Elizabeth Warrens - Tax and Spend Plan for Medicare for all

[starwater]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said that as president she would tap billionaires and large employers to pay the bulk of $20.5 trillion in new spending over a decade to finance her Medicare for All health-care plan, promising to shield most Americans from higher taxes under the proposal.

As a small business owner this alarms me. I have thus far support Warren for President, however, this may be a bridge too far. My business health care costs are outrageous and we can barely cover the basic plan with high deductibles with the employees paying for 30%. I haven't delved into her details yet, and I hardly think if she is elected that this would move forward as proposed. The current system needs reform. I'm not sure this is it. It's seems way too much tax and spendy for me. I think Warren needs to move more Center of left.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The CW is that M4A costs more, but many economists say it would be a deflationary event IOW M4A would cost less, not more than our current system.

Warren has been taking a lot of flack over the issue, since journalists only want to discuss the tax portion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said that as president she would tap billionaires and large employers to pay the bulk of $20.5 trillion in new spending over a decade to finance her Medicare for All health-care plan, promising to shield most Americans from higher taxes under the proposal.

As a small business owner this alarms me. I have thus far support Warren for President, however, this may be a bridge too far. My business health care costs are outrageous and we can barely cover the basic plan with high deductibles with the employees paying for 30%. I haven't delved into her details yet...

Then delve into the details! Better to see what she is proposing than trusting what the Wall Street Journal says she is proposing.

...and I hardly think if she is elected that this would move forward as proposed.

Another reason not to get alarmed.

The current system needs reform.

Reform in the sense it needs to be transformed substantially.

I'm not sure this is it. It's seems way too much tax and spendy for me. I think Warren needs to move more Center of left.

Too much tax and spend? The alternate is the government doesn't tax and spend and the consumer continues moving through the medical system completely oblivious to what anything costs... and spending more than we'd spend under Warren's plan.

In general, these huge $xx trillion (over 10 years) forgets to mention that we are looking at $xx+y over the same period of time with the current system which is riddled with more accounting than medical services.

I don't think we can just toss this on the 0.01%'ers either though. I don't think there is enough dough there. We all use it, we should all pay into it.

 

[PyramidHead]

What Warren is proposing here is a Medicare head tax.

The proposal is as follows:

Employers will be required to pay an “Employer Medicare Contribution” equal to 98 percent of their per-employee health care costs in the year prior to Medicare for All’s implementation. This will mean that initially some employers pay more than others since that is already the case in the status quo. But over time, each employer’s contribution will be gradually converged to the average Employer Medicare Contribution until every qualifying employer is paying the same amount per employee. Employers with less than 50 employees would be exempt from the Employer Medicare contribution both initially and forever. Independent contractors (and the companies who hire them) will also be exempt from the Employer Medicare contribution both initially and forever.

What Warren is proposing here, in ordinary fiscal language, is a Medicare Head Tax. This is a departure from the normal Medicare Payroll Tax proposals. The distributive difference between them is that the Medicare Payroll Tax charges a specific percentage of each worker’s earnings, while the Medicare Head Tax charges a specific dollar amount per worker.

Two graphs to illustrate this. In the first, note how the amount paid per worker is flat under Warren's plan, regardless of the worker's pay. To put it more starkly, the second graph shows that this means lower-paid workers will contribute a larger portion of their pay toward to the fund. That's a regressive way to fund a universal program.




Finally, this part is worth mentioning:

Separate from the distributive problems of Warren’s head tax, the two exclusions also make the proposal clearly unworkable and easily gamed. All companies have to do to avoid rather large head tax charges is spin off workers into independent contractor status or spin them off into firms with less than 50 employees that they then contract with for services.

Since what Warren is proposing here isn't expressed in a % but in a $, it helps create the impression that it's not a tax. It is a tax, though, and not a very future-proof one.

 

[KeepTalking]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said that as president she would tap billionaires and large employers to pay the bulk of $20.5 trillion in new spending over a decade to finance her Medicare for All health-care plan, promising to shield most Americans from higher taxes under the proposal.

As a small business owner this alarms me. I have thus far support Warren for President, however, this may be a bridge too far. My business health care costs are outrageous and we can barely cover the basic plan with high deductibles with the employees paying for 30%. I haven't delved into her details yet, and I hardly think if she is elected that this would move forward as proposed. The current system needs reform. I'm not sure this is it. It's seems way too much tax and spendy for me. I think Warren needs to move more Center of left.

I'm not sure how you became alarmed after having read that article. Here is the very first sentence:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said that as president she would tap billionaires and large employers to pay the bulk of $20.5 trillion in new spending over a decade to finance her Medicare for All health-care plan, promising to shield most Americans from higher taxes under the proposal.

You, as a small business owner, have nothing to fear. In fact, you would likely see savings if you no longer have to provide insurance for your employees. That would even hold true if you do the right thing and increase your employees salary to compensate for not providing that insurance benefit, as you are likely paying fees above the value of that benefit in order to have the benefit managed for you.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Separate from the distributive problems of Warren’s head tax, the two exclusions also make the proposal clearly unworkable and easily gamed. All companies have to do to avoid rather large head tax charges is spin off workers into independent contractor status or spin them off into firms with less than 50 employees that they then contract with for services.

Elizabeth Warren hasn't figured this out yet.

But the long list of tax and healthcare policy changes is seen as standing little chance of passing Congress even if Democrats gain control of both chambers, given the opposition from some moderate members of the party.

Really? So her plan is nothing more than campaign bullshit?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Stinks.

It's the usual garbage of tax the rich.

In addition there's the problem that it provides a huge incentive to outsourcing.

 

[ZiprHead]

Stinks.

It's the usual garbage of tax the rich.

In addition there's the problem that it provides a huge incentive to outsourcing.

Businesses will cheat so we should leave them alone.

 

[Arctish]

Separate from the distributive problems of Warren’s head tax, the two exclusions also make the proposal clearly unworkable and easily gamed. All companies have to do to avoid rather large head tax charges is spin off workers into independent contractor status or spin them off into firms with less than 50 employees that they then contract with for services.

Elizabeth Warren hasn't figured this out yet.

But the long list of tax and healthcare policy changes is seen as standing little chance of passing Congress even if Democrats gain control of both chambers, given the opposition from some moderate members of the party.

Really? So her plan is nothing more than campaign bullshit?

Presidents don't rule by fiat. They provide a framework and direction for Congress and the country.

Warren's Plan won't be implemented as is. It will be modified and changed as it passes through the House of Representatives and the Senate in whatever way necessary to garner sufficient support for it to reach the President's desk and be signed into law.

 

[Trausti]

It’s admirable how generous she is with other peoples’ money.

 

[Arctish]

It’s admirable how generous she is with other peoples’ money.

You could say the same of every President and member of Congress.

But I bet you won't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Stinks.

It's the usual garbage of tax the rich.

In addition there's the problem that it provides a huge incentive to outsourcing.

Businesses will cheat so we should leave them alone.

It wouldn't be cheating. Nothing about that rule says they can't outsource jobs.

What one shouldn't do is make a law with a loophole you can fit a supertanker through.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It’s admirable how generous she is with other peoples’ money.

If it worked as envisioned (I don't believe it would) it saves money overall. She's not being generous with other people's money.

 

[Trausti]

It’s admirable how generous she is with other peoples’ money.

You could say the same of every President and member of Congress.

But I bet you won't.

You mean the previous Congress that cut taxes?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Elizabeth Warren hasn't figured this out yet.

But the long list of tax and healthcare policy changes is seen as standing little chance of passing Congress even if Democrats gain control of both chambers, given the opposition from some moderate members of the party.

Really? So her plan is nothing more than campaign bullshit?

Presidents don't rule by fiat. They provide a framework and direction for Congress and the country.

Warren's Plan won't be implemented as is. It will be modified and changed as it passes through the House of Representatives and the Senate in whatever way necessary to garner sufficient support for it to reach the President's desk and be signed into law.

Yeah, right down to a public option we never got with the original ACA. A future friendly Congress is not going to let a hard left administration toss what has shown to be a resilient ACA out with the bath water. We are not starting over. We'll move toward M4A depending on how well a future public option is built out and popularized but I don't see any scenario where we start with a clean slate. Elizabeth Warren can gnash her teeth and Bernie can pull out what remains of his hair. If it happens, it will happen organically through a popular public option. That is our best path.

 

[starwater]

I do believe that only the government can end the healthcare extortion of the American people. The capitalism marketplace solution is to line the pockets of big pharma and insurance providers with over the top medical expenses. The corporate blood money needs to be squeezed and legislated out of the system.

I think Warrens plan is rough around the edges, but it attacks health care extortion and ripoff at its core. The left wing Greed Over People (GOP) will continue to math deny and tax scaremonger their followers, because their pockets are lined with the medical extortion money.

 

[scombrid]

Stinks.

It's the usual garbage of tax the rich.

In addition there's the problem that it provides a huge incentive to outsourcing.

Costs me 15k to Anthem to cover a $35k/yr employee with family coverage. Warren type reform reduces that cost if it is done right.

 

[southernhybrid]

One problem with her pain, which I see no possibility of becoming law, is that her estimate of 20.5 trillion is way less than what most economists predict. It's been estimated that M for A would cost about 34.5 trillion over ten years, so what if she is way under estimating the cost of things? I could list many other problems with it, but it's not worth my time. It's. not gonna happen. It would be wiser and more realistic to work on what we have now and bring in a public option, increase Medicaid spending or combine Medicaid with Medicare etc. Work on gradually making insurance plans non profit, like a lot of other countries do, or put limits on the amount that companies can charge etc. UHC can be accomplished without single payer. I don't even get the attraction to single payer.

Imo, the most sensible thing to do at first, would be to work at bringing down the cost of drugs. Sure, there are many affordable generics, but some life saving drugs like Insulin, pulmonary inhalers, and cancer drugs, to name a few, are insanely priced. If that can't be fixed, why would anyone be gullible enough to believe that we can change the entire mess that we currently have into the type of coverage that Warren or Sanders support. If you think Warren would make a good president, but don't like her idealistic goals, don't worry. She can't get anything done without the cooperation of Congress, and more than half of the Democrats are moderates, plus Republicans aren't going away.

And, something that nobody has even mentioned, is the enormous amount of waste, fraud and abuse in the current Medicare system. It would take an enormous amount of effort to drastically limit that problem. It can be very easy to order unnecessary tests, procedures, and over utilize care in the current system. That's just abuse, but outright fraud has also been a big problem. Quite a few doctors have been caught this year bilking Medicare for millions. Think about all the ones who haven't been caught, not to mention hospitals, and other types of providers of care. How do you change that? I'd like to see realistic plans for these problems before we pretend that we can radically overhaul our entire health care system. Just stating some of my concerns.

 

[zorq]

It’s admirable how generous she is with other peoples’ money.

You could say the same of every President and member of Congress.

But I bet you won't.

You mean the previous Congress that cut taxes?

Yeah, exactly ! And I' m not bing sarcastic. I'm sick of the tax cut that will come out of the roads, infrastructure and social security that I plan on using in 30 years going instead to old farts who don't think they will be alive in 30 years. I know that gives Trumpsuckers a hard on but it makes me sick.

Republicans are so generous with the money grifted from the young and unenfranchised. Stealing candy from babies.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You mean the previous Congress that cut taxes?

Yeah, exactly ! And I' m not bing sarcastic. I'm sick of the tax cut that will come out of the roads, infrastructure and social security that I plan on using in 30 years going instead to old farts who don't think they will be alive in 30 years. I know that gives Trumpsuckers a hard on but it makes me sick.

Republicans are so generous with the money grifted from the young and unenfranchised. Stealing candy from babies.

Is it your view that the republicans are cutting spending?