'Bonkers' math: Nebraska senator issues one-line statement on Warren health-care plan

'Bonkers' math: Nebraska senator issues one-line statement on Warren health-care plan

'Bonkers' math: Nebraska senator issues one-line statement on Warren health-care plan

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has finally released her "Medicare for All" plan, which her campaign says would cost $52 trillion over the next 10 years.

The details of Warren's "Medicare for All" plan aim to quell criticism that the Massachusetts Democrat and presidential candidate has been vague about how she would pay for her sweeping proposal.

It marks a significant contrast with her rival Sen. Health savings accounts, medical savings accounts, and the deductions for medical expenses would be eliminated.

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren's plan for universal healthcare rests on an assumption she can radically change an industry the size of Germany's entire economy without new costs for the average taxpayer.

There is a widespread belief among economists and political strategists that single-payer would require raising taxes on the middle-class, in addition to a host of other taxes.

But economists say the transition to a system guided less by market economics and more by the government might be hard. She says she would not sign legislation if overall costs for middle-class families go up. The higher take-home pay for workers could generate an additional $1.4 trillion in tax revenue for the federal government to help fund Medicare for all, she said.

The amount would eclipse the wealth tax Warren has earlier proposed to fund such things as student debt relief and free public college.

-Immigration Overhaul: Warren's proposal to create a pathway to legal status for people who don't have official permission to be in the country is estimated to have economic impacts that raise $400 billion over 10 years. Instead of sending money to private insurance companies, the employers would send the money to the federal government. Of that, $8.8 trillion would come from a new "Employer Medicare Contribution", replacing the $9 trillion employers are expected to spend between 2020 and 2029 on employee healthcare costs, according to MIT professor Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund; University of MI economist Betsey Stevenson; and Mark Zandi, an economist at Moody's Analytics. "And if Medicare for All can be financed without any new taxes on the middle class, and instead by asking giant corporations, the wealthy, and the well-connected to pay their fair share, that's exactly what we should do". "She'd also add a new tax on the sale of stocks, bonds, and derivatives, writing, that even a small tax of "one-tenth of one percent" would raise "$800 billion in revenue over the next ten years". Under Warren's plan, that wealth would be taxed at 6 percent, culminating in a whopping $6.7 billion tax bill for the Amazon executive.

Eliminate the preferential tax rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends for the top 1 percent of households and apply ordinary income tax rates.

"Tax increases on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector by themselves could not cover much more than one-third of the cost of Medicare for All", the report said.

She proposed a new tax on financial transactions and a fee on big banks.

"Look, nobody thinks it's twenty trillion dollars".

On paper, the plan by the senator from MA to use government bureaucracy to create a more efficient healthcare system gets credibility from the fact that most rich nations, including Canada and France, already do just that.

"The wealthy and their allies in Washington have worked to slash the IRS budget, leaving it without the resources it needs", Warren wrote.

In New Mexico, Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver (D) ended her U.S. Senate campaign this week, clearing the way for Rep.

Warren would also try to save nearly $800 billion over 10 years by reducing overall defense spending and shutting down the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, which both Democrats and Republicans say has been bloated with long-term operational expenses it was never meant to fund, Warren argued.

Latest News