nearvideo liberals call Sen. Elizabeth Warren Medicare-for-all plan
Even Democrats are to take note of the estimated price-tag. Dr. Vin Gupta weighs in.
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is facing a deepening skepticism, even from some in her own party, about your “Medicare for all” plan-how you can Finance not only the claims of the middle class will not be affected, with a tax hike, but even billionaires alone.
How Fox News first reported, Warren on Friday outlined a plan that costs $52 trillion over the next ten years, including $20 trillion in new spending — largely covered by a series of taxes on corporations, the wealthy, and employers in General. While they insisted that the middle class would be spared, Warren, D-Mass., went a step further in Dubuque, Iowa, over the weekend, when pressed by the Reporter.
WARREN ‘ S $52T ‘MEDICARE FOR ALL” PLAN IS REVEALED: CAMPAIGN, NOT A MIDDLE-CLASS TAX STILL CLAIMS THE INCREASES ARE NECESSARY
“It is not to raise taxes on anybody, but billionaires,” Warren said. “And you know what, the billionaires can afford it, and I don’t call them middle class.”
If pressed again, if anyone with under 1 billion US would increase feel Dollar net assets on a tax, she said: “This is not right—pay a penny more.”
“Understand. This is not to increase the taxes for everyone, except billionaires,” she said. “Period. Done.”
The Joe Biden-campaign fired back that Warren’s statement is “simply not true.”
“Their plan would create a new tax on employers, which said the nearly $9 trillion, the impact of workers’ pockets, a new financial transaction tax, investments, middle-class Americans, and a new wealth tax will affect far more people than you said tonight,” Deputy Campaign Manager and Communications Director Kate Bedingfield in a statement.
The Warren campaign detailed Medicare-for-all-plan-claims, a cost that can be covered by a combination of existing Federal and state spending for Medicare and other health care—as well as taxes on employers, the financial transactions, the ultra-rich and large corporations, and some of the savings elsewhere.
In particular, they contain what is substantially increase an almost $9 trillion wage tax on employers—something that can tell what the economists of the rule, the workers in the form of lower wages. Biden campaign argues, this is certainly the middle class hits would.
Warren’s proposal, as referred to, in Iowa, in fact, a tax calls for an increase specifically on billionaires, the expansion of an already announced property tax, to hit you harder.
However, the plan also calls for raising the capital gains taxes for the “top 1%.”
Even The New York Times noted this would be far in excess of billionaires, reporting: “In the year 2017, the top 1 percent of tax returns had incomes above about $515,000, according to the Internal Revenue Service of approximately 1.4 million tax returns in total.”
A Warren campaign spokesman later went back to her weekend statement, told the Times that the Massachusetts senator was referring particularly to your wealth tax proposal, as you said, the taxes would be increased only for billionaires — the recognition that taxes would increase for the top 1 percent under the plan.
But the campaign faces skepticism beyond the debate on the billionaire burden.
A recent study published by the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal budget explains, it would be “impossible” for the funding of such plan only with the help of taxes on the richest Americans.
And The Wall Street Journal editorial board appealed to other calculations, in particular, for their assertion that the plan to $20 trillion in additional spending, while other estimates are for Medicare-for-all, the cost is about $10 trillion higher.
“The $to Fund 30 trillion, but Senator Warren waves her wand and the bill really says $20.5 trillion. You can make the rest disappear, by writing posit magical savings from things like ” a comprehensive payment reform,” the Journal.
The Biden campaign charged that “Senator Warren has been lowballing the cost of your plan, which is far in excess of $10 trillion, while over-counting the revenue that would be gained from the sources that you identified. The bottom line? Still more tax increases on the middle class will be unavoidable.”
Medicare-for-all-the head of the Senate champion Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has pitched a plan, it is estimated that additional costs $32 trillion over 10 years. Sanders told ABC News at the weekend that his proposal is “far more advanced” than Warren’s, and said that their plan could be a “very negative impact” on the economy and job creation.
WARREN DEFENDS MEDICARE-FOR-ALL THE MATH, BECAUSE THE FINANCING PLAN FACES BIPARTISAN FIRE
“The function of health care, health care for all people, not to US $ 100 billion in profits for the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical corporations. So, Elizabeth Warren, and I agree,” Sanders told ABC News. “We have different views on how to Fund it. I think the approach that I, in fact, very much more progressive in terms of the protection of the financial well-being-middle-income families.”
Sanders has acknowledged that his Medicare-for-all plan, the taxes for the middle class, would, but, he argues, it is the cost of health care for most Americans would.
Biden even suggested to Warren to pay in a Friday interview with PBS. “It is,” he said.
Trump’s campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh blasted Warren’s plan on Friday as a “total disaster.”
“There are 52 trillion reasons why this plan is a total disaster,” Murtaugh told Fox News. “Good luck to the fact checkers, you now have to clean up the mess.”