"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.
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:
