• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Warren says she will soon release plan to fund 'Medicare for All'

Give them the soundbite. Bernie's biggest strength is that he doesn't care about what Republicans or the media think. I like Warren a lot but she is going to need to start ignoring this type of pressure and stay strictly on message if she is going to get the nominee and beat Trump. She can't let herself be on the defensive. That's how they win.

You can blame talking points and republicans all you want but that wont change the fact the 100,000,000 Americans get their health insurance from their employers, are happy with it and pay very little. Those are the people you will have to convince
 
Something I'm not a hundred percent clear on is if she wants to get rid of private health insurance period, or if she wants to eliminate it as the basis for what makes the PPACA function. Because if it's the former then that's politically nonviable, but if it's the latter then that's not taking people private health coverage away from them.

Are you kidding me? You can't have anything "for all" and leave some 150M people out.
 
She should just announce that Mexico is going to pay for it. Worked for millions of Trump voters.
 
Senator Elizabeth Warren's proposed plan, once folks get a chance to crunch the numbers, will be worth looking at. Meanwhile, we can also look forward to President of the United States of America Donald Trump's health plan. We have a hint about it in his own words.

“If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s all over. I mean, it’s no good. So I’m very liberal when it comes to health care. I believe in universal health care. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better.”

What say you, President Trump loyalists. Will he come through? How will he propose to finance it?
 
Given what I am seeing from these debates, it seems like ‘Medicare for All’ is a means to eliminate private healthcare coverage. Sanders, Warren, the lot of them may have a slightly different take on what that means, how it is rolled out, and ultimately paid for. But it seems only Buttigieg, and perhaps 1-2 others, are challenging that idea based of what happens to workplace private healthcare coverage for 150 million plus.

At the end of the day we still have the same realization to deal with. To win on this issue means telling the overwhelming majority of the working nation that they know what is best for healthcare, and Medicare has plenty of flaws anyway.

I'm not trying to be dense, but I don't follow why MFA necessarily eliminates private coverage any more than the USPS eliminates UPS and FedEx.
 
Warren says she will soon release plan to fund '''Medicare for All'''



Good. She's incredibly intelligent and competent policy, especially in regards to economics and finance. I figured it was a matter of time.

In regards to economics and finance?

You must have a low threshold for competent politicians.

What exactly make her so competent with economics and finance?

Please answer in depth if you don't mind. It will explain a lot about your naivety.


This should be good. ;)
 
Wait...wasn't Obamacare "the cheapest possible way to make sure that everyone gets the health care that they need"?

I don't recall it being sold that way. But honestly, the ACA should not have happened, its a useless kludge of too many compromises.
 
why not just use a portion of what we're already paying in premiums to for profit insurance companies to fund the new system? cut out the middlemen, and then use single payer to negotiate prices down.
 
BS response.


What exactly (in your words) makes her so competent with finance and the economy?

You threw this out there so you need to back it up.

You got my answer. :shrug:
 
LOL....what?


Obama promised us we could keep our doctor and save $2400.00 a year.

OK, that's great, but I still do not recall it being sold that way. Personally, I was never happy with the ACA.
 
I hate it too, but it's not gonna get any easier if she wins the primary, so she might as well figure out how to craft that message now. :shrug:

Bernie Sanders gave a fantastic answer to the question on Stephen Colbert, but here's the thing: he was given much more time to present that answer than anybody is given on a debate stage.

I think people are smart enough to understand, but the ****ed up thing is any correct answer will involve saying that taxes WILL go up, even though overall costs will go down.

And there are plenty of disingenuous "news" organizations out there who will clip "taxes will go up" and repeat that, implying it'll be more taxes on top of existing costs, until it's the "truth".
 
You can blame talking points and republicans all you want but that wont change the fact the 100,000,000 Americans get their health insurance from their employers, are happy with it and pay very little. Those are the people you will have to convince

I'm not sure what that has to do with playing defense. Part of convincing people is being transparent about the tax increase and trying to explain why it would be better for them. Every program any democrat wants to put forward will be attacked by big money because they all include large tax increases on the wealthy. Warren needs to understand that and blow through those questions instead of wasting so much time. Trump won and didn't explain how he was going to do anything. If you are on the defensive you lose.
 
Warren will have to thread an awfully small needle for this. She'll have to...

a)overcome the ridiculous narrative that paying an additional, say, $8000 in taxes is somehow worse than paying $16,000 in premiums, deductibles and copays, and simultaneously...

Only if that is indeed the choice that most people forced to pay higher taxes contend with. For those people with employer-provided or supplemented health insurance, that may not be part of the calculus. For those individuals and families who already have satisfactory if not excellent insurance provided as a benefit of employment, then this is simply much less take-home pay.

Of course, if one is arguing that middle-income families should be making less money in order for the Federal government to provide for the less-fortunate who may not have employer-funded insurance, that is certainly an understandable argument. But it is not really a "Your net costs will go down" argument.
 
Last edited:
as long as net costs go down :shrug:

True, but only if those individuals and families who face those tax increases were also facing those higher net costs.
 
True, but only if those individuals and families who face those tax increases were also facing those higher net costs.

I would have to see the proposal to know that. If could, at least, be partially funded through something other than a payroll tax, for example.
 
I can hardly wait. Should be a laugh. She's virtually dumb as a rock about economic and financial matters, although she has a good command of Progressive Poppycock in those fields.

Speaking of economic and financial matters how is Trump doing on his promise to pay off the national debt in 8 years?
 
Speaking of economic and financial matters how is Trump doing on his promise to pay off the national debt in 8 years?

Better than Warren.
 
Warren will have to thread an awfully small needle for this. She'll have to...

a)overcome the ridiculous narrative that paying an additional, say, $8000 in taxes is somehow worse than paying $16,000 in premiums, deductibles and copays, and simultaneously...
b)avoid giving Republicans the soundbite that she will raise your taxes, which is of course what all the fuss is really about.

Here’s the issue though only the sickly are paying that $16000 every year. Just for instance I pay about $1,600 a year and my employer pays $5000 or so. So why would I see paying an extra $6400 as a good choice?
 
Back
Top Bottom