Elizabeth Warren came out for making private insurance illegal.

[LAS14]

This happened in the first debate when all were asked, "Do you want to make private insurance illegal, raise your hand." (or words to that effect.) She and Bernie and, I THINK, de Blasio, raised their hands. It's been talked about a lot since, because it was the first time she came out clearly with that position.

I'm posting this because I alluded to it in another post and most responders didn't know this had happened, and didn't know that making it illegal has long been Sanders position and now is Warrens. I didn't even know ANYONE held that position. I think it's nuts, but I like Warren on all other fronts. I think she made a mistake but I don't see how she can back out of it.

Anyway, I made this post so people will get the facts.

[Turin_C3PO]

1. I posted this in the other thread but

if anyone can sell Medicare 4 All to the general public, it’s Elizabeth Warren. She’s very persuasive.

[LAS14]

2. In another OP I asked if anyone knew her answer to...

... the proposition that small hospitals would go broke if they only received current Medicare rates (and "current" rates is part of some bill or proposal.) Didn't get an answer.

[Turin_C3PO]

3. I'm not sure either.

Only solution I see is to raise the rates sufficiently.

[MichMan]

4. Some would say that the medical industry is gouging sick people, so I don't think those people care

[questionseverything]

11. hospitals will have to be supported in different ways

2 points about employer paid insurance

it isn't fair because employees do not pay taxes on the value of that insurance...where the self employed or peops that are not covered thru work have to pay taxes on their money before they pay their premiums

the 2nd point is, the way things are now, insurance companies make a fortune when their customers are young and healthy and push them out when they are older and actually need care

[LiberalFighter]

13. It isn't fair to major employers with health care coverage

when spouses of their employees opt to be on major employer's coverage instead of their own employer.

[questionseverything]

14. what is not fair is that neither employee pays taxes on that benefit

n/t

[MichMan]

19. Any other employee benefits that you think should be taxed?

[questionseverything]

20. not off the top of my head

why do you think self employed and people with out employee benefits should be taxed when others are not?

there is nothing wrong with an even playing feild

[Politicub]

21. I agree. Employees should not get a tax advantaged fringe benefit of

insurance that the self-employed do not.

There are so many 1099 employees now. It’s already difficult for them because they also have the self-employment tax.

1099 and gig economy workers would greatly benefit from a Medicare for all plan.

[MichMan]

30. So employees should be taxed on the value of all other benefits...

Things like tuition reimbursement, legal services, child care, fitness programs that are provided by some employers is what I am hearing.

[Politicub]

40. I think there should be equity between 1099 employees and

salaried employees.

I know we don’t live in an equal society. People cling to their advantages. Can’t blame them for that.

But they are not more deserving of them than other workers. Companies are hiring more freelancers because they don’t have to pay them benefits. Your job may be next.

The best solution would be a society shaped liked the one Warren envisions. It provides people equal opportunity and equals the playing field for most of the benefits you list. It removes the taxation question. But until then, total compensation for employees is an advantage that a growing proportion of corporate employees classified as freelancers or 1099 workers do not get.

[questionseverything]

64. people cling to their advantages...truer words were never spoken

while we don't live in an equal society the way the govt taxes incomes should be equal

[Demsrule86]

32. I can't think of a quicker way to lose than to run on destroyoing employer

insurance.

[Politicub]

41. My opinion means nothing in the grand scheme of things

I don’t influence anyone. The best I can do is GOTV for the democratic nominee. That’s the most impactful thing that most of us can do.

At the same time, I’m not going to sit in a corner and stop advocating for a more progressive society.

Throwing your sentiment back at you: if you don’t allow space for divergent and progressive views in the democratic coalition, you will lose voters.

The reason why I don’t get excited by the prospect of Biden presidency today is that I want to see more progressive actions by the next administration. Beating Trump is important. And if Biden is the nominee, I will get excited about him. Until then, I’m just not. Sorry.

[Demsrule86]

44. A presidential election is not the time to advocate for unpopular legislation...not if you want to

win. I want a better society too...but overplaying a potentially winning hand by forgetting how we have actually won in the past won't help us...we can't allow Trump to win another term.

[Politicub]

46. We will need to agree to disagree then.

Elections are one of the rare opportunities to get the country thinking about a new idea. They don’t come around very often. So you do your thing and I’ll do mine.

[Demsrule86]

47. The purpose of an election is to beat the other guy...and exploring issues that

cause harm to our election efforts is simply not wise IMHO. We can agree to disagree of course.

[emmaverybo]

54. Self-employed is not synonymous with needy. Although admittedly some self-employed are

independent contractors, struggling to eke out from job to job, quite a few make a good living—think building contractors—do not report all taxed income, can do a seizable part of their biz on a cash basis, and benefit from not working for “The Man/Woman,” so they choose not to.

Working for a company that gives you a good benefit program often is more competitive, far less flexible as to hours and vacation time, means you go by some manual as to your conduct, and
is hierarchical to the extent that if someone in management gets it in for you, you are fired. A price is paid for benefits in payroll tax and in freedom.

I don’t say self-employed should not have health coverage. The gig economy needs regulation. There’s exploitive abuse of indies. There is the need to cover folks working for businesses that do not under the law have to cover them.

But tax health benefits? No.

[questionseverything]

63. i never said being self employed equals needy and i dont agree with you that many self emplyed

are criminals that don't report their income but


it should be an even playing field, if employees don't have to pay taxes on certain benefits then those same costs should be tax deductible for the self employed

[emmaverybo]

65. My husband is a contractor. That many home and building services conduct some business on a

discounted cash basis I don’t consider criminal and not all by law must be declared.

My point is we do not need to tax healthcare benefits and should not do so. The are a part of the whole package offered to an employee, often with employers’ having already computed in the value along with salary offered.

I don’t know how taxing healthcare benefits addresses the issue of universal healthcare or current income inequalities.

[questionseverything]

66. first of all, i would love to know how any income can remain undeclared legally

seriously if you can show me and others reading this how that can be done legally I would appreciate it

the playing field could be evened by allowing the self employed or the employed w/o benefits to deduct those medical costs or by taxing employees with those benefits ,either way evens the playing field



I am guessing that since you don't want those health care benefits taxes, you receive those benefits for you and your contractor husband?

[emmaverybo]

67. Your answer is fuzzy. Let's aim for universal healthcare. Cutting the value of healthcare benefits

for working Americans will only make it more difficult for them. Many pay high premiums, have plans with a deductible, and pay out of pocket medical expenses they are unable to write off.

[questionseverything]

68. you didnt answer either of my questions...

"working Americans"?

the self employed and the employees without benefits are working Americans too

high premiums, deductibles, out of pocket expenses, all should be tax deductible for regular people since they are tax deductible for big businesses that provide them for their employees


I understand people do not want to give up the advantage they have but it is not fair

we cant have a discussion about leveling the playing feild if we dont first admit the truth

[emmaverybo]

69. I don't think any Democratic primary candidate is proposing to tax healthcare benefits so this

is a non-issue. Our ultimate Democratic nominee will not suggest leveling the playing field
through taxing healthcare benefits.

I have said all I will on the subject.

[Politicub]

22. Hospitals are already closing in rural areas

MFA could be conceived in such a way that more stay open.

Making a profit off of people who are ill is immoral.

[Demsrule86]

33. MFA will include premiums and higher taxes and will cost people with employer insurance

way more money...and to add insult to injury, we have to get private insurance to cover the 20%...It is a bad idea. Next more taxes for us to shore up the hospitals....and MFA will never get passed in a million years. We will be luck to fix the ACA with our senate prospects .

[Politicub]

42. The status quo is worse. Nibbling at the edges won't solve the healthcare

problem in the long term.

Medicare for all who want it is a start. It isn’t a panacea, though.

Obamacare was far better than what we had before. And I want the next administration to make it even better. At the end of the day, though, I remain in favor of single payer for everyone.

[Demsrule86]

43. It could be much worse...it was hell trying to implement the ACA...have you looked at the Senate map

It is unlikely we win the Senate...I hope we do but it is going to be tough...People won't vote for us if we run on this thus it won't matter as Trump get four more years to destroy all health care.

[ooky]

24. This is the elephant in the room.

Nobody knows what it actually is, with respect to this question, and all the other many, many other unanswered questions about what it is, what it will cost, and what impact it will have on everyone's current health insurance and health care costs.

[SouthernProgressive]

25. It's far more complicated that the scope of your question.

1) How much do hospitals lose each year because of unpaid bills?

2) How much will hospitals save from not having to deal with issues that should be dealt with by a primary care doctor?

3) How much will hospital billing departments save by not having to deal with dozens of insurance companies with different policies.

4) Medicare 4 All, as is being sold by some, is not medicare.

I don't currently support the idea of Medicare 4 All. I do support a single payer system. Just calling it medicare for all is a bad idea to those of us who understand medicare. That said, there is so much more to pricing than the one metric you bring up.

[LanternWaste]

50. That often happens when we're too lazy to do our own research.

"Didn't get an answer."

That often happens when we're too lazy to do our own research (though of course, we'll quickly rationalize our laziness as something other than what it is)

[AlexSFCA]

5. I'm not sure it's constitutional

ACA was always supposed to have public option but if you remember it was blocked. IMO, Biden is 100% correct by saying we need to protect and expand ACA by offering public option which is essentially medicare buy-in and then see how it scales up.
However, generally speaking, it is absurd that we are not automatically enrolled into health insurance upon birth. We are given SSN and I think that should enroll you into universal health care like most other countries. Parents may not have jobs that offer adequate health insurance to cover kids but it’s not kids’ fault.
Either, we start a revolution - nationalizing health insurance which may require expanding/rotating SC or we do it gradually.

[ooky]

16. Pete said it best last night when he said its about

getting from point A to point B. Dismantling this behemoth insurance based system we have now for fully nationalized health care will take a series of steps over a broad period of time until we reach the goal. That's why I have pretty much narrowed my choices down to Pete and Joe, and I don't want anyone on the ticket who's pushing the MFA slogan at this time.

[Demsrule86]

37. It was blocked by Lieberman...and not voted on...it never was evaluated in court.

[LiberalLovinLug]

6. Sounds like a gotcha question

Because it conjures up images of Soviet Stalinist policies of stealing businesses from private owners. Or closer, to the Cuban revolution, and the confiscation of private property. Whomever asked this set up the Republicans with some ad fodder.

[Blue_true]

9. That is howI feel about the question.

Did Chuck Todd ask it?

[tishaLA]

12. No, it was one of the moderators in the first hour. Maybe Mr Holt?

I don't remember, but it was one of the first, if not the very first, question.

[Blue_true]

7. Honestly, I think the question was a very poor one.

It was a digital yes or no question for a subject that has a lot of granularity to it. Warren does not have to be for abolishing private insurance, she could be for making private insurance work better for policyholders, but the question pigeonholed candidates.

[Docreed2003]

18. But there is truth in the question

Because the current Medicare for All Senate Bill does in fact outlaw private insurance. I don't think it's unfair to ask that question. Perhaps a better approach is that they should have been ask if they support that language of the bill.

[DrToast]

31. I'll give Warren credit for being consistent

I think there's several candidates aren't aware they co-sponsored a bill that does get rid of private insurance.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/cosponsors

[Docreed2003]

38. I think you're exactly right

And I too applaud Sen Warren for her consistency

[TheFarseer]

8. Worst question phrasing EVER

I'm sure Bernie and Elizabeth are going to lock up anyone offering private insurance for 30 years with no possibility of parole. I mean, why did they phrase it like that? It sounds like a push poll question. I'm not even necessarily for Medicare for all. I just want a real national conversation about it.

[KayF]

58. they didn't phrase it that way

that phrasing is spin by people that oppose it.

Here's the transcript from Night 1:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-first-democratic-primary-debate-2019-n1022816

[TheFarseer]

62. Thanks!

I was trying to find the actual wording and could not. I suppose you could argue abolish is the same thing as make illegal. I maintain even with the word abolish, it is weird phrasing.

[tulipsandroses]

10. This is the point I'm making re Clarity- That to me was the story of the debate

All this fuss about Biden and Kamala

The Democrats did not offer any clarity on this. And like the OP, I think a lot of people probably walked away from The Debates confused about this.

On top of that - what would happen to the jobs if you worked for an insurance company?

The other issue that needs clarification is the undocumented getting insurance.

They need to figure out how to sell these issues. Donald Trump was busy tweeting and selling this the way he wanted to last night. Just like he twisted the Mueller Report.

The Trump base is a lost cause IMO. We will not win them. The trump triers that took a chance on Trump and now realize that he has not delivered for them, realized that he is a fraud and phony business man are up for grabs. We can't send them confusing messages. Are they going to think they are going to lose their employer insurance. Some people do have good insurance through their jobs, unions. I don't think those people care about Kamala going after Biden, Swallwell saying pass the Torch. They want someone that can fix their problems.

[Demsrule86]

36. Both Harris and Warren raised their hands as did others...not Biden or Klobachar I think.

Harris has tried to walk it back but the GOP will use it against her no matter what. MFA is a losing issue for us.

[George II]

15. That wasn't a very thoughtful comment on her part. If private insurance (and insurance companies)...

...were made "illegal" (I doubt that could happen anyway), the current Medicare system and any future "Medicare for All" would instantly collapse.

Private insurance and insurance companies are an integral part of administering Medicare as we know it.

[thesquanderer]

23. Nobody is talking about making private insurance literally illegal...

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2019, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

...rather private companies would be prohibited from offering services that directly compete with the government-administered program (which would be very hard to do profitably anyway).

Well explained here: https://fortune.com/2019/04/23/medicare-for-all-private-insurance/

But as for "Private insurance and insurance companies are an integral part of administering Medicare as we know it." -- private insurance is available to fill "gaps," cover co-pays, etc., but if the new system doesn't have those holes to fill, that might not be a market for them either. As for whether Medicare "outsources" some aspects of their services/administration, I don't know... but if they do, nothing stops them from continuing to do so if that's the way the set it up.

Again, it's not the insurance COMPANIES that are being (theoretically) outlawed, rather they are being prohibited from providing directly competitive services/policies. And I don't see any other way it could work. Not just because MFA benefits from having the biggest pool (i.e. not just the sick people), but also, at least for Sanders' plan, it's being paid for out of new taxes. (He said in the debate that people's taxes would go up, but by less than they currently pay in health care premiums.) I doubt many people would be interested in having their tax bill go up probably thousands a year to pay for health coverage, and then choose to pay thousands more to get the same coverage from someone else.

But nobody is talking about prohibiting insurance companies from offering policies for things not covered by the public plan.

[stonecutter357]

27. lol the very first sentence of the op Elizabeth Warren came out for making private insurance illegal

[thesquanderer]

45. And the OP is wrong. The OP even says "or words to that effect" without providing the words.

Check the debate transcript, she never said she would make private insurance illegal.

What the OP is probably talking about was that she raised her hand on the question of who "would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan?" Which is not the same as making all private insurance illegal.

[stonecutter357]

52. lol OK !

[Demsrule86]

34. I don't believe that would be constitutional.

[Thekaspervote]

17. We should have done what the Brits did and gone with universal hlth care post WWII

We didn’t... so now we can’t just suddenly abandon the ACA and move in a different direction. I like President Obama’s saying ... not an exact quote but... he said our country and it’s economy is like an ocean liner you don’t turn it on a dime.

It’s not a winning strategy

[Hoyt]

26. That is the problem. Too many people will feel M4A will be crammed down their throats.

A Public Option has a good chance of passing. If people like the option, most folks will move to it quickly.

M4A does not poll well when the question includes your taxes will go up, albeit in place of premiums, and you will lose the commercial insurance you have through your employer.

[MineralMan]

28. Yes, I noticed that, too.

It's a risky position to take, I think. The entire health insurance thing is poorly understood by voters, frankly, and there are lots of concerns about changes among different groups of individuals.

The reality is that any working universal health care system will have to eliminate private health insurance to succeed. However, bringing that up will frighten a lot of people, and that's never a good idea, unless you include an explanation of what that means at the same time.

Very risky.

[KayF]

59. here's what she said

different from the OP

HOLT:

Your time is up. Thank you. Senator Warren, you signed on to Bernie Sanders' Medicare for all plan. It would put essentially everybody on Medicare and then eliminate private plans that offer similar coverage. Is that the plan or path that you would pursue as president?
WARREN:

So, yes. I'm with Bernie on Medicare for all. And let me tell you why.
I spent a big chunk of my life studying why families go broke. And one of the number-one reasons is the cost of health care, medical bills. And that's not just for people who don't have insurance. It's for people who have insurance.
Look at the business model of an insurance company. It's to bring in as many dollars as they can in premiums and to pay out as few dollars as possible for your health care. That leaves families with rising premiums, rising copays, and fighting with insurance companies to try to get the health care that their doctors say that they and their children need. Medicare for all solves that problem.
And I understand. There are a lot of politicians who say, oh, it's just not possible, we just can't do it, have a lot of political reasons for this. What they're really telling you is they just won't fight for it. Well, health care is a basic human right, and I will fight for basic human rights...

[brush]

29. I think it's nuts too. Once universal care is up and running those with employer...

insurance will see the advantage of no payroll deductions, no co-pays, no 3-5K deductibles if you have to use the insurance.

Those with private insurance, this must be a small percentage of people, probably wealthy people, IMO, must have high premiums and other out-of-pocket expenses as well. Why not let them keep it? They will migrate to the universal care system once it's successful, same with those with employer insurance.

If we take the best features from countries which already have universal care, our taxes will go up but out-of-pocket fees and deductibles and premiums and all of that will go away along with the big worries and fears the vast majority of people have of serious injuries and illnesses.

And one thing never talked about is how businesses will get on board as they no longer will have to pony up big bucks for their employees care, and also will save on administrative costs. I once read that auto companies will save $1500 per vehicle if they don't have to supply healthcare benefits to their workers. That will make American autos much more competitive on the market. Our candidates need to talk up this advantage as well as all the other things above. We have to educate the public not just flat out say their present insurance will be illegal.

[Demsrule86]

35. Look at the issues we had with a much smaller package the ACA...it would be years

before we could get such a system up and running...and we will be kicked out of office in two years...consider the fate of Hillarycare...and the ACA which saved so many lives will be gone too..and it will take decades to get universal coverage.

[brush]

39. Yes, it will take a while. It's possible the ACA can be built upon...

and eventually become universal care with an opt-in option as was originally proposed.

It's such a complex issue it certainly won't be easy with repugs trying to stop it at every turn.

[MichMan]

49. Why are you so certain there will be no premiums or co pays ?

Medicare currently has both of those.

[Hoyt]

56. Because Sanders says we can take on the unisured, underinsured, remove copay/deductibles, add dental

and vision, and it won't cost any more.

While I think we need to get everyone -- without exception -- insured immediately, I don't think any of the politicians are telling us the truth, or even know the truth, about what it is going to cost and what kind of controls will have to be imposed to control utilization and cost.

I'm for a Public Option -- with subsidies depending upon income -- so people can't say it's crammed down their throat, and we can work out all the details including payment rates before going full-blown.

[Claritie Pixie]

48. She's aligned with Bernie's plan. I'm good with that.

The word illegal makes it seem as if people will be jailed.

It just means that ins. companies will no longer be able to sell private policies.

[Loki Liesmith]

51. Not interested

[saljr1]

53. Realistically that is not going to happen

It would take a vote in Congress and it would never pass. Although she wants to see universal health-care and eliminate private insurance, she knows it won't pass. She is just stating her beliefs. I truly believe she will still win the nomination. Only time will tell.

[LAS14]

55. I keep seeing visions of a GOP ad showing...

... Lester Holt asking who would "abolish" private insurance, and Warren shooting up her hand.

[wyldwolf]

57. It's a silly position and potentially damaging for her campaign

Better to get single payer then let the insurance industry either compete, change their business model, or die a slow death,

[KayF]

60. why would a Warren supporter post an OP with an anti-Warren framing

and not post what Warren said?

HOLT:

Your time is up. Thank you. Senator Warren, you signed on to Bernie Sanders' Medicare for all plan. It would put essentially everybody on Medicare and then eliminate private plans that offer similar coverage. Is that the plan or path that you would pursue as president?
WARREN:

So, yes. I'm with Bernie on Medicare for all. And let me tell you why.
I spent a big chunk of my life studying why families go broke. And one of the number-one reasons is the cost of health care, medical bills. And that's not just for people who don't have insurance. It's for people who have insurance.
Look at the business model of an insurance company. It's to bring in as many dollars as they can in premiums and to pay out as few dollars as possible for your health care. That leaves families with rising premiums, rising copays, and fighting with insurance companies to try to get the health care that their doctors say that they and their children need. Medicare for all solves that problem.
And I understand. There are a lot of politicians who say, oh, it's just not possible, we just can't do it, have a lot of political reasons for this. What they're really telling you is they just won't fight for it. Well, health care is a basic human right, and I will fight for basic human rights...

[LAS14]

61. Because the Dems can't run an ad saying all this, while the GOP CAN...

.... run an ad with Lester Holt asking who would "abolish" private health insurance and Warren shooting up her hand.

I certainly agree with what she said in theory, but I don't think the American voting public will vote to lose private health insurance.

[NYMinute]

70. It is suicidal

Not to mention that it would amount to a nationalization of the health insurance industry -- a socialist dream. Next - the banks, the life insurance companies, the auto manufacturers, retailers -- there would be no end to dismantling America's free enterprise.

Some candidates are already railing against any company that is vastly profitable -- as though anything that is profitable must be owned by the public.

Reminds me of scenes from Dr. Zhivago.