- because both systems merely increase the high cost of care while diminishing the benefits of getting it  over time.  Besides, no one in his or her right mind can tell me with a straight face that private insurers will taper off their premium hikes any time soon. Projections from the WSJ Business & Investing pieces consistently predict annual increases from 8- 12%.

Galston goes on:

In addition, several versions of Medicare expansion enjoy overwhelming support. 77 percent of Americans favor allowing people between the ages of 50 and 64 to buy health insurance through Medicare. 74 percent support a broader plan that could be called “Medicare Open to All,” which would enable everyone to buy into Medicare but would allow people to keep the coverage they have. 49 percent of Americans “strongly” back this approach, and by a margin of 10 percentage points, Democrats prefer it to Harris’s plan. 

So there’s a way for Democratic candidates to square the circle. First, support improvements in the ACA, such as protecting people with health insurance from high out-of-network medical bills without advance warning, along with restraints on prescription drug costs. Second, endorse Medicare Open to All. And third, during the candidate debates, unapologetically explain why you oppose forcing people to give up private insurance and pay higher taxes.

 

More particulars: Senator Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All Act would scrap private insurance and create a new federal system to cover everyone; a plan from the Center for American Progress, a think tank, would create an optional public program that anyone could buy into. Meanwhile,  a plan from Senator Debbie Stabenow would give all Americans the option to buy into Medicare, say from the age of 55.  But let's not kid ourselves - that buy in would not come cheap - say $650 a month per person.  

Also Medicare, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is no "entitlement" or freebie as the Right's media loons try to portray it.  Your eye exams, glasses are not covered, and neither is your dental care.  Over the past two years alone our mutual costs for just the latter  have been around $5,500.  Not a huge surprise when you reckon one crown can cost upwards of $1,350 and together we've had three.  Add in dental cleanings, x-rays etc and well.....you get my point.

It is true that a single federal payer system — as such proposals envision — may well eliminate the waste, inefficiency and corruption that make the current system so expensive and inaccessible.  In such a system we'd more likely emulate the experience of countries like Canada and Britain that rely heavily on one government payer. But such a system would require dramatic changes from the status quo and would be a tough political sell in a nation conditioned to low taxation.

In order to try to scapegoat single payer systems we see repeated efforts by Neoliberal hacks,  like Scott W. Atlas, trying to paint it as snake oil, i.e.

 Indeed, I skewered one of Atlas' Hoover Inst. WSJ op -eds back in November.

But like a 'whack-a-mole' they keep popping up and have to be smacked down again and again. So no surprise in his latest propaganda effort ('Single Payer's Misleading Statistics', WSJ December 18, p. A19) Atlas attempts a new tack. This time claiming infant mortality and life expectancy  - by which the U.S. standards are relatively low - are "not valid indicators of health care quality".

Says who? Oh yeah, the Neolibs and their poltroons and propagandists. Well, I'd like Atlas to run that by a poor mother - with four other mouths to feed- who is unable to care for herself with proper nutrition etc. and then miscarries. In 2015, there were 6.5 deaths out of every 1,000 children under 5 years old in the U.S. That puts us behind 35 European countries, including those with median incomes and overall standards of living far below our own, like Bosnia and Macedonia—two Balkan countries that are still recovering from long periods of political instability. Oh, and we’re behind Cuba too.

So  WHO is Atlas fooling?  Maybe himself and the dumbest of right -leaning readers of the WSJ.

 As for the life expectancy trope he peddles, he ignores the dramatic effects on health before people even become eligible for Medicare.  Although Americans are eligible for Medicare at 65, years of many being uninsured or underinsured prior to 65 take a toll on their collective health.

Atlas also argues that "the U.S. has a substantially higher obesity rate than any other nation - a problem - but not one of inferior medical care."

Again, seriously? But I can promise Atlas that if I (or wifey) didn't have a diligent, caring female doc that checked our eating habits, weight, exercise regimen every visit we'd both be in the obese category as opposed to having lost over 18 pounds each.

But aversion to higher taxes and loss of private insurance isn't all on Americans since we've learned Doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurers are intent on strangling Medicare for all before it advances from an aspirational slogan to a legislative agenda item. 

As The NY Times (Feb. 23rd) points out the medical- PhrMA axis hired a top lieutenant in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign to spearhead the effort. And their tactics will show Democrats what they are up against as the party drifts leftward on health care.

They also demonstrate how entrenched the Democrats’ last big health care victory, the Affordable Care Act, has become in the nation’s health care system.

The lobbyists’ message is simple: The Affordable Care Act is working reasonably well and should be improved, not repealed by Republicans or replaced by Democrats with a big new public program. More than 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health coverage. They like it, by and large, and should be allowed to keep it.  Never mind that over time employers have fobbed more and more costs onto workers, as well as company plans with ever higher deductibles.

Naturally  the private insurers are nervous given the Democrats’ proposals could radically change the way health care providers do business and could drastically shrink the role and the revenues of insurers, depending on how a single-payer system is devised.  To give an idea of the level of hysteria, the Times reports a coalition of these capitalist misfits: the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, claims that 'Medicare for all' will require tax increases and give politicians and bureaucrats control of medical decisions now made by doctors and patients.

The tax increases ought not be a startling revelation, nor that we can't just tax the richest to get there. Middle class citizens will also have to bear higher taxes, but look at the payoff! A much superior health care system - analogous to Canada's  - and not having to face ever higher premiums, or becoming impoverished after a medical emergency.

We also know those railing loudest have used similar arguments that echo those made to stop Medicare in the 1960s,  Hillary Clinton’s health plan in 1993 and the Affordable Care Act a decade ago.  It's also clear to me the medical -industrial complex insurance axis sees no difference between the Medicare buy-in option and Medicare for all. Why would they? Both will pile on enormous extra costs and it's not even clear right now there will be enough providers.  The Medicare Buy in will be especially expensive if a lot of over 50s, or over 55s, enter with pre-existing conditions like cancer.

My Medicare costs between the first year eligible -  when I hit 65-  and was cancer free,  and the next when I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, probably spiked by over 150 percent.  Medical encounters that had previously been mainly for PSA tests, general checkups, lipid profiles etc. now expanded with needle biopsies, application of spinal anesthesia,   CT scans, HDR brachytherapy and other subsequent tests, biopsies.  It isn't inconceivable that many entering a Medicare Buy in system could 'break it' if they also enter with cancers, or were subsequently found to have them.

Should we just let all these folks croak? No, absolutely not. But they need to know a Medicare Buy in will be very costly and the tax system has to be adjusted to suit.   No longer can middle class folk expect tax cuts and government- provided health care benefits in whatever guise. Higher premiums alone will not cut the mustard.

The chief sponsor of the House buy-in bill,Representative Brian Higgins, Democrat of New York,  quoted in the Times has said: “The critics lump our bill with the bigger Medicare-for-all proposal. That’s strategic, and I think it’s deliberate.”

Well, it is deliberate, but for good reason.  What we need all the Dems who are championing these new Medicare programs to do is to come clean about the need for new, higher taxes. I suspect at least increased to the 35 % marginal rate. Oh, and no more tax cuts!

Rep. Higgins also said the option of Medicare at age 50 would create “a countervailing force to private insurance.”

Well, doh! Of course it would! Why would a 50-something stick with private insurance, even COBRA, if the Medicare Buy-in option means premiums 20- 30 percent lower, lower drug costs and no "pre-existing condition sword of Damocles" hanging over one's head?   But this is why Higgins must acknowledge the much higher costs of such a program even it it's not an all out Medicare for all.

Personally, I just don't believe the country is ready for Medicare for all (or a Medicare buy in) because  too many aren't ready to pay the higher tax rates needed to support it. (Probably increased to the 40 percent marginal level.)

Higgins goes on to state:

“Insurance companies are fighting it because they are afraid of the prospect of a potent new competitor that will cut into their profits. Medicare has lower administrative costs and lower executive salaries and could use its bargaining power to get better deals from hospitals and other health care providers.”

This is all true but these lower costs will still not make up for a much larger sick population, especially one featuring prostate, breast, throat, pancreatic, liver and other cancers - as well as chronic diseases such as Crohn's or diabetes.  (My three now deceased brothers' medical costs soared as their diabetic issues and complications worsened, including diabetic retinopathy for John.) 

Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan and the sponsor of the buy-in bill in the Senate, said she was not surprised at the criticism. “It’s a knee-jerk reaction to anything that expands Medicare,” 

Again, true, but also understandable because too many Dem politicos have not leveled with their constituents about the real costs and how they must be paid for. Medicare is not a free lunch, whether for the buy -in or 'for all', nor can we believe taxing the wealthy alone can cover those higher costs.  It is time for all the Dem presidential candidates to cease pandering to voters with promises of tax cuts, and level at them the real cost of a more expansive (and generous)  medical system.  And also ask them directly whether they are ready to pay for it!

See also:

Healthcare Policy

We Can't Afford to Keep Our Failing Healthcare System. But We Absolutely Can Afford Medicare for All.

And:

Sonali Kolhatkar

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (2)

Economic Policy | Government | Socialism

Trump Wants You to Be Afraid of Socialism

Clarifying Ocasio -Cortez' $21 Trillion Pentagon Waste Gaffe

WaPo columnist Aaron Blake (Monday) continues the Post's  "Pinocchio" campaign against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)  now claiming she "has made a bigger splash than any freshman in the 116th Congress — in either the House or Senate."   Quickly adding that:

"And a big reason is an often-overzealous conservative effort to knock her down a few pegs. The congresswoman has put on a PR master class in using those efforts to build her profile and social media following. (Her retort to the overblown dancing-video kerfuffle last week has been viewed nearly 20 million times.)"

So what?  I have seen it and have no problems with it.  The conservos bellyaching needed a good slapping down and putting in their place anyway, and Alexandria delivered it.  Besides, it's not the conservos'  business to "knock her down a few pegs"  - or to dismiss her as a "commie" because she belongs to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) like I do..  Blake then goes on:

"But she’s also shown a tendency to exaggerate or misstate basic facts. And her defense of this in a Sunday interview with “60 Minutes” was very bad. When Anderson Cooper confronted her with The Washington Post Fact Checker’s Four-Pinocchio verdict on her claim about $21 trillion in waste at the Pentagon, Ocasio-Cortez offered this (emphasis added):

COOPER: One of the criticisms of you is that-- that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios --

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Oh my goodness --

COOPER: -- for misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

COOPER: But being factually correct is important--

In the case of the $21 trillion, Ocasio-Cortez was suggesting that this was all Pentagon waste and that cleaning it up could pay for two-thirds of the estimated $32 trillion price tag for single-payer health care, which she and others are referring to as Medicare-for-all.

 

$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions ‘could not be traced, documented, or explained,’" Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a tweet that still appears on her timeline and has been shared more than 26,000 times. "$21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.”

Okay, I think it's time here to take a deep collective breath and inquire what Blake and the Post's "Pinocchio" designators are so worked up about.. In fact, it turns out Ms. Ocasio-Cortez main gaffe was simply conflating the magnitude of the Pentagon's accounting scams with actual money being available, i.e. for "Medicare for all'. This is based on the recent extensive investigative piece ('Exposing The Pentagon's  Massive Accounting Fraud',)  by David Lindorff, appearing in The Nation (Jan. 7, 2019, pp. 12- 16).  As Mr. Lindorff write (p. 13):

"As a result of the Pentagon's accounting shenanigans some $21 trillion - yes, trillion- worth of financial transactions cannot be accounted for. That number caught the eye of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio -Cortez who tweeted )on Dec. 2) to her 1.47 million followers that this missing $21 trillion cold have been used to fund a Medicare for All program.

However....there is no $21 trillion pot of money hidden inside the Pentagon. what there has been instead is a systematic, long standing, unconstitutional effort by the Department of Defense to feed  phony numbers to Congress and thereby inflate the DOD's budget by billions of dollars each year.   NO one knows for sure, though informed estimates put it as high as $100 billion - not enough to fund Medicare for All but a good down payment on a Green New Deal..."

So there you have it: Ocasio-Cortez basically was over optimistic regarding the money available from the Pentagon's funny money accounting gimmicks. For example, one method entails laundering "one year money" pools into "five year money" pools.   The reason? The unspent money in the latter (longer ) pool doesn't have to be returned during the 5-year period.  The phony numbers arising are then referred to as "plugs"  (as in plugging a hole) by the Pentagon's money wonks and paper pushers.

As Lindorff puts it (p. 14):

"Such nippering can be repeated multiple times - according to one Pentagon budgeting veteran- 'until the funds become virtually untraceable'"

Of course, this deplorable fudging of budgets and accounts didn't just pop up recently. Former defense analyst Chuck Spinney  - as long ago as 2000 (on Bill Moyers' PBS NOW program)-  reported on the Pentagons' accounting gimmicks and 'plug' rackets to the extent of being unable to account for $1.1 trillion - at that time.

Enter now Thomas Hedges who reported for The Guardian  in March 2017 - after Trump proposed a $52 billion increase in military spending -  "the Pentagon has exempted itself without consequence for 20 years now, telling the Government Accountability Office that collecting and organizing the required information for a full audit is too costly and time-consuming."   

Exempted itself!?  Are you kidding me?  As Chuck Spinney pointed out on Bill Moyers' NOW program, if a gov't  agency declines fiscal accountability we are no longer a democracy because the agency or department is no longer accountable to the citizens - the taxpayers. It is then a law unto itself, and we are short steps from fascism.  Lindorff himself also references Spinney's previous efforts at examining the mess, i.e. :

"For Spinney, the Pentagon accounting fraud is deja vu all over again.  Back in the 1980s he and a handful of reform-minded colleagues exposed how the Defense Department used a similar accounting trick to inflate its spending and to accumulate money for 'off the books' programs. Spinney recalls: 'The DOD routinely overestimated inflation rates for weapons systems. When actual inflation turned out to be lower than the estimates, they did not return the excess funds to the Treasury as required by law. They slipped them into something called a merged surplus account. In that way the Pentagon was able to build up a slush fund of almost $50 billion, or about $120 billion in today's money."

OK, so Ocasio-Cortez basically erred by mixing up Pentagon slush fund money accrued from sleazy accounting with a total amount ($21 trillion) missing from the ledgers on account of such a ruse'.  But she's young and still learning, so should be forgiven. I warrant she didn't lie (with implies intention) but simply "shot from the hip" in not really investigating the fiscal mechanics behind the shady accounting using 'plugs'.  In other words, she's not guilty of "Pinnochios" but rather laziness.  After all, it's not that there doesn't exist ANY money from the Pentagon's accounting tricks for social uses, only it just isn't enough to support a Medicare for All program.   What we do know is right now there is a desperate need to provide a much wider social safety net, and we need to find any and all means - including higher taxes- to pay for it! 

See also:

Paul Buchheit

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (1)

Economic Policy

By the Best Definition, the Poverty Rate Should Be Tripled

by Paul Buchheit | January 8, 2019 - 6:26am | permalink

And:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez | Media

How the Media’s Hidden Biases Feed the Right-wing Agenda

by Cody Fenwick | January 7, 2019 - 7:21am | permalink