Economics

Elizabeth Warren Has a Fake Plan To Pay for Medicare for All

Warren claims total costs for middle-class families would go down under her plan, but there are reasons to doubt this.

|

In releasing a proposal to pay for single-payer—the fully government-financed health care system she calls Medicare for All—Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) faced two challenges. The first was to produce a plan that did not raise taxes on the middle class. The second was to produce a plan that was simple to understand and easy to explain. As one anonymous outside adviser told The Washington Post, her campaign "want[ed] to figure out—with one go—how to stop the 'How are you going to pay for it?' question."

As it turned out, she failed on both counts.

Warren's plan, released at the beginning of November, starts with the fact that employers spend about $9 trillion a decade on health insurance for their workers. She aims to move the private spending onto the federal budget, transforming it into government spending. Under her proposal, large employers who currently pay for health coverage would be required to pay a comparable amount, equivalent to 98 percent of what they now spend, adjusted for the number of workers they employ, in order to help finance Medicare for All.

Warren claims "we don't need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny to finance Medicare for All." Instead, she refers to this as an "employer Medicare contribution" under which companies "would send payments to the federal government for Medicare."

But there is a commonly accepted term for requiring companies to send payments to the federal government in order to finance government programs. That word is tax. Her plan is thus a nearly $9 trillion tax on employers, charged on a per-worker basis, with exceptions for small businesses. That would inevitably end up affecting employees' compensation. It is hard to see this as anything other than a massive middle-class tax hike.

Warren has argued that total costs for middle-class families would go down under her plan, but there are reasons to doubt this, including an analysis from Emory University health care economist Kenneth Thorpe finding that under Medicare for All, more than 70 percent of people who currently have private insurance would see costs increase. A separate analysis from the liberal Urban Institute projects that single-payer plans would raise national health care spending by $7 trillion over a decade, contrary to Warren's estimates.

Other outside experts, meanwhile, have suggested that Warren's plan will cost more than she anticipates and raise less revenue. In an analysis of the fiscal effects of Warren's plan, Avik Roy, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, estimates that she would end up increasing deficits by about $15 trillion over a decade.

That's because Warren doesn't account for the likely economic ripple effects her plan would almost certainly cause; instead, she assumes that even with an array of new taxes and fees on businesses and wealthy individuals, economic growth would continue without change. Corporate tax rates would go from 21 percent to 35 percent, which, as Roy notes, "would have a meaningful [negative] effect on employment and economic growth, especially in the manufacturing sector and other capital-intensive industries." This allows her to claim far more tax revenue than is realistic.

In addition, Warren assumes that by moving nearly all of America's health care financing to the federal government, administrative costs—the overhead that supports the actual delivery of care—can be cut down to levels that few independent experts believe possible. Warren also calls for paying hospitals 110 percent of today's Medicare rates, reducing the cost of her plan by a little more than $4.2 trillion relative to other projections. Yet faced with political pressure from hospitals, which are typically paid much higher average rates due to private insurance, state-based programs in blue states like Washington and Maryland have ended up paying far higher amounts.

For Warren, however, realism is clearly not the point. She released her plan after months of pressure to explain precisely how she would finance the tens of trillions in new government spending that even the cheapest, most implausibly efficient version of a full-fledged single-payer system would require. Just as World War I generals used wooden tanks to fool enemy infantry, Warren has enlisted a legion of implausible savings mechanisms and unworkable tax hikes, hoping to look convincing from afar.

Warren did not come up with a plan to pay for Medicare for All. Instead, she concocted a $52 trillion package of fanciful assumptions and unworkable reforms, and figured out how to pay for that.

NEXT: Brickbat: That Burns

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No mention of Employee contributions to health insurance? They getting taxed as well?

    1. Or the fact that ACA caused most business to drive towards a high deductible HSA based plan due to aca coverage requirements. This has already caused many people on employer plans to state the regularly miss checkups or refills on pills due to out of pocket costs. So warren would propose a plan that many people could not end up using.

      1. Checkups are free

        1. Well, yearly wellness checkups

    2. Notice how all that goes unmentioned? You can bet your bippy that America’s Mother-In-Law will tax the shit out of any employer contributions. And employees too.

  2. My essential opposition to Medicare for All is that it replaces consumer choice with decisions made by bureaucrats.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_necessity#Medicare

    “Medical Necessity” is the means by which Medicare rations care. The doctor tells my old man he needs to have a heart procedure. Medicare comes back and decides it isn’t “medically necessary”. My old man says, “If my doctor says I need it, how it can it not be medically necessary”?

    Every diagnosis, test, and procedure comes with an associated code, and there are databases that are updated quarterly by federal bureaucrats that will tell a hospital if and when a procedure ‘s code is considered medically necessary by Medicare based on the other codes in the patient’s case history. With diagnosis “x” and test results “y”, procedure “z” is considered medically unnecessary. I used to help write the code for the software that kept track of these rules for some of the biggest hospitals in the country.

    The bureaucrats who make these rules are often responding to logic and reality to prevent fraud–if your left arm needs to be amputated, for instance, the hospital can’t also charge Medicare for amputating a finger on your left hand. However, bureaucrats make a lot of these decisions about what is and what isn’t covered on the basis of political considerations. If and when Medicare is expanded to cover all of us, these considerations will impact the availability of care to you.

    Is prenatal care for single mothers in urban areas “medically necessary”? Well, it can make a big difference in the baby’s health, but, perhaps more importantly, if they were to deny such care to single mothers in urban hospitals, charges of racism would be a given. Meanwhile, there are qualitative considerations involved in every decision. Is reassignment surgery for transgender patients “medically necessary”? There are probably more political questions involved in that questions. The question of whether hip replacement surgery is really “medically necessary” when a wheelchair would also increase mobility is mostly just a qualitative consideration. Removing someone’s colon and giving them a colostomy bag may be more cost effective than treating ulcerative colitis. Why should transgender people or urban single mothers suffer a lower quality of life just so you can walk with your own legs or keep your colon?

    When consumers are given different insurance plans to choose from and the choice of whether to pay for the portion of the procedure insurance doesn’t cover for that hip replacement surgery or treatment for colitis (that will keep their colon right where it is), it allows consumers to make these qualitative choices for themselves. Is it really worth the cost?

    It’s a tough call sometimes, but I want to make that choice for myself rather than have some government bureaucrat tell me what I can and can’t do. Medicare for All will take away the ability of patients to make these qualitative choices for themselves and give it to bureaucrats to make these qualitative choices on your behalf. How can a bureaucrat make better qualitative choices for me than I can for myself? How can bureaucrats make better choices for all of us than we can, individually, for ourselves?

    1. I constantly hear how all insurers are solely driven by profit and are constantly denying medically necessary things to ensure their bottom line. Supposedly without the profit motive government run care won’t have that problem. Utterly ridiculous. There will be rationing. There has to be. With private insurance if I get denied coverage for whatever reason I at least have the option of seeking relief against that private institution through the courts. Suing the government? Yeah that rarely works out well.

      1. HMO’s were the ones who started doing mammograms for free. Turns out, it’s less expensive to treat breast cancer the earlier it’s detected. Medicare and Medicaid said that mammograms were medically unnecessary unless there was already some other test indicating that cancer might be present. The differences in survival rates between HMO patients and Medicare and Medicaid patients was so embarrassing, CMS finally relented and started giving mammograms away for free, too. If it were for the profit motive, that never would have happened–and how many other things are there like that?

        The profit motive only makes companies want to maximize revenue by increasing prices when they’ve failed to maximize the difference between prices and costs by minimizing costs. The reason so many millions of women survive breast cancer today when they would have died in the past is because it’s detected much earlier than it used to be, and the reason it’s detected much earlier today than it used to be is because of profit seeking firms looking to maximize their profits by minimizing the cost of treating cancer by giving away free mammograms.

      2. Precisely. People say they hate monopolies, want to break up big tech, big oil, big insurance. But they want to make the government the biggest monopoly of all, with absolute control over our most personal support service, medicine.

        Just ask some prog how much they like monopolies. After the spittle spew stops, ask how they like the idea of a government monopoly on their healthcare.

    1. You don’t have to have a link to the three little words, you’re allowed to say “Go Fuck Yourself” here.

      1. But can you say: “Cunt is insane”?

  3. America’s Mother-In-Law is a lying sack. I nearly died laughing at her faux outrage, “Did you just call me a liar on national TV”. The Bern should have just said: Yes.

    1. Leave her alone! She is a woman of color (flat ceiling white) and her ancestors (well, 1/128 of them) experienced what it’s like to have government officials speak with forked tongues. So while she is now a government official who speaks with a forked tongue, she learned it from those who did it best!

      1. Oh, so in other words she is just a lying sack. 🙂

      2. I would have gone with High Hiding White.

        1. Upvoted for Username

      3. speak with forked tongues

        How dare you besmirch reptiles like that.

    2. ““Did you just call me a liar on national TV”
      Yes. Are you deaf too or do you just never listen to anybody?

    3. The best part was Steyer

    4. Fox Business ran footage of her this AM from a 2007 interview stating she left her job voluntarily when she was pregnant, not fired.

  4. Why have employer provided insurance, when you can just get healthcare from the state?

    God I love the sound of that! Medicare for all, here I come!

    1. Lord knows all my other interactions with the state are such positive experiences, I can’t wait until seeing a doctor gets added to the list!

      1. Heading out to the DMV to title my vehicle. 90-minute projected wait time.

        I can’t wait for the same experience visiting my doctor.

  5. I bet we will save $2,500.00 each.
    And if we like our plan, we can keep it. (not sure how, but – – – – – )
    And if we like our doctor, we can keep him.

    There was a prophetic song with the line “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.

    1. The doctors will be singing:

      Got me working, boss man, working ’round the clock
      I want me a drink of water, but you won’t let Jimmy stop

    2. There was a prophetic song with the line “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.

      There’s a reason it is the greatest rock song of all time, and this is it. Year after year after year, we look at this mess, and we’re reminded of that lyric.

      1. So we DO get fooled again…and again…and again…

  6. “but there are reasons to doubt this”

    Understatement of the year

  7. So, she has a fake plan to go with her fake ancestry and her fake compassion?

    How very typical. Gods, but I hope we can avoid a Warren Presidency. Granny Maojackets von Pantsuit Clinton would have been worse, but not a lot worse.

    1. I’m not convinced Hillary would be worse than Lizzie. Lizzie seems to be rabidly positive of the justness of her socialist causes, while Hillary was just i it for the power and the opportunities to get rich. I don’t think Hillary would have actually cared much if a Republican Congress had thwarted her plans, for instance; whereas Lizzie would be foaming-at-the-mouth angry and vengeful.

      1. OTOH, Shrillary was an effective political infighter, whatever her motives. She couldn’t CAMPAIGN for sour apples, but she knew all about operating a scam in Washington. Dizzy Lizzie? Who knows?

  8. Obama promised Obamacare would reduce premiums by an average of $2000 for a family of 4. Instead it raised the premiums for just me and my wife for nearly that amount plus higher copays. And people thought the biggest lie was about keeping your doctor.
    Anyone who believes Warren is an idiot. She has less than 1/1024 percent chance of telling the truth on any given day.

    1. But she would be the first Native American to become president in American history, and that’s gotta count for something.

      1. I was rooting for Faith Spotted Eagle.

      2. Better Goldwater than America’s Mother-In-Law. 🙂

    2. But her followers have sanctimonious moral outrage on their side.

    3. Obamacare is awesome and any “problems” with it are the result of Republican sabotage.

      #IMissObama

      1. …and Kulaks and Wreckers, right OBL?

  9. You just don’t get it. Government is more efficient because it doesn’t waste money on profits to the rich. I can’t remember right now what percentage of private health insurance payments go to paying for actual medical care, but it’s a lot less than government programs. That’s because government doesn’t spend most of its resources denying care and giving profits to the rich. Which is exactly what private insurance does. So if government takes care of all health care needs, more money will actually go to paying for health care than under private insurance, and the rich won’t get obscene profits. And beyond the cost savings, there is a moral issue here too. It’s immoral to profit from health care. The only way to make profits is to deny care and take money from the sick and give it to the rich. That’s why we need to outlaw private insurance and let government take care of it all.

    /actual prog argument I’ve heard more than once

    1. Yeah. One thing that I have found really remarkable about left-wing opponents to libertarianism is that they really have very little understanding of what our arguments actually are. I think they literally believe that we just support eViL pRoFitZ foR tHe RiCh at all costs.

      1. There are two ways to attain wealth. Production and plunder. Production involves supplying goods and services that people actually want, which increases total wealth. Plunder involves taking from some and giving to others, which merely redistributes existing wealth. Thing is, left-wingers only understand the latter. To them the only way to attain wealth is by plunder. So when we support the creation of wealth, they see us supporting plunder. Because that’s all they understand.

        1. They also don’t understand the myriad ways to destroy wealth.

          1. The think the economy is like a well that just magically fills up with wealth no matter what they do to it.

    2. This argument is made by people who have never worked in the public sector or know people that have. If they did, they would have an inkling of how incredibly inefficient government is.

      Everything from using outdated and even broken technology, to overpaying for everything, to taking ridiculous amounts of time to accomplish tasks both because of multiple layers of bureaucracy and because even the slowest and laziest workers are guaranteed to keep their jobs, is characteristic of government.

      1. Profits are the price we pay for efficiency.

        Since government merely shuffles around existing resources while creating nothing of value, it by definition doesn’t profit. There is no incentive to be efficient, or please the customer (taxpayer). That’s why it sucks at everything it does.

    3. “government doesn’t spend most of its resources denying care ”

      Person obviously has no experience with the VA.

      1. Of course not. You don’t think that person is one of “those people” who would join the military, do you?

    4. Love the “immoral to profit from health care” proggy talking point. You just wait — soon it’s going to be immoral to profit from selling groceries, natural gas/heating oil, electricity, and any other life-essential service.

  10. The only way to reduce health care spending is to either (1) reduce the amount of health care consumed, or (2) pay less for a given amount of health care.

    (1) is a non-starter, there is no public support for reducing the amount of health care consumed. People want to determine for themselves what amount of health care is necessary for themselves and their families. We’re no more likely to accept the government telling us we can’t see a specialist, get a particular treatment, etc., than we are when the insurance companies do so. And given the developments in health care, where more conditions are treatable than in the past, we’re actually going to want to consume even more health care in the future.

    As for (2), there are proposals, but they only work in theory. Sure, we can increase the supply of health care providers, but that will reduce the quality of care (the same as when any professional sports league expands, positions open up for players previously not good enough to make the majors). There are some tasks that could be adequately provided by someone with less training and experience, but, per my above point, the public isn’t going to react well to being told they have to go see someone in the minors for treatment (there are reasons beyond insurance rules that lead us to seek specialists rather than GPs for treatment). Or, we can cut the payments we make to providers (“you get less, you get less”), but that’s guaranteed to reduce the supply of providers (as well as have the economic ripple effects mentioned in the article).

    1. Actually (1) isn’t as much of a non-starter as you might think. I was shifted into a plan with a high deductible and health saving account. Because of that I think twice before seeking health care because I’m paying for the whole thing out of my HSA. Last year I hit my deductible in the second week of December. Then the insurance started paying for stuff. Yay.

      1. The converse of that though is when you hit that deductible limit early and spend the rest of the year getting everything done.

        That happened a couple years ago to my family. One of the kids had a known procedure that had to be done, so we scheduled it for January. By February we had hit our deductible and for the rest of the year, we lived large. Anything we could think of to have done we did it.

        1. Lol, we had a friend get appendicitis on New year’s Eve. We all told him to suffer it out till midnight before going to the hospital for that very reason.

          He was able to get several things taken care of that year that kept get out off due to expense.

    2. Yeah, as for (1): there are governments including ours doing that to people every day: “Here’s your ‘free’ healthcare. OH, you want a second opinion or a different treatment? Well, get on a plane to Thailand or go fuck yourself.”

      People imagine that Medicare for all is going to be sending their doctor bills to the government. They’ll be in for a rude awakening.

    3. Well, theres (3), which is more or less only available to the free market: innovate.

      1. (3) innovate: create a medical marketplace!
        Deduct medical costs off INDIVIDUAL taxes (including insurance)
        Tax medical ins. benefits from employers (gradually)
        Encourage high-deductible plans – leads to price transparency
        Vet accuracy of medical go-fund-me claims – increase charity
        Results in medical competition on price/quality!
        Now that wasn’t hard, was it?

    4. #2
      This is certainly possible, by reducing the requirements for individuals who provide everyday medical care. A lot of medical care can be provided with minimal schooling, but they have to go through a lot of expensive schooling, as well as a fairly ridiculous, borderline hazing ritual to be able to provide that basic medical care. Medical care that in many cases, someone with something like 6 months of schooling could provide.

      1. It sounds good in theory, but wouldn’t work in practice. For one thing, reducing the requirements allows people who otherwise aren’t qualified to practice medicine. There’s a reason patients prefer graduates of top-name US medical schools over graduates of Caribbean based schools, it’s the expectation that one is seeing the best there is. Second, part of the reason for going to a specialist over a GP (and certainly over a RN) is the belief that one is going to someone who has been extensively trained in the particular field (i.e., pediatric orthopedics) rather than someone who is ‘the jack of all trades, master of none’. If I’m seeking care for a sore knee, I want someone who knows all there is about knees, and I’m not going to be impressed with their 6 months of general training.

        1. Thanks bernie. We’ll let you decide what choices we should have.

      2. #2 is happening already. Health care delivery is getting better. Walk into a Wal-Mart, Walgreens, CVS, Target – they all have health clinics. Why? Because the vast majority of health issues don’t need a doctor. An NP will do just as well.

        1. Heresy!! We cannot allow you to decide price/value for yourself. Only Harvard-educated specialist are good enough, even if you’re poor!

    5. One could also increase the supply of health care. But medical universities, doctors, and drug companies would balk. Apparently the profit motive is only evil for select groups on select days.

      1. Forgot to mention “Certificate Of Need” which is the sort of thing most progressives never seem to have ever heard of despite the fact that all the candidates they support for any office seem to love it.

  11. Hospitals are able to wield “political pressure” by providing a dose of cold, hard reality to politicians. The fact is that private insurance’s higher rates subsidize the HARD COSTS (think: electricity, nurses, janitors, and many, many more) incurred in delivering care. Cutting hospital reimbursement (a long-standing trend) has resulted in bankruptcies and closures of many facilities. The pie-in-the-sky plans, if implemented, may well result in “coverage” but NO ACTUAL HEALTHCARE AT ALL.

    1. This is the same reasoning people use when they argue that US patients should be able to pay the same lower rates for prescription drugs that foreigners pay – they don’t understand marginal costs. Hospitals can’t survive simply on the marginal costs Medicare and Medicaid pay for without private insurance and cash customers underwriting the overhead and the capital costs.

    2. “…The pie-in-the-sky plans, if implemented, may well result in “coverage” but NO ACTUAL HEALTHCARE AT ALL.”

      The Brits have a commanding lead in this sort of ‘healthcare delivery’.

  12. Warren should just go ahead and adopt the proper campaign slogan for her vision for Americans: “Believe, Obey, Fight.”

  13. There are no windfalls. Everything needs to be paid for.

    My township taxes were cut in half a couple years ago because they sold the sewer system to a major private-sector water company. Yay!

    But of course I’m paying a more than the taxes I’ve saved in my new sewer bills from the new company. Because duh.

  14. The VA is proof that government doesn’t belong anywhere close to healthcare. Take care of our veterans, assholes!

  15. Apparently progressives still believe that raising the cost of labor has no impact on the labor market.

  16. Paying for Medicare for all is easy. First tax all clingers atn100%.
    Second you nationalize the entire medical industry, and to make sure their productivity doesn’t fall we follow aleksandr Solzhenitsyn how to manual titles “in the first circle”

    1. Absolutely. Have the local commissar of education identify those 1st graders who show potential as health care workers and then put them into medical school track. It worked in Cuba, right?

    2. LOL….Reverend, thank you. A real pity you don’t post with your alter ego. That would be hilarious.

  17. “That would inevitably end up affecting employees’ compensation. It is hard to see this as anything other than a massive middle-class tax hike.”

    This is a disingenuous argument. It’s cost neutral in concept.

    1. If Warren proposed to take your food money to pay for guaranteed food stamps to everyone, would you say that’s cost neutral in concept?

      1. She is proposing to take money that ACME INC sends to UnitedHealth and instead send that to Medicare. That is theoretically transparent.

        There can be a lot of issues, but “tax hike” isn’t one of them.

        1. But ACME INC was sending that money in your name, making that UnitedHealth plan yours. If it’s a given that everyone needs insurance and you would definitely buy it if the government didn’t, then that was, in fact, your money.

        2. Well, for a lot of people, they will pay more and get less. For some, they will pay less and get more. On average (assuming the plan works), it will be the same, but with coercively defined winners and losers.

          1. I think government’s motto should be “We’ll make it a fixed pie/zero-sum game!”

        3. They chose to give the money to UnitedHealth and they could choose one of UnitedHealth’s next year if UH doesn’t deliver value.
          With MFA all choice (freedom) is removed because the money was taken in a tax hike.
          If the government takes more money it’s a tax hike. It matters not if they claim that the hike is to pay for something you were going to buy anyway.

  18. That would inevitably end up affecting employees’ compensation. It is hard to see this as anything other than a massive middle-class tax hike.

    Realizing that the tax does not completely fall on the party nominally assessed the tax is not a strong suit of politicians, evidently.

  19. Warren may honestly not think that this is a tax on the middle class because the employer is paying it directly. It is bat guano crazy wrong, but she and other progressives may honestly believe it. If it is ever implemented, I expect they will immediately start to complain about stagnant wages because they have little clue that all this is being paid for out of the same pool of money wages come from.

    1. This is really the larger issue here – that Warren is arguing her scheme is “revenue neutral” because instead of having your employer send money to an insurance company to pay for your healthcare they’ll just instead be sending to the government to pay for your healthcare betrays the fact that she seriously believes it’s all “our” money she’s talking about. Nothing actually belongs to you, it’s all “ours”. When politicians start talking about the national wealth and “in a country as rich as ours”, you know they’re either ignorant of or hostile to the idea that it’s not the nation’s money, it’s the individuals within that country who own the wealth. It’s the “you didn’t build that” thing that ignores the fact that, yeah, well, you sure as hell didn’t build it either. Just because I used the public roads to build my wealth, I was part of the public that paid for those roads, the government didn’t pay for them, and the government isn’t entitled to claim 100% of my wealth on the premise that they were responsible for my having some part of that wealth. The present tax code represents some sort of statement on the part of the government as to how much they’re going to charge me for the “privilege” of operating my business and to later decide you’ve changed your mind on how much you’re going to charge me seems to me to be something of a breach of contract.

  20. The fact that Warren’s claim that she will cancel all student loans by exectutive fiat on day one of her Presidency isn’t getting her destroyed in the media is further proof as it were needed of what Democratic hacks the media are. Constrast the treatment of that statement with the media’s treatment of Turmp’s pledge to build a border wall and making Mexico pay for it.

    That statement was ridiculed for months. It was used as proof that Trump was mentally ill and his supporters all morons. That plan may not have been politically feasible or realistic, it was at least legally possible. If Congress wanted to, it could have funded the border wall with a tax on reminiscences to Mexico and that would have been making Mexico pay for it. Trump could have demanded Mexico pay for the wall if they wanted to stay in NAFTA. There are any number of legal means to accomplish it.

    Warren’s promise to cancel student loans is not only blatantly unconstitutional but also potentially a felony depending on how she accomplished it. Her claim to be able to do it is weapons grade insanity. Yet, not a peep out of the major media about it. I guess they think it is possible.

    1. I notice that US citizens are still paying for the ineffective border wall sections being erected.

      1. In what country would that be? In the US at least detentions of illegal border crossers is down over 70%. Did Canada finally build a wall to keep the Vermonters out?

    2. Even if it’s possible, have they given the slightest thought to what happens the day after? Do they really think there will be no consequences?

      it could have funded the border wall with a tax on reminiscences to Mexico
      I know you meant “remittances” but this made me chuckle.

      1. He did a John!

    3. Warren’s fucking retarded if she thinks doing a jubilee on over $1 trillion in student loan debt isn’t going to have any second-order negative effects. Yeah, a bunch of liberal arts majors with useless degrees might have an extra $200-400 a month to spend on kunsoooooomer goods, but banks getting hosed on that much money all at once would likely tick off another no-shit recession. Taking that big of a hit would degrade their ability to provide loans and would cripple broader investment.

      Sad part is, Warren has a legitimate point about how the government is basically making money off of college graduate debt peonage. But a jubilee is the wrong way to go about rectifying it.

      1. What it would do is end private loans for college, who on earth is going to hand out a loan the government can just hand wave away with no consequence?

        Of course, the government being the only source for education funding is a feature for Warren, not a bug.

  21. Q: How can you tell if Elizabeth Warren is lying?

    A: Her lips are moving.

    1. What about smoke signals? (Or Harvard job applications?)

      1. I thought it was when she said, “How”

  22. Warren claims total costs for middle-class families would go down under her plan, but there are reasons to doubt this.

    Reason #1 – She’s never told the truth about anything.

    1. Native American? LIE
      Sent her children to public school? LIE
      Got fired for being pregnant? LIE

      A confirmed deceiver. As in “we’ve done the math, and it’s good…Are you calling me a liar?”

  23. “fanciful assumptions…unworkable reforms”

    That’s just the hook; when none of this works ou [“likely economic ripple effects her plan would almost certainly cause;…assumes that even with an array of new taxes and fees on businesses and wealthy individuals, economic growth would continue without change”] that will usher in phase 2.

    When those damned greedy capitalists and Kulaks try to spoil the game, it will be time and justification to take over the commanding heights.

  24. It goes with her fake ancestry.

  25. a common response lately has been that a”healthy” middle class person will pay the same as they do now. As a healthy person i have trouble seeing that these plans which having me paying my premiums, copays etc to the government are going to be less than the minimal copays i pay now.

    What I’ve yet to see calculated is any change in lifetime healthcare costs since people who tend to use little healthcare services will now be paying for these services for longer periods of time. rather than having occasional years of high contribution every year will be a high contribution year.

  26. Great Article, But extra pay for healthcare is not good and fake plan to pay for medication is also not good.
    If you want to buy affordable prescription medication in the USA so you may try the Canadian pharmacies.
    I am using the MedsEngage ( https://www.medsengage.com/ ) website for my prescription. It is certified by PharmacyChecker. It is a safe online pharmacy for the lowest price prescription.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.