Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare For All Plan: No Tax Increase On Middle Class And Trillions Of Dollars Returned to Americans!
[guest post by Dana]
Raise your hand if you believe this:
Here’s the headline: My plan won’t raise taxes one penny on middle-class families. In fact, we’ll return about $11 TRILLION to the American people. That’s bigger than the biggest tax cut in our history. Here’s how:
[…]
#MedicareForAll finally brings true choice to the health care system. The choice to see the doctor you want, to get the prescriptions you need, pick the job or start that small business you want without worrying about where your health insurance will come from.
My #MedicareForAll plan would end the stranglehold of health costs on American families. It would return a whopping $11 trillion to families who will never pay another premium or medical bill. It would be one of the greatest federal expansions of middle-class wealth in history.
Let’s get to the math! (All backed up by independent experts and economists.) First, we’re going to rein in the waste, inefficiency, and corporate profiteering by insurance and drug companies. And we’ll bring down out-of-control costs.
Instead, we’re going to spend more on care itself. And thanks to getting rid of all the waste in the system, we can offer top-of-the-line care for all 331 million people in the U.S. for LESS than what we’ll pay if we do nothing to fix our broken system now.
How is it paid for? Well, if you’re not in the top 1%, Wall Street, or a big corporation—congratulations, you don’t pay a penny more and you’re fully covered by #MedicareForAll.
To cover the cost, we start by taking the money that employers are currently paying in the form of premiums to private insurance companies and have them pay it to Medicare instead.
We cover the remaining $11 trillion largely with taxes on big corporations, Wall Street, and the top 1%—and enforcing the tax laws we have now. Add in a targeted cut to a Defense Dept slush fund and that’s it.
Price tag: $52 trillion . The federal government’s revenue for this year is around $3.5 trillion. So tell me how the math is supposed to work on this? Oh, look, like minds:
Do people realize how insane and ludicrously false that claim is?
The total federal government revenue from this budget year was under 3.5 Trillion. Even if the government did NOTHING else, we couldn’t afford Warren’s plan under the current tax structure w/o a large deficit.
As another framing: The total wealth of everyone in the top 1% is around 25 trillion. That means you could seize all of their wealth and (ignoring all the harmful consequences and jobs lost) it wouldn’t even pay for half of the first ten years of Warren’s healthcare plan.
Every single country that has single-payer (even ignoring the population and other difference and assuming their system is better) has significantly higher taxes on the middle class. That’s the minimum trade off. Those who refuse to acknowledge it aren’t being honest.
Is anyone falling for the lipstick-on-a-pig sleight-of-hand Warren is pulling here? If elected: a $52 trillion price tag and no need to increase taxes on the middle class, and you might even get money back. What’s not to love??
Here’s a nice summation of Warren’s unicorn fantasy:
Her plan is to save money by reducing payments to physicians to Medicare rates, which tend to be significantly lower than private insurance, and to 110 percent of Medicare rates for hospitals and instituting a variety of payment reforms to encourage health providers to generate more savings.
The plan sets an ambitious goal of cutting Medicare drug prices by 70 percent for brand-name drugs and 30 percent for generics through a series of reforms. It would also require the new Medicare system to run with much less administrative overhead than the Urban Institute predicted would be necessary — 2.3 percent of total costs instead of 6 percent.
She wants to get the same medicine that we do now, paying only 30 percent that we do now. When you assume you can do that, sure, making the numbers add up gets a heck of a lot easier! Imagine working out your household budget by assuming you could keep your home for only 30 percent of your current rent or mortgage payments. You’re lucky if you can find a “70 percent off” deal in stores that are going out of business; Warren’s convinced she can get it for every band name medication required for every American in the country. Yes, she’s exactly the person we need to replace that guy in the Oval Office who’s in denial about reality and who keeps telling us he’s the greatest dealmaker of all time.
You can read Warren’s entire plan here.
(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)
–Dana
Can we say “hidden” tax, or perhaps, as Biden’s camp calls it, an “indirect” tax….
Dana (16b5ab) — 11/1/2019 @ 12:33 pm.. and Buttagieg smiled.
JRH (52aed3) — 11/1/2019 @ 12:45 pmAll backed up by independent experts and economists.
Apologies in advance for working blue, but this phrase is how you can tell that a politician is purposefully bullshitting you.
Now that Lieawatha is arguably the front-running, assuming that Joe Biden does eventually implode, the rest of the Dem field better not be too cowed by the socialists to call her on this extreme horsepucky.
JVW (54fd0b) — 11/1/2019 @ 12:52 pmThat’s from Warren’s proposal. I mean the whole deal is dishonest and preposterous, but Republicans set the stage. When you show politicians that absurd promises beat honest ones, you get absurd promises from politicians.
Dustin (861237) — 11/1/2019 @ 12:52 pmAnd just like the current Pope, she somehow finds virtue in trying to explain complex ideas by using the same language you would use with second graders, and like the Pope it means that she necessarily leaves out layers and layers of complexity.
JVW (54fd0b) — 11/1/2019 @ 12:54 pmThe choice to see the doctor you want, to get the prescriptions you need, pick the job or start that small business you want without worrying about where your health insurance will come from.
Yes! You will have health insurance and now you would only have to worry about the six-month backlog for getting stents implanted into your heart and the ten month wait to see your obstetrician. Fauxcahontas would do well to study up on some of the problems that the vaunted Canadian health system encountered, culminating in a court having to remind the government that access to a waiting list is not the same as access to health care.
JVW (54fd0b) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:01 pmThat’s an interesting quote, Dustin. Does this mean Warren intends to just seize the extra take-home pay of people paying their portion of employer-sponsored health insurance? Maybe it doesn’t, but it sure sounds like it.
Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:04 pmHow come the critics of national health care never mention how much we are spending now including drug company advertising, obscene profits and people buying medicine and patent remedies to self medicate from drug stores because the can’t afford health care now. Hospitals only treat emergency cases if you are dying of cancer unless it is an emergenthe rich say medicare for all would mean they would have to stand in line along with the poor how disgusting!cy
asset (24f10c) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:13 pmI’m sure that in her plan this would be labeled a polite request that employees voluntarily send it to the IRS, aka it would be taxed. So, yea, seized.
frosty (f27e97) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:16 pmHow come you critics of private health care never bother to acknowledge that in nationalized health care it’s not so much the rich who get special treatment, but the politically well-connected? When your hero Bernard Sanders had his little heart issues last month, the time elapsed from when he first started feeling chest discomfort to when he had the stents inserted was something like 14 hours. Contrast that with a national average wait of ten days, which is pretty much the length of time that my cousin’s husband had to wait when he had the same procedure done last year.
You also never acknowledge that when Mr. National Health Care himself, Ted Kennedy, was treated for brain cancer, he helicoptered weekly from his Virginia home to Duke Medical School, not exactly the sort of treatment that Joe Sixpack can expect under Sen. Warren’s plans. If you single payer advocates think for one moment that the well-connected political elite and their allies won’t engage in massive line-cutting for medical services, you are even more clueless than I have always thought.
I would much rather live in a system where rich people pay to get special treatment than a system where well-connected people get special treatment for free.
JVW (54fd0b) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:20 pmIt’s a huge tax increase, but I think she’s claiming our pay increase is so huge that the income tax on this money would be over a trillion. It’s hilarious.
Of course, Warren is more honest to say she won’t be taxing this money. Because if her fantasy happened, and these evil corporations got both a new tax and were forced to pay into medicare, they would not also give everyone extra take home pay.
They would instead probably cut pay to account for the increase in taxes for employee benefits. At best they would hold pay where it is. The idea that if universal health care happened, with huge taxes, that corporations would all uniformly increase pay for everybody for no reason is hilarious.
Thing is, there is actual social unfairness that politicians like Warren could address through tax reform, but realistic reform loses to grandiose and dishonest promises.
Dustin (861237) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:24 pmPresident Trump.
Or President Warren.
Can’t lose!
“Go, baby, GO!” – Walter Cronkite, CBS News
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:30 pmWhy do you think America is where a lot of cures are invented? It’s the profits. Brilliant people go into those fields because they want to make a lot of money. That ambition to drive an Audi and have a big pool might seem evil when you think they are in the business of saving lives, but it does work.
I think there are some really good ways to reform this to target more development and research. Really, that’s where healthcare reform should focus. A lot of things we do today will be obsolete in the future after all. Why should American developed medication be cheaper in other nations? They are freeloading off our research.
Dustin (861237) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:32 pmShe’s not going to tax tax middle-class families. She’s going to tax their paychecks, but the employers willl pay the tax.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:59 pmThe day after Warren is elected, all US companies drop their health care plans before this legislation is enacted. If they’re not paying premiums for health insurance, there’s nothing for the government to take.
That’s a bit far-fetched, to be sure, but Warren apparently doesn’t realize that companies — just like individuals — will do some strange things to avoid being taxed.
Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 11/1/2019 @ 2:05 pmMake Canada pay for it, like Mexico paid for Trump’s wall.
Dave (a654b8) — 11/1/2019 @ 2:14 pm@15
this sounds plausible but if we reach that point the regs will change to per company monthly averages over a period with stipulations on which monthly numbers can be included. Once you embrace fascism all sorts of creative options are on the table.
frosty (f27e97) — 11/1/2019 @ 2:31 pmWarren’s plan is functionally identical to what Trump promised four years ago, except that Trump claimed he would pay for his plan by negotiating deals with “existing hospitals”.
Dave (a654b8) — 11/1/2019 @ 2:32 pmWarren’s plan is functionally identical to what Trump promised four years ago
Except that Trump claimed he would negotiate deals. Warren’s plan would attempt to accomplish its goals via regulation, primarily price controls. Multiple parties freely negotiating is not functionally identical to government price controls and mandates.
frosty (f27e97) — 11/1/2019 @ 2:49 pmWow:
Itemized list at the link.
Dana (16b5ab) — 11/1/2019 @ 3:11 pmHow completely insane do you have to be in order to believe that nearly all of the problems in the United States spring from the idea that our government doesn’t tax, spend, and regulate enough? She is a truly, truly delusional woman.
JVW (54fd0b) — 11/1/2019 @ 3:20 pmShe is a dangerous woman.
Dana (16b5ab) — 11/1/2019 @ 3:28 pmI wonder how much Trump paid her to come out with this.
nk (dbc370) — 11/1/2019 @ 4:02 pm@10. Ahhhh, but in Britain, The Queen can keep her doctor. 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/1/2019 @ 4:04 pmShe should just promise to erase the debt in 8 years, and then pass a tax cut that balloons the deficit.
The unicorn up top is especially ironic, considering that only a unicorn will pay for Republican tax cuts.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 11/1/2019 @ 4:18 pm@21. Step away from the particulars and it’s really just a matter of greed; the oil industry brought it on themselves in the 70’s; so did the S&L’s an finance in the 80’s and now greed in the healthcare biz has awakened Godzilla. Smart taxation is good [GE and Amazon really outta not be paying zilch]; wise spending is just a good investment in the future while regulations are simply guard rails and speed limits– lose them and the wrecks start to pile up– or crud starts showing your in your cheeseburgers, your tap water and your Post Toasties.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/1/2019 @ 4:18 pmI don’t know which is more disturbing–that Warren actually believes this plan will work, or that she knows it’s hokum, and is just putting it out there to get the nomination.
norcal (eec1aa) — 11/1/2019 @ 4:26 pm@3. That Iowa poll today has Joey Bee running 4th behind Warren, Bernie and “Buttafuco” with Amyyyyy-whatcha-gonna-do in 5th.
Super Pacs won’t save him; bet he’s gone by Super Sunday or thereabouts.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/1/2019 @ 4:30 pm@27. Wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it in these changing times; they said the same thing about Project Apollo; the people who were tasked to do it when they first got the word thought Kennedy was out of his mind.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/1/2019 @ 4:34 pmDCSCA,
A few thoughts.
1) Apollo was a drop in the bucket compared to Warren’s health care plan.
2) Nobody claimed that Apollo would put more money in people’s pockets
3) Apollo didn’t go against fundamental laws of economics.
norcal (eec1aa) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:11 pmTaxes will NOT go up for this reason! They will go up for other reasons, like funding the military, social security, and the border patrol. Don’t like that? Well, let’s get rid of those things then.
Kevin M (19357e) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:14 pmMake Canada pay for it, like Mexico paid for Trump’s wall.
I’m pretty sure she wants to make Trump pay for it.
And I love her 6% wealth tax at a time when interest rates are 1.7%. Cue Haiu with his new song: Ms TaxMan.
Kevin M (19357e) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:16 pmHaiku
Kevin M (19357e) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:16 pmDoes anyone believe that replacing corporate bureaucracy — that is at least bounded by competition — is more expensive than a monopoly government bureaucracy. Bet you those Aetna keyboard jockeys don’t get the $10,000 dental plans and full pensions that the new PAPER-pushing apparatchiks will get.
Kevin M (19357e) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:20 pmShe wants to get the same medicine that we do now, paying only 30 percent that we do now.
Like all communists, she wants to share the wealth that is, and ignores that she is making the creation of new wealth unlikely. See “Golden Goose, Killing the.”
Kevin M (19357e) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:25 pmIt’s a huge tax increase, but I think she’s claiming our pay increase is so huge that the income tax on this money would be over a trillion. It’s hilarious.
I think she’s talking about the payroll deductions that employees pay as their share of employer provided insurance. If an employee has insurance that covers spouse and children, that can be two or three hundred dollars a month.
Kishnevi (822e2f) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:31 pmBut she wants companies to pay — in taxes — all that money they now pay in medical insurance payments (including the employee co-pays they collect now).
Kevin M (19357e) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:33 pmOt’s easy to make her claim good: define the “middle class” as every household making less than 4x poverty level, as Obamacare does. So, a family of 4 making $80K has nothing to worry about. THose rich assh0les making $120K though, they will get what’s coming to them!
Kevin M (19357e) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:35 pmChuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 11/1/2019 @ 2:05 pm
Employers have been doing this for years. The cost of employer provided health care, and the fact that it is not available to part time employees or independent contractors is probably the biggest reason for the rise of the “gig economy”.
But Obamacare regulations already place a limit on employers’s ability to do this.
Kishnevi (822e2f) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:36 pmBut she wants companies to pay — in taxes — all that money they now pay in medical insurance payments (including the employee co-pays they collect now).
Probably so. But take home for the same level of wages would go up. Until the employee was laid off and replaced by someone who would be paid less.
Kishnevi (822e2f) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:39 pmProbably so. But take home for the same level of wages would go up.
Why wouldn’t employers adjust salaries to account for the new per-employee taxes? To them, it all looks like compensation.
Kevin M (19357e) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:41 pmBut Obamacare regulations already place a limit on employers’s ability to do this.
Sure they do! (giggles)
There is no law that says small business have to offer health insurance, and small business employs nearly every marginal worker.
Kevin M (19357e) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:43 pmShe expects 6 trillion to come from the states
Kishnevi (822e2f) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:44 pmWhy wouldn’t employers adjust salaries to account for the new per-employee taxes? To them, it all looks like compensation
That would be limited by their ability to force wage cuts on the employees. “We’re cutting your pay to make up for Warrencare taxes” probably won’t go down well.
Much easier to simply get rid of old employees and hire new ones at lower rates.
Kishnevi (822e2f) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:48 pm@30. You miss the point; it’s a matter of ‘can-do’ thinking. We’ve lost that. Instant dismissiveness is not a path to a solution.
1.) It’s relative in terms of costs- in today’s dollars- it was $300 billion. And, cutting $14 billion aircraft carriers, subsidizing the Middle Eastern conflicts and all the Arab stooges- and, for instance, Israel can afford it own National Healthcare system because it has been living in Uncle Sam’s basement for decades so the U.S. taxpayers subsides it– and U.S. citizens do without.
2.) Actually it did- which was part of the pitch and payoff. IC development surged; spinoffs reigned.
3.) Like Laffer curves and trickle down? LOL Point is, nothing is in stone and everything is negotiable towardsme kin o coromised and working solutions– so knee-jerk dimissiveness really doesn’t torpedo it. Or help.
People are pissed over h/c costs and want something done. The private industry is not responsive so they turn to gov’t. Which BTW, is exactly what happen to ignite Apollo.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/1/2019 @ 6:14 pmExactly what I’m saying (or trying to say). She’s claiming employers will just hand that deduction over to employees when it’s no longer being deducted, and is acting like it’s some kind of windfall pay increase, and the income tax on this will be enormous. But employers will often (usually) just not pay it to employees, especially in light of all the extra taxes on ‘corporations’ Warren is talking about.
She can’t have it both ways. If it’s some miracle gift of extra cash from Warren, then businesses can also act like it’s some windfall that employees weren’t expecting.
I am sure there is some rule this breaks, and even if there isn’t, democrats would claim there was. But the whole promise is the lie, and there’s no need to analyze this far into the lie. Warren isn’t passing this. These astronomical numbers, and the assumptions that make no sense, are just intended to justify promising ‘the most’.
Somewhere there’s a kid in a biochemistry class thinking about some innovation in medication that will change lives. To get that into reality, a profit motive will need to exist. That’s also a form of can do thinking. And we are losing it. And it’s worth asking both why we’re losing it, and why it existed.
Dustin (861237) — 11/1/2019 @ 6:43 pmToday’s Biden Gaffe:
“She’s making it up.” – Joe Biden
Really? — you mean sorta like your “war stories?!”
Idiot.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/1/2019 @ 6:46 pmOT…and y’all thought it would be Rendon, Kendrick, or the nuyorican-orlandan Manager:
urbanleftbehind (69226a) — 11/1/2019 @ 7:13 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/11/01/sean-doolittle-declining-white-house-invite-i-dont-want-hang-out-with-somebody-who-talks-like-that/
And how many trillion dollars in health care coverage did he negotiate with “existing hospitals”?
It was a completely ignorant and laughable suggestion, even more insane than Warren’s.
When somebody tries to con you into believing they’re going to pay for multi trillion dollar programs with unicorn farts, it doesn’t really matter what color their unicorns are.
Dave (008542) — 11/1/2019 @ 7:32 pmProlly scared that Trump will blurt out how the whole thing was fixed and that he should get the credit for the Nationals’ “win”.
nk (dbc370) — 11/1/2019 @ 7:33 pm@20. It’s enough to scare conservatives white with fear! Oh– wait… 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:12 pm@10 because rich and well connected are almost the same thing? (not quite, but almost)
@36 IDK what y’all pay in the private sector, but I pay $250 a month for just me for a mid/low plan. One of my coworkers pays $1400 for her and her two kids, her husband carries his own insurance.
So this is just obviously personal opinion, but looking at Warren and her history, I think a lot of this is red herring. She’s not a stupid woman, regardless of what you think of her politics. I think this is all the big ask, so that the smaller asks will look reasonable. If your other choice is medicare for all, not only do you stop fighting with obamacare, a public option seems reasonable. If you are looking at a flat 2% tax per year on everyone who has more than X assets, a small increase in the top tax bracket and/or the estate tax and/or cap gains isn’t a big deal. I have trouble believing that she didn’t learn the lesson of the Obama administration. He gave everything away for Obamacare. Everything. He got nothing else done and lost congress. Healthcare hasn’t ever been Warren’s “thing”. I don’t think she’s going to give up everything else in trade for it.
Nic (896fdf) — 11/2/2019 @ 12:48 amA couple of months ago, one of the women who works in our office was having bladder problems. Medication wasn’t helping, so her doctor recommended a sonogram to see if there was any blockage. It’s a simple outpatient procedure, non-invasive, no anesthesia, and it might detect an undiagnosed problem, but the equipment is expensive. Total cost, if she used insurance, $1,000 with a $250 deductible.
She thought that was too high, so she started calling other hospitals and clinics. They all basically said the same, until she found one that said if she paid cash, the cost would be $100.
She’s telling us this in the breakroom. I’m thinking, okay, pay the $100. Why pay $250 and have insurance pay $750? The whole point is to have the procedure, because it could identify the problem. At which point, correct treatment could be prescribed. Granted, that might involve surgery if there is blockage in the bladder, the liver or kidneys, urinary tracts, what have you, but it’s always better to know what the problem is, in order to know how to proceed. Maybe the sonogram will reveal blockage, maybe it won’t. Still, it’s best to know. $100 for a simple procedure is money well spent. At least then, the doctor can make an informed diagnosis as to the cause of the bladder problem.
She said, “This is why we need Medicare for All.”
What?! This is how these people think. They don’t want to spend $100 for a simple procedure. They certainly don’t want to spend $250. They want the insurance companies, or the government, to pay ten times what a procedure actually costs. In other words, they want health care for free, at the expense of everyone else.
There is no such thing as health care for free. Doctors have expenses too. It costs a lot to open a practice. Beyond education costs, there are building and equipment costs, and taxes. Most doctors do good work–one saved my life once–but they don’t work for nothing.
Warren is an idiot, or crazy stupid. Maybe she thinks she can build a base out of the Medicare for All crowd, but it’s a very small percentage of the electorate. Even Nancy Pelosi is opposed to Medicare for All.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 11/2/2019 @ 5:32 amGreat comment, GG. I believe you correctly described the syndrome.
felipe (023cc9) — 11/2/2019 @ 6:05 amOn the note of “_ _ _ _ the Rich”, utility workers are the pre-fight unwitting sparring partner: http://www.foxnews.com/us/california-governor-targeting-utility-workers.amp
urbanleftbehind (955a38) — 11/2/2019 @ 6:49 amGiven your geography, is that $100 sonogram on the other side of the River? Small risk and low cost procedure providers probably get dinged in border towns, even under dangerous conditions e.g. the dental complex on the other side of Nogales.
urbanleftbehind (955a38) — 11/2/2019 @ 6:52 am@49 It’s not a contest for which is more ridiculous. One plan doesn’t have a cost and when it never works we’ve still got the status quo. The other requires a lot of up front costs and when it doesn’t work we’re worse off. Between those I’m picking harmless over arson.
frosty (f27e97) — 11/2/2019 @ 8:10 amGrow Belgian Endive, part Deux:
urbanleftbehind (ba6eb3) — 11/2/2019 @ 3:24 pmhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/warren-says-some-laid-off-health-insurance-workers-can-work-in-auto-life-insurance-instead
15. Her plan would probably tax all employers who employ over 50 people a fixed amount which she will say is what they pay now on average. Self employed people or people who work for small businesses wouldn’t get taxed anything presumably. She says take home pay would go up because in most businesses that offer health insurance, a portion of the premium is now paid out of gross wages and now that spending wouldn’t be needed so the employees could keep their money. She says that if her plan to tax bigger corporations didn’t raise enough money, she’d tax some big bad corporations some more, like the ones that paid their top executives too much.
Sammy Finkelman (976d9e) — 11/2/2019 @ 5:40 pm27. norcal (eec1aa) — 11/1/2019 @ 4:26 pm
She’s gotten too much criticism, and come out with it too slowly, not to know this is hokum.
34. Kevin M (19357e) — 11/1/2019 @ 5:20 pm
That;s not where the real problem is. The problem is there will be no pushback against high prices, or bad pushback.
She’s operating under the assumption that markets are inefficient except when the government i spending the money!
Which is near the exact opposite of the truth. But she knows no Democrat will argue with her that her plan contains within itself that absurd unspoken assumption.
Prices are too high because the market is already wrecked, and any kind of third party payment system is inefficient.
Government monopolies may be pretty bad but insurance is also bad economics if everybody has it. But at least insurance doesn’t diminish quality.
46. Dustin (861237) — 11/1/2019 @ 6:43 pm
To get a profit motive, the new drug must be something that can get a patent and not anew use for something old, and the corporation for which the research is done be in the best position to patent it. A biochemist gets an idea but some other company owns the chemical or it is in the public domain: no good. They can look for a similar molecule that maybe isn’t so good or has some irrelevant tweaks in it, though. It must also be something that can have a lot of sales. Not good for new antibiotics.
Right now even manufacturing generics which requires little research is becoming unprofitable because of regulatory costs and the price of generic insulin has risen to tremendous levels.
Sammy Finkelman (976d9e) — 11/2/2019 @ 6:03 pm“Can I get me a beer?” Warren is academic smart. Which often means that overall smarts is just average.
steveg (354706) — 11/2/2019 @ 6:15 pmI’ve seen academics try to use a square shovel to dig a hole in hard ground, totally mystified.
Hoo boy, Paul Krugman:
Dana (cb74ca) — 11/3/2019 @ 8:36 am@58. Meh. As opposed to the Reaganomics solution: ex-autoworkers flippin’ burgers. 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/3/2019 @ 10:56 amDoesn’t Medicare contract out it administrative work to insurance companies?
By the way she wants state governments to spend as much as they now spend on Medicaid. How is that supposed to work? With Medicaid it works because participation by states is, in some sense, voluntary, and they all go for the matching funds, and some tates may have obligations n their constitutions.
Sammy Finkelman (58e1fc) — 11/3/2019 @ 11:05 amYou say men, DC, but it’s the Blue Cross and Aetna cube dwellers plus the medical office ladies fighting for the doctor’s timeshare slots that form a silent majority on this let alone Harry and Louise.
urbanleftbehind (ba6eb3) — 11/3/2019 @ 11:09 amTakedowns of Elizabeth Warren;s Medicare plan:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/medicare-for-all-insults-our-intelligence-elizabeth-warren
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/responds-warren-medicare-for-all-plan-taxes
https://thedispatch.com/p/the-french-press-elizabeth-warrens
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 11/10/2019 @ 1:20 pm