by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
To prove her preposterous claim that she could finance her plan without raising middle-class taxes, just this month, she released a plan attempting to explain how she could do it, which independent experts across the political spectrum have derided as unrealistic.
After all that effort and shredding her credibility, she’s now out with a plan attempting to split the difference. Now, she claims that the transition to “Medicare for All” will happen in two steps. First, within 100 days, she’ll pass legislation that would enact an optional government plan. Then, in year three, she’ll pass the Sanders plan, which effectively eliminates private insurance.
Her aim is clear: She wants to be able to argue that her plan has a more realistic prospect of getting passed and that it will allow for a smoother transition than what Sanders is proposing, but at the same time, that the benefits of her plan are more generous than what other rivals are proposing, and she’s still committing to a fully government-run insurance system within her first term. But as is often the case when a candidate tries to thread the needle on an issue to satisfy both sides, Warren’s plan will open her up to attack from everybody.
To start, in her new plan, she does not abandon her commitment to ending private insurance. She’s still promising to do it within her first term. Furthermore, even before the theoretical passage of full Medicare for All in year three, Warren’s plan would immediately disrupt employer insurance coverage.