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

As Predicted - Hillary Panders To AIPAC And Right Wing Warmonger Netanyahu

Hillary, our "quinoa and kale" candidate, bloviates and panders before AIPAC earlier today.

What is a panderer and can you trust him or her? A political panderer is one who will say anything to any specific audience in order to try to grab its support and votes. It helps mightily as well, if the particular pandering person believes the message being reeled off. In the case of her AIPAC speech, Hillary Clinton - an inveterate war hawk - meant every word. Strangely,  her groupies, especially blacks, seem unwilling to process this dimension, but will if she gets us into a new war (and has to do massive social budget cuts to pay for it). She unashamedly backs AIPAC's Israeli nationalist agenda and even supports the warmonger Bibi Netanyahu who has a thing about taking out Iran.

At least Bernie, kudos and props to him, nailed it by refusing to appear at this right wing Israeli ass kissing fest, despite being the only Jewish candidate. As he related to Chris Hayes, on his 'All In' show earlier tonight, he refuses to kowtow to Israeli nationalists (at the expense of Palestinians)  and the likes of Netanyahu who he described as a "right winger".

Recall that a year ago Netanyahu delivered an hysterical performance on Capitol Hill.  At the invitation of the Repukes, and with fire-breathing rhetoric, "Bibi" blasted any deal apart from total Iranian nuclear disarmament and - effectively -  demanded the only alternative had to be war.

Philip Stephens  in a Financial Times article on Mar. 5, 2015  ('The Answer for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu Is War Against Iran')  highlighted the total awkward impropriety of it all, in the form of traducing Obama with the Republicans. Of course, the Repugs would lap it up as they're always looking for wars as a means to ramp up deficits to decrease social spending.

What was most puzzling was how this unhinged Irsraeli jackass - who more and more resembles the 'boy who cried 'Wolf!' -  has any creds left  when the EU and most European states "shut him out" (according to Stephens) long ago. His rants became so predictable and the over the top rhetoric so absurd that they basically tuned him out. But not the warmongering Neocons in the U.S.

And as far as trying to upstage Obama, all that really happened is that it backfired in the minds of most sensible citizens. Because no matter the excuse, nobody one- ups the President in terms of attending a speech that he never sanctioned, but which a troll Reepo congress did - just to get back at him for his executive orders on immigration.

Stephens also observed that Israel's own security and political establishment - including former generals and other officials- had been critical of the speech and believed its only effect to be "a clear and present danger to Israel".

While most rational people in the world of realpolitik understand that the only chance to curb Iran is the one now being followed by Obama, the irrational warmongers in Israel and the U.S. demand all out attacks a la Netanyahu. It seems two major conflicts in the last 14 years  aren't enough - they want the whole enchilada. One wonders where they will get the money to pay for such intervention, especially as none of them (including Hillary) want to raise taxes on the Middle class.

My fear is that neocon war hawk Hillary is also itching for a chance to show she's her own "boss" - and can run with the males - so she may well overturn the Iranian initiatives set in motion by Obama (who she professes to endorse and "follow") by helping Netanyahu launch a war against Iran as one of her first acts as President. I could be wrong, but her moves in Libya, and later the Ukraine (to help topple Viktor Yanukovich) are not designed to inspire confidence.

Predictably,  Clinton blasted her principled opponent Bernie, the only presidential candidate to turn down the invitation to speak at the AIPAC conference, for promising to be neutral on Israel-Palestine. Sanders's'  is the correct stance, when you subtract all the hysteria and the only chance for real peace in the Middle East.  Sanders said he would pursue a “level playing field” in negotiations, something Clinton insisted she would never imagine doing.  The question is why not?

Is she a paid representative of the AIPAC lobby? Or is she in Bibi's pocket as a fellow war monger? Do her delirious supporters pay attention to any of this? Or are their heads so far up their fantasy land asses - to try and protect against "the Donald" -  they don't even care?

Thankfully, I am not a lone voice in the wilderness. Numerous progressive organizations and Palestinian leaders publicly condemned Clinton for her profusely pro-Israel remarks. For her shameless pandering. According to one observer:

"The speech that Hillary Clinton gave to AIPAC took pandering to a new level,”

As he continued, quoted in a salon.com piece:

“Clinton promised to never be neutral and yet most Americans consistently express that they want the United States to be even-handed between Israel and the Palestinians. When one looks at public opinion among Democrats alone, this sentiment is even stronger and sympathy for Palestinians is even higher. This is especially true in the progressive base of the Democratic party — indeed the future of the party — made up of youth and minorities.”

Meanwhile, the social justice group Jewish Voice for Peace, or JVP, which is very critical of the Israeli government and its oppression of the Palestinians, blasted Clinton for her remarks. Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of JVP, said in a statement that the discussion at AIPAC “relies on racist and Islamophobic tropes to justify unquestioning support for Israel.”

She went on to say:

"From Democrats to Republicans, the message is the same: more arms for Israel, a stronger relationship between Israel and the U.S., no mention of Palestinian rights, and no recognition of the impossible contradiction of being both democratic and Jewish when the state is predicated on maintaining systems of unequal rights and rule by military occupation,”

I am not certain, but I think Hillary may have just cremated her last chance to get Sanders's' supporters onto her bandwagon if and when she gets the Dem nomination. They have been enraged enough at the rigging of the primaries by the superdelegates but this AIPAC farce may be the last straw.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-grant/66533/hillary-clinton-backed-the-coup-shine-the-light-of-truth-on-poor-honduras

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/66577/the-clinton-trump-aipac-pander-off

Is Netanyahu A Paranoid Warmonger? Yes, Which Is Why He Needs To Be Ignored

Let us accept as a proposition that in the world we inhabit the laws and exercise of principles may never match ideals. Look no further than the ACA or "Obamacare" which ideally would have been in the form of a single payer system. But the version finally on offer is the best that could be attained given the political climate.   In a similar vein "waging peace" often requires nuanced steps and trade-offs, especially with a nation like Iran - which let us admit is not a palsied military pretender like Iraq (when we invaded in 2003).  Thus, the step-by- step current negotiations are more likely to have success than a precipitous response.

But the  latter is what we got from Benjamin Netanyahu two days ago in the Israeili warmonger's hysterical performance on Capitol Hill. Again, with fire-breathing rhetoric, "Bibi" blasted any deal apart from total Iranian nuclear disarmament and - effectively -  demanded the only alternative had to be war. Which is total insanity, and ought to be sufficient to see this moron taking a one way hike out of the leadership of his Likud party- hopefully in the wake of the Israeli election.

The Financial Times, in an article by Philip Stephens yesterday  ('The Answer for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu Is War Against Iran')  highlighted the total awkward impropriety of it all, in the form of traducing Obama with the Republicans. Of course, the Repugs would lap it up as they're always looking for wars as a means to ramp up deficits to decrease social spending. Call it their trademark. So we expected Boehner and his merry band of bellicose Teepees to certainly grovel and slaver as Netanyahu tried to give his best imitation of Winston Churchill. But most ''Murican historical numbnuts today forget Churchill gave his address at a time when the world faced a real threat in the Nazi Third Reich. As Stephens noted, it was bellicose hyperbole "indulged in by John Boehner" but on the good side (ibid.):

"At least he left out the crude diagram of the Iranian bomb he waved aloft at the UN in 2012."

What is most puzzling is how this unhinged Irsraeli jackass - who more and more resembles the 'boy who cried 'Wolf!' -  has any creds left  when the EU and most European states "shut him out" (according to Stephens) long ago. His rants became so predictable and the over the top rhetoric so absurd that they basically tuned him out. But not the warmongering Neocons in the U.S.

And as far as trying to upstage Obama, all that really happened is that it backfired in the minds of most sensible citizens. Because no matter the excuse, no one one- ups the President in terms of attending a speech that he never sanctioned, but which a troll Reepo congress did - just to get back at him for his executive orders on immigration.

Stephens also observed that Israel's own security and political establishment - including former generals and other officials- has been critical of the speech and believes its only effect is "a clear and present danger to Israel".  A take with which I agree.

While most rational people in the world of realpolitik understand that the only chance to curb Iran is the one now being followed by Obama, the irrational warmongers in Israel and the U.S. demand all out attacks a la Netanyahu. It seems two major conflicts in the last 14 years  aren't enough - they want the whole enchilada. Worse, they're prepared to even invoke the holocaust and in newspaper and mail ads - such as the one I got from AIPAC three days ago. But the hysterical rhetoric used is not designed to encourage thinking people of good will to side with them and so I tore up the AIPAC flyers and hurled them into the dustbin.

I've been a vocal and frequent critic of holocaust deniers and the Nazis (and neo-Nazis) but that doesn't mean I'm going to jump on a pro-war with Iran bandwagon when diplomacy is the only way we'll get a decent resolution.

Perhaps the most insightful and rational take on Iran was offered three years ago by U.S. intelligence specialist, Paul Pillar, in an essay in The Washington Monthly:

"More than three decades of history show that the Islamic Republic's rulers, like most rulers elsewhere, are overwhelmingly concerned with preserving their regime and their power....in this life and not some future one."

Israel, before it mounts its bombs to attack Iran might want to process that. They also might wish to look again at Principle VI under the Nuremberg laws, passed after the Nazis were brought to heel. Principle VI clearly states:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). "

The U.S. itself would commit total folly getting involved in another mid-East hornet's nest, given how it's already fucked up Iraq to a far-thee-well, destabilizing its secular government to the point the crazies like ISIS could enter and wreak havoc.  Leading to State Dept. spokesperson Marie Harf's observation (for which she's been pilloried by the Right):

"We cannot kill our way out of this war" 

Referring to the current conflict with ISIS.  Well, we certainly cannot if that means once more committing tens of thousands of ground troops - especially after we beheld how that worked out before. I mean, look,  as Einstein put it: "insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result."  So if we do follow Bibi's prescription for war, we have to be insane.

And yes, this is contrary to pseudo-Indy columnist Kathleen Parker's recent jibes: "It sounded silly" and  "it needed 12 pages of context to sound rational". In truth, it only needed a memory of recent history of how we totally fouled up Iraq by removing Saddam and ended up with over 4400 dead and  $4 trillion in debt - when all the medical costs are toted up. 

Do we want to go through all that shit again? 

As for making war on Iran, any nut or warmonger that entertains that fantasy needs to see the movie 'Threads' which concerns a U.S. and NATO strike force  invasion of Iran in response to a perceived Russian threat. Though the initial trigger may differ it is possible the rest may well materialize.

From the initial strikes on a nuke reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the deliberate exchange of two tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) and the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat and your ears tuned to the Siren sounds of would-be warmongers..

It should also give you nightmares and motivate you to scream down all the jingoist twits in this country with a boner to pick a fight. One might also include the Israelis in this as well, since any attacks by them could easily escalate and generate unintended consequences.

The last segment of the film - following the timeline after the missile exchange and when nuclear winter occurs, discloses there are some prices that are simply too much to pay. Most graphic are the scenes of the sorry victims of radiation sickness in Sheffield, UK and the final scene when a young woman that manages to survive gives birth to an infant with a frog-like face, scales and small scaled horns. As she screams in horror at her mutant, grunting offspring, the film pans to black and the credits roll.

DO we really want this future? Then by all means let's take Netanyahu's solution to the Iran nuclear problem! If not, we'd best ignore him and relegate him to the ranks of other crackpots in the past - like Barry Goldwater, and Gen. Curtis Lemay - the guy who demanded we nuclear bomb Russia after WWII, after they helped us to prevail.

Warmongering, paranoid crackpots will always be around. But that doesn't mean we have to pay them any serious attention.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/61233/netanyahu-censored-voices-and-the-false-narrative-of-self-defense

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/61228/congress-cheers-netanyahus-hatred-of-iran

And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/05/americas_war_fever_is_rising_how_fear_bloodlust_are_bringing_americans_together/

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/lets_all_pity_netanyahu_and_the_gop_israel_iran_irrational_thinking_and_thomas_friedmans_usual_muddled_nonsense/