Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren Responds to Ridicule of Her Medicare for All Plan with Major Revisions

Elizabeth Warren Responds to Ridicule of Her Medicare for All Plan with Major Revisions

The new plan has two parts and is dependent on Democrats controlling the Senate

https://youtu.be/YB3z7XKX-cE

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been criticized by both the left and the right for her unrealistic and uber-expensive “Medicare for all” scheme.  So much so, that she is in retreat mode now and has conceded that her big plan is untenable.


Warren released a significant “Medicare for all” modification in which she pushes back the decimation of the private health insurance industry for the first three years of her “first term.”  The new plan has two parts and is dependent on Democrats controlling the Senate, preferably with a supermajority.

NBC News reports:

Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., released her plan for transitioning the country to a Medicare For All health care system Friday, splitting the effort into two legislative pushes that would happen over her first term in office, but holding off — at first — on ending the role of private insurance companies.

Instead, she would pass legislation to offer new Medicare benefits to everyone first and then follow up with legislation to end existing employer plans by her third year in office, once the new system has a foothold.

. . . . The first effort — which would be accomplished through a budget reconciliation process that requires only fifty votes in the Senate and isn’t subject to filibuster rules — would establish a “true” Medicare For All public option. This would be free for Americans under 18 years old, as well as individuals below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. For others, costs would be shared under this plan, but eventually decrease to zero. Warren would also work to bolster the Affordable Care Act and Medicare programs during this early period of her administration, while also reversing actions taken by President Donald Trump’s administration that have weakened the ACA.

. . . . The second push — occurring “no later” than Warren’s third year in office — would move to eliminate the role of private insurance, save for in a select few instances, and would complete the full transition to Medicare For All.

The plan envisions that, at this point, the Medicare For All option would already play such a significant role in the health care system that it would be easier politically and practically to complete the job. Warren also envisions having passed a new ethics bill by this point, that she argues would make it harder for health care industry groups to rally opposition.

Note that the first part of this revised plan requires 50 votes in the Senate, thanks to the Reid rule.  Considering that there are not 50 Democrat senators—they have 45 Democrats plus two Independents to the Republicans’ 53—that’s pretty optimistic planning.  Perhaps she imagines that Democrats will win the Senate next November?  She’s certainly hinging her entire healthcare proposal on that unlikely result.

The second part would require the elimination of the Senate filibuster or a supermajority of Democrats.  As the latter is not going to happen even if the Democrats do manage to take back the Senate, the clear signal is that as president and leader of the Democratic Party, she will advocate the elimination of the filibuster to push through massive, economy-destroying legislation that cannot otherwise be passed.

Vox has an overview of the major actions Warren vows to take:

  • Reverse the Trump rule that allows states to loosen the ACA’s requirements for insurance benefits
  • Reverse Trump’s expansion of short-term health insurance plans, which are not subject to Obamacare’s insurance regulations
  • Block Medicaid work requirements
  • Undo Trump administration’s plans to restrict abortion access and weaken health care protections for LGBTQ people
  • Use existing government authorities — compulsory licensing and march-in rights, both of which could allow the government to revoke a drug’s patent if there is a compelling public interest — to allow the production of cheaper versions of insulin, Epipens, opioid overdose medication, and more.
  • Appoint antitrust enforcers to combat hospital consolidation and anti-competitive mergers of hospital and physician practices

You can read her blog post about this new approach to “Medicare for All” here.

Former Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE) has slammed her revised plan, calling it a further attempt to “muddy the waters” and noting that it’s full of “flips and twists.”  Biden, of course, is doubling down on the unpopular ObamaCare monstrosity signed into law while he was vice president.

The Hill reports:

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s White House campaign panned Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) new plan to transition the country to a “Medicare for All” system, accusing her of trying to “muddy the waters.”

“Having discovered how problematic her embrace of Medicare for All has become — its ending of private health coverage, its punishment of states and employers who have done the right thing, its elimination of millions of jobs, its tax increase on the middle class — Senator Warren is now trying to muddy the waters even further,” Biden’s deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield said in a statement.

“What started out as ‘mathematical gymnastics’ have been replaced by a full program of flips and twists covering every element of her plan,” she added. “This latest plan will also delay the introduction of her full Medicare for All proposal as far as three years into her term, after the midterms — a move that doesn’t exactly address the urgency of now.”

South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) calls Warren’s new plan “transparently political.”

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

South Bend, Ind., mayor and presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg (D.) ripped Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D., Mass.) new health care plan, saying she “still doesn’t trust the American people” to make decisions for themselves.

The statement, put out by communications adviser Lis Smith, described Warren’s plan as a “transparently political attempt to paper over a very serious policy problem,” criticizing Warren for wanting “to force 150 million people off their private insurance whether they like it or not.”

The far left, already wary of Warren, is upset that she’s backing off single-payer government healthcare, and the right sees her backpedaling as a sign of weakness in both the plan itself and in her political acumen, as fanciful lunacy, and/or as a cynical attempt to mollify concerned donors and primary voters.

It’s probably a bit of all of that, and it will be interesting to see if this two-step approach helps her or if her clumsy and disingenuous approach to “Medicare for All” is going to continue being an albatross for her and her campaign.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

That face just begs a paper bag full of steaming you-know-what.

She seems unaware that proper medicare relies upon 3 insurance plans, and all cost money: B for hospital admissions is paid for by a social security deduction. It typically cost about $150/M/person. C which is a private insurance plan called Advantage which pays the doctor and clinic the difference between the medicare allowance and a higher allowance set by the plan. Premiums run from $60-$400/m. D which is a drug plan whose premium is paid thru the Advantage carrier who also bargains with drug companies on behalf of their patients. These plans are near essential. Further, the medical insurance plans provide an invaluable communication conduit that would be impossible for an individual with the Federal government. I mean just look at these nitwits testifying in front of Congress. Conceited,totally clueless, self-important and dangerously unconcerned.
Lastly is the co-pay. Depending om the plan this runs from about $25 – $100 per visit, each and every visit.
Medicare is wonderful, but it is hardly free, even for those over 65.

    oldgoat36 in reply to puhiawa. | November 17, 2019 at 7:16 am

    Of course they know this. The push for putting everyone under government run healthcare, which was the ultimate goal of Obamacare, is it provides control over people.
    How long would it be till providers were forced to also deny care to those who don’t have the “right” social ranking. It is starting to happen in the UK. Its a test marketing to shape people into conforming or being denied service.
    This is a globalist plan, it has nothing to do with fixing healthcare which the left has worked hard to destroy, it is all about taking something most people need throughout their life and using it to control people.
    Costs skyrocketed with Obamacare. By design. Under her plan, no matter what she says, it is to take over records, to force doctors and other providers to ask questions (such as gun ownership, which has been made a part but isn’t enforced … yet).
    The left doesn’t give a crap about being “compassionate” it is focused on removing freedom because a free, thinking society is less likely to give them their power.

She put some lipstick on the pig.

buckeyeminuteman | November 16, 2019 at 11:46 pm

In 2010, the Democrats unanimously voted to make everybody purchase insurance. Now, they want to unanimously vote to eliminate everybody’s insurance. Who votes for these asshats?

amatuerwrangler | November 17, 2019 at 1:08 am

I seem to have missed the part of the program that moves all the Federal employees AND elected members of Congress off their current plan and onto the same coverage as we commoners.

Why are all these people who do not “enjoy” the benefits of Medicare in such a hurry to inflict it on everyone? Puhiawa [above] explains it. It doesn’t work well without the Part-B and a “gap” policy from a commercial insurer.

All this is nothing more than buying the votes of the Low Information Voters.

No worries! Promise everything go everyone. What could go wrong? Besides, its not her money and she doesn’t think of it as real money anyway.

How would ANY version not depend on democrats holding the senate?

Warren.. Destroying this country, she has a plan for that.

Today’s liberals … scratch beneath their lies and you find a fascist want to be.

God help this country should they gain power.

Awesome. I’m looking forward to losing my employer coverage (which I pay extra for in order to get the top insurance offered) in favor of inferior coverage through the government.

Yeah, Lizzie, that’s going to be a no-sale. People (well, Democrats) will say they want “universal coverage” or “Medicare For All” or other such socialized rot, but as soon as you tell them that they’re losing their coverage you’re going to find your support evaporating. And you don’t even know how to pay for it. Start the program, and then move everyone onto it later? You’re not going to get that, and so (like Obamacare) we’re going to be left with an even-more broken system.

    Exiliado in reply to Evil Otto. | November 17, 2019 at 9:21 am

    They don’t care if you like it or want it or not. It’s the nature of the left. They will “pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.” If they win, that is.
    So it’s up to us to vote next November. And make sure every one you know also votes.

I love how this crone even manages to throw a shout-out to the “trans” narcissist-totalitarians, with her “transitioning” to Medicare talk.

As a sitting Senator, Warren has the ability to send her plan over to the CBO for scoring to back up her claims. But she hasn’t. Why do you suppose that is?

    fscarn in reply to George S. | November 17, 2019 at 11:52 am

    In court, never ask a witness a question to which you don’t already know the answer, and have in hand the necessary proof to impeach that witness (e.g., copy of a deposition) in case you don’t get the answer you were expecting.

    And never ask a witness a question the answer to which you most definitely do not want introduced into evidence. Like a CBO score on your proposed plan.

    The manager of my account, at a major investment firm, recently told me that several of his clients, who are lefties, have asked him to structure their accounts defensively if it appears that Liawatha might be the nominee. “You mean, her policies would adversely effect your accounts, but be beneficial for the country?”

“The second push — occurring “no later” than Warren’s third year in office — would move to eliminate the role of private insurance, save for in a select few instances, and would complete the full transition to Medicare For All.”

What do you want to bet that the “Few instances” will be the Federal Unions, NEA, SEIU, AFL-CIO, UAW, all state workers? And of course, CONGRESS!

Warren’s “campaign” is looking more and more like a ploy to get the broomstickbitch on the ballot.

Warren, who is NOT Native American, is one of the few women in America that make Hillary look less awful than she actually is.

    As a bizarre thought puzzle, I contemplated with which of these two I’d rather spend time. I cannot imagine, in my wildest imaginings, ever wanting to be in close proximity with either of them. They are both humorless, elitist harpies who think they know what is best for me (and you). I cannot abide either of them, and while I can see your sense that Warren is less offensive and horrific than Hillary, they are the interchangeable to me. Warren just hasn’t been in the game long enough to be as completely reprehensible as Hillary in terms of criminality.

      Both are abject garbage, but clinton has her on crimes committed.

      Hillary clinton has committed treason – multiple times. Anyone caring to argue that, fire away.

      The garbage that she is aside, Fauxcahontas is a mere traitor in waiting.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend