After spending four primary debates refusing to answer direct questions about how she intends to pay for her insane pipe dream of a healthcare system, Elizabeth Warren has finally released her financial plan. I’ll tell you right now, it’s a doozy.
Overall, Warren’s Medicare for All is expected to cost “just under” $52 TRILLION. That’s 52 with TWELVE ZEROS after it. TWELVE! I didn’t add the emphasis on “under,” either; somehow being just under $52 TRILLION is a major win. It’s not.
Further, she insists that her plan not only won’t raise taxes on the middle class, but it will magically “return about $11 TRILLION to the American people.”
Today, I’m releasing my plan to pay for #MedicareForAll. 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:
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) November 1, 2019
Let’s investigate that claim, shall we? Warren’s plan explains that the funds to pay for Medicare for All will come from “new taxes on financial firms, giant corporations, and the top 1%.” Okay. Besides the fact that the U.S. already has among the highest corporate tax rates in the world, what would you call these targets if not American? Taking money from Americans with one hand and giving it back with the other isn’t a win, it’s a sleight of hand trick.
And what will you do when you tax the “top 1%” either a) out of money or b) out of the country? Families making just shy of half a million dollars annually can’t afford the kind of tax hikes Warren’s plan would require (and doesn’t pin a number on, by the way), despite being in the evil, wicked 1%. As for the rest, do you honestly believe they’d stick around in America if these kinds of tax rates get passed? It’s not realistic– but don’t take my word for it.
Warren goes on to say,
Every candidate who opposes my long-term goal of Medicare for All should explain why the “choice” of private insurance plans is more important than being able to choose the doctor that’s best for you without worrying about whether they are in-network or not. Why it’s more important than being able to choose the right prescription drug for you without worrying about massive differences in copays. Why it’s more important than being able to choose to start a small business or choose the job you want without worrying about where your health care coverage will be coming from and how much it will cost.
Well, I’m no candidate here, Liz, but I can probably answer on their behalf. First of all, freedom, second of all, that’s a logical fallacy. Choosing private insurance doesn’t mean I don’t get those things– at least in a free country. In Warren’s America, I suppose it might be such a choice, because she’s a wannabe dictator.
The mainstream media and Democratic politicians have been working overtime to make us believe it’s either our current healthcare system or a government-run, universal healthcare plan. I’ve had plenty of that. We need to stop poking holes in liberals’ plans (yes, I realize the irony of saying that after several hundred words of doing just that, but stick with me here) and propose small-government, free market, workable solutions. The answer is never more regulation. It’s less.