Ad will collapse in
Elizabeth Warren speaking during the Iowa Democratic Party Liberty & Justice Celebration on Friday in Des Moines.
Photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images
Against my advice, Elizabeth Warren has given a specific answer to the question she’s been dodging in debate after debate: How would she come up with the tens of trillions of dollars she would need over a decade to finance her Medicare for All plan?
Her financing plan, announced Friday, has many components, but they can largely be grouped into three buckets. One is cost-control measures, like controlling payment rates to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies that bring down the price tag for single payer. A second is new taxes and better tax enforcement aimed at corporations and wealthy individuals. And a third is the repurposing of funds currently spent on health care by state and local governments, and by employers.
The “employers” item is huge — about $9 trillion over a decade in Warren’s estimation. Roughly, employers would be required to continue spending what they’re spending now on health coverage, but instead of paying it to insurance companies, they’d pay it to the government, less a 2 percent discount. In two important ways, this charge is different from the payroll taxes you might more traditionally see attached to single-payer proposals. It would be a flat, per-employee charge, meaning employers wouldn’t pay more to the extent an employee gets a raise or works more hours. And it would largely avoid creating winners and losers: Unlike a payroll tax, which would weigh more heavily than the current system on some employers and less heavily on others, this would give employers clarity and continuity on their health-related spending, with all employers getting a slight savings.
That said, in avoiding some of the problems associated with a switch to single payer, this proposal would keep some of the downsides associated with our existing system of employer-provided insurance. A talking point you often hear in favor of Medicare for All is it would relieve employers of the burden of paying for health insurance; this, obviously, leaves that burden in place. The large, lump-sum, per-employee health-care charge would remain a barrier to new hiring. Matt Bruenig also worries about gaming (that companies could avoid Warren’s proposed charge by converting employees to contractors or spinning them out into separate, small firms) and that could be an issue, but Obamacare already creates incentives for those behaviors and yet it does not appear to have had large effects in that direction.
This proposal is a kludge. I do not mean that as a criticism. Prior efforts at health reform have fallen apart over people’s fears that too much would change, and their own personal situation would change for the worse. Changes in a system as complex as our health-care system can also have unforeseen and unintended consequences. So preserving status-quo aspects of the system can make sense even if the status quo is not what you should have chosen at the outset. And what Warren has done here is find a way to largely preserve the status quo about who pays what, while moving to a single-payer system. This removes a lot of possible political objections of the “I, personally, expect to get screwed under this system” variety.
There is one key exception to Warren maintaining the status quo about who pays what: As employer payments are held more or less constant, individual payments toward health care would be vastly reduced, replaced by new government payments financed by taxes on corporations and the wealthy. This obviously sweetens the pitch to workers: Your employer won’t have to pay more for your health plan, and you personally will have your deductible wiped away, with the bill sent to some rich guy. Taxes on the rich and corporations would also finance coverage for the currently uninsured.
Warren’s revenue proposals in this area are a mixed bag, but I find some of them quite implausible. Most notably, Warren has doubled her proposed annual wealth tax on billionaires, from 3 to 6 percent. This proposed tax was already constitutionally dubious, and her advisers are overconfident about their ability to succeed where European countries have failed at assessing and enforcing such taxes. They are right about one key American advantage: We already tax the worldwide income of our citizens, even if they move abroad, so the tax cannot be avoided simply by moving away. I would be much less quick to accept their assumptions that the U.S. can do much better than peer countries at assessing the value of illiquid assets, conducting enforcement, and turning back lobby groups that seek wealth-tax exemptions (often with plausible arguments). Finally, 6 percent is pushing the level where billionaires’ income would be subjected to implicit tax rates around or above 100 percent, which could diminish the incentive to build the sorts of businesses that create billion-dollar fortunes to begin with.
Warren also makes very aggressive assumptions about our ability to collect more taxes already owed under current law through better enforcement. I favor increased spending on tax enforcement, but all tax systems have tax gaps, and I would not count on getting nearly an extra $3 trillion per decade just through a better IRS. She also hopes to tax 35 percent of the worldwide income of U.S. corporations, not just undoing the 2017 tax cut, but subjecting U.S. multinationals to much higher taxes on their foreign income than they paid before.
This proposal does not just concern tax havens. Suppose Procter & Gamble sells detergent in France, where it faces an income tax rate of 25 percent. Under Warren’s plan, P&G would pay 10 percent tax to the U.S. on its French income, so that its total tax on income earned anywhere in the world would be 35 percent. But if Netherlands-based Unilever sells detergent in France, it would only pay the 25 percent tax to France, with no additional tax either to the U.S. or to the Netherlands. This structure would put U.S. multinationals at a significant disadvantage when competing abroad, and also create an incentive for U.S. firms to sell to foreign acquirers to avoid this tax treatment.
UC Berkeley economics professor Gabriel Zucman, who has advised Warren on tax issues, appeared on my KCRW podcast, Left, Right & Center, this week, and he said he believed a U.S. move to tax corporations at higher rates and on their worldwide income could set off a movement by other countries to follow suit, avoiding the P&G–Unilever problem I describe above and leading to much higher global tax collections from corporations. The problem is, trends in corporate taxes over the last several decades have been the opposite: Other rich countries cut their corporate taxes earlier and sometimes more aggressively than we did, showing little interest in establishing a global norm of high corporate taxes.
Zooming out, Warren’s plan is a bet on a bold proposition: That a very large expansion of government benefits around health care can be financed without a middle-class tax increase. Importantly, what she is proposing is not nearly as large an expansion as Bernie Sanders has proposed, because her plan effectively does not eliminate employer-paid insurance premiums, the costs of which economists believe are ultimately borne by workers. But she is still proposing to finance about $8 trillion of new health-care spending through taxes on the wealthy and corporations over a decade, on top of the trillions more in spending on education and childcare she had already proposed to be financed with the first tranche of her wealth tax.
All that said, I continue to believe what I believed before this announcement: If elected president, Elizabeth Warren would not enact single payer. If she wins, she will either be working with a Republican-controlled Senate or a Senate with a narrow Democratic majority where she would depend on votes from senators like Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. There are many components of this plan they are unlikely to ever sign up for, starting with the elimination of private insurance.
Warren’s plan does not get us closer to single payer because it does not fix the fundamental problem with single-payer plans in the American context. Our high costs make single payer more problematic to implement here than anywhere else, because our high prices mean greater financing needs than you’d have anywhere else. Warren’s ideas about cost control, many of which are worthy, would start putting a dent in that — and many of them could be implemented without broader changes to the system of health-care financing. That’s where I’d encourage the next president to start.
Three Takeaways From Warren’s Medicare for All Payment Plan
Promoted links by Taboola
1:45 a.m.impeachment inquiry
Trump Reportedly Obsessed With Impeachment Coverage: ‘We’re Getting Killed’
By Matt Stieb
Trump is watching more TV to stay informed on his potentially impeachable actions. Outside of Fox News, he’s reportedly not liking what he’s seeing.
11/3/2019elections of 2019
elections of 2019
Off-Year Election Preview: Is It All About Partisanship?
By Ed Kilgore
Unpopular Republicans struggle to win governorships in red Kentucky and Mississippi, while partisan tides help Democrats in Virginia.
Trump Mostly Tweets Alone Because He Doesn’t Like Being Seen in Glasses: Report
By Matt Stieb
Rather than be seen wearing glasses, Trump dictates his tweets to an aide who sits in a “closet-sized room.”
Tasteless ‘Build the Wall’ Decor Seen at White House Kids’ Halloween Party
By Marie Lodi
Kids who attended a party at the White House were encouraged to participate in a “build the wall” mural.
Trump Has Been Booed at Another Major Sporting Event
By Chas Danner
The president heard both jeers and cheers at the UFC in New York, but they never put him up on the big screen or announced he was there.
Judge blocks Trump’s health care visa restriction
A federal judge in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday put on hold a Trump administration rule requiring immigrants prove they will have health insurance or can pay for medical care before they can get visas. U.S. District Judge Michael Simon granted a temporary restraining order that prevents the rule from going into effect Sunday. It’s not clear when he will rule on the merits of the case.Seven U.S. citizens and a nonprofit organization filed the federal lawsuit Wednesday contending the rule would block nearly two-thirds of all prospective legal immigrants. The lawsuit also said the rule would greatly reduce or eliminate the number of immigrants who enter the United States with family sponsored visas.
The Speaker’s warning
“What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,” [Nancy] Pelosi said at a roundtable of Bloomberg News reporters and editors on Friday. “What works in Michigan works in San Francisco — talking about workers’ rights and sharing prosperity.” “Remember November,” she said. “You must win the Electoral College.”Pelosi was careful not to back any one candidate in the party’s contentious presidential contest, but didn’t hold back when asked about which ideas should – and shouldn’t – form the party’s case to American voters. Or about her fears that candidates like Warren and Sanders are going down the wrong track by courting only fellow progressives – and not the middle-of-the-road voters Democrats need to win back from Trump. …Pelosi said Democrats must stick with pay-as-you-go rules to avoid adding to the debt, a point of contention with left-leaning figures who want to permit more deficit spending for ambitious liberal priorities.“We cannot just keep increasing the debt,” she said.Pelosi added that she doesn’t understand the race to the left among some candidates, because “Bernie and Elizabeth own the left, right? Is anybody going to out-left them?”She stopped short of endorsing a tax on wealth, an idea that Warren and Sanders have embraced as a means to reduce income inequality and expand the safety net. The speaker said she wants “bipartisan” tax changes that lower the debt and fix the “dumb” Republican tax cuts of 2017.
Signs of a wealthy way out in the UK
The super-rich are preparing to immediately leave the UK if Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister, fearing they will lose billions of pounds if the Labour leader does “go after” the wealthy elite with new taxes, possible capital controls and a clampdown on private schools.Lawyers and accountants for the UK’s richest families said they had been deluged with calls from millionaire and billionaire clients asking for help and advice on moving countries, shifting their fortunes offshore and making early gifts to their children to avoid the Labour leader’s threat to tax all inheritances above £125,000.The advisers said a Corbyn-led government was viewed as a far greater threat to the wealth and quality of life of the richest 1% than a hard Brexit. Geoffrey Todd, a partner at the law firm Boodle Hatfield, said many of his clients had already put plans in place to transfer their wealth out of the country within minutes if Corbyn is elected.
Stories about 2020 Democrats combined for 60M interactions in October — the most so far of the campaign.But it was still dwarfed by Trump’s 180M, highlighting how hard Dems have to fight against the current of Trump attention to get their ideas heard. https://t.co/yjCFQ4Z03P
the top line
Three Takeaways From Elizabeth Warren’s Plan to Pay for Medicare for All
By Josh Barro
Her plan attempts to avoid some of the pain associated with a switch to single payer, but much of it won’t add up.
Real Life. Real News. Real Voices
Help us tell more of the stories that matterBecome a founding member
Why Is the Stock Market Doing So Well?
By Josh Barro and Benjamin Hart
Intelligencer staffers discuss what to make of a bevy of economic signals this week.
Beto Drops Out
By Sarah Jones
The former congressman from Texas had failed to find much footing in the primary race.
Beto drops out
Former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas is dropping out of the presidential race, ending a campaign in which he struggled for months to recapture the energy of his insurgent 2018 Senate candidacy on a national stage full of other big personalities and liberal champions.Mr. O’Rourke made the decision to quit the race in the middle of this week, on the eve of a gathering Friday of Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa, according to people familiar with his thinking. He is not expected to run for any other office in 2020, despite persistent efforts by party leaders and political donors to coax him into another bid for the Senate.
11/1/2019medicare for all
medicare for all
Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare for All Plan Is a Smart Storytelling Device
By Eric Levitz
Warren has an excellent plan for reframing the debate over Medicare for All — and a clever but flawed one for how to pay for the program.
An expected but effective burn from Elizabeth Warren
👀 Elizabeth Warren says Joe Biden is “running in the wrong presidential primary” after his attacks on her health care plan.“Democrats are not going to win by repeating Republican talking points.”https://t.co/08K96uLz5m
11/1/2019the national interest
the national interest
GOP Leader Has One Chart Showing Why Republicans Hate Democracy
By Jonathan Chait
Kevin McCarthy doesn’t understand the Constitution, also doesn’t care.
Extra time for one of the blockbusters of the SCOTUS term
Supreme Court supersizes DACA argument on Nov. 12, to 80 minutes rather than the usual 60.
Delta’s Flight Attendants Are Trying To Unionize, Again
By Sarah Jones
The campaign will be a major labor battle during a pivotal election cycle.
Elizabeth Warren Isn’t Backing Down From Medicare for All
By Sarah Jones
The candidate released her funding proposal this morning, which includes tougher tax enforcement and draining a Pentagon “slush fund.”
Grassley Bumping Graham As Judiciary Committee Chairman
By Ed Kilgore
It’s got nothing to do with impeachment, and everything to do with seniority.
Andrew Sullivan: The Hard Questions About Young People and Gender Transitions
By Andrew Sullivan
The ideological campaign to affirm trans kids and teens, while admirable and often essential, also risks overreach.
Can Anyone Catch the Big Four in Iowa?
By Ed Kilgore
Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren are far ahead of the rest of the field in Iowa, and there likely won’t be more than four tickets out of there.
The Week in Impeachment: Ukrainegate Becomes a Sitcom?
By Eric Levitz
This week’s events made it clear that the impeachment saga is more sitcom than drama: The plot never thickens, the joke just heightens.
Everyone at Deadspin has now been fired or quit
And with that, it’s over. Deadspin no longer employs a single writer or editor. I am gutted but so very proud of this group of people.Deadspin was a good website.
11/1/2019the national interest
the national interest
Trump: The Soviet Witch Coup Has Found Me Innocent
By Jonathan Chait
That’s not how witch hunts or show trials work.
Subscribe to the newsletter news
We hate SPAM and promise to keep your email address safe