Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 19, 2019

Late night host Stephen Colbert called out Senator Warren over her consistent refusal to say whether middle-class taxes will need to increase in order to fund "Medicare for All," but ultimately failed to get an answer. He attempted to nail Warren down on the question of whether or not middle class Americans' taxes would have to go up in order to fund the program she and Bernie Sanders have proposed. She ducked, he drilled down further, then she ducked again -- prompting the comedian to call her out on it, seemingly to her surprise.

Both Warren and Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders have been pressed on this point repeatedly, at the debates and elsewhere. Sanders' response has been to acknowledge the taxes and to then yell at Jake Tapper for asking. Warren's strategy has been to acknowledge the tax increase in everything but name, making essentially the same argument as Sanders without actually using the words "middle-class taxes will go up."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is about as hostile as it gets for a Democrat on national entertainment television, the political problem is that coming out and saying, "yes, we're going to raise all of your taxes a lot, but it'll be worth it" is highly politically risky.

If Warren is the nominee she better have an answer for that because you know Trump will hammer her on this.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-19 05:52 PM | Reply

--prompting the comedian to call her out on it, seemingly to her surprise.

Not surprising that she's surprised. The Left expects and usually gets softball questions on these kind of shows.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-19 05:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2

I watched the clip, she seemed shocked and had a "how dare you" look on her face.

She is going to have to work on that before the debates narrow down to 2-3 people.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-19 06:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

An elderly, condescending, undistinguished senator that has all the charm of a know-it-all persnickety hall monitor, can't say how much she's gonna raise taxes, woman. How'd that go last time?

Trump Landslide

#4 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-19 06:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good and I don't see why they won't say it. Sure it might be a small ding but better than the big ding of how are you going to pay for your pie in the sky proposals.

Say "Yes taxes will go up. The either your health care costs will go down, or if your employer is paying your health care costs your wages will go up."

Simple, honest, easy, quit ---- around. That just gives the folks against m4a ammo against you.

#5 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-09-19 06:17 PM | Reply

She needs to acknowledge that yes taxes will go up, but because premiums and copays will go down or away it should come near to evening out. Hiding from it will be a fiasco.

#6 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-09-19 06:18 PM | Reply

#5

If it were that easy, both she and Bernie would be saying exactly that, but she knows that admitting that middle class taxpayers will be hit pretty hard is not going to go well for her.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-19 06:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#3. Democrats tend to expect kid glove treatment from the media in these types of venues and get caught off guard when asked a tough question.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-19 06:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good. This is something that needs to be aired.

If she was better prepared she would have had numbers on how the increased taxes are balanced by the decreased or gone insurance premiums.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-19 06:37 PM | Reply

#9 Bingo

Otherwise you get "she knows that admitting that middle class taxpayers will be hit pretty hard" and she has no argument.

#10 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-09-19 07:01 PM | Reply

"She needs to acknowledge that yes taxes will go up, but because premiums and copays will go down or away it should come near to evening out.
#6 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO"

Tell me how that works for a UAW family that has one of the best healthcare plans in the world and currently has to pay 5% of the cost - 95% is picked up by the company. The quality of their care will go down, the savings on their end is minuscule, and their tax increase will be large. Unless you believe that employees will be able to get the money that the companies pays currently back as a salary increases to offset the tax increase, these people are getting screwed in the deal.

#11 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-19 07:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Unless you believe that employees will be able to get the money that the companies pays currently back as a salary increases to offset the tax increase,

If anyone can the UAW can.

#12 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-09-19 07:15 PM | Reply

#12 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR

I highly doubt it. And I highly doubt the UAW families believe that they can. In the end, union workers with good health insurance plans will pay more and get a worse healthcare product. Tough sell to that crowd. Then again, doesn't look like the Dems care about manufacturing union workers anymore anyway.

#13 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-19 07:19 PM | Reply

3. Democrats tend to expect kid glove treatment from the media in these types of venues and get caught off guard when asked a tough question.

#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

At least they get the occasional tough question.

Fox and Trump? Pfft.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-19 07:49 PM | Reply

#14

Now do CNN/MSNBC/ABC and the questions posed during the Democratic Primaries!

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-19 08:26 PM | Reply

On the point of the article - why is it that Democrats cannot be honest about their policies?

Even Colbert tried to give her an out - we all know the answer.

YES - MFA WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES.

This is not even in debate here. Does she think Democrat voters are too stupid to understand the value proposition that she is laying out so she needs to lie about her policies? Does she really think that little of you? Again, it is beyond debate - taxes will go up. On the savings side, we can have a debate whether this will cost more or less, whether companies make wage concessions to groups with good healthcare plans currently, or whether the quality of care overall in the system would improve or decline - those points are worth debating. However, there is no debate on the tax impacts - THEY WILL GO UP. Just be honest.

#16 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-19 08:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"and the questions posed during the Democratic Primaries!
#15 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER "

They get tough questions! - in the case of Hillary, they even get them in advance.

#17 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-19 08:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#15 if have to watch them first.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-19 08:47 PM | Reply

*I'd

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-19 08:48 PM | Reply

#19 | POSTED BY JPW

If you are not watching those shows that would mean that you get your DNC talking points via e-mail?

#20 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-19 08:55 PM | Reply

#20 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

More like the back of his Tequila bottle ..

"She needs to acknowledge that yes taxes will go up, but because premiums and copays will go down or away it should come near to evening out.

but they won't "even out", she knows it .... you want quality healthcare ... you buy supplementary health insurance, given the rise in demand the costs will not change.

#21 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-19 09:14 PM | Reply

"given the rise in demand the costs will not change.
#21 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS"

I disagree with you somewhat. I think people are confused when they talk about the 'price of healthcare' because we have 3 huge components and each one is drastically different from the others. In order of easiest to hardest to solve:

1.) Drug prices - this should be easy to bring under control, but it will come at the expense of R&D. Drug companies simply will not invest at the same rates if their ability to profit from breakthroughs is reduced. So, near term, this is sunshine and roses - long term is a crapshoot.

2.) Specialist care/operations - this is the type of operations that bankrupt people - a heart attack, etc. This type of emergency surgery is the US system specialty because of the training and equipment afforded to the hospitals. In a system that has medicare for all - this type of service MUST BE RATIONED. There are simply not enough specialists and the cost of the equipment is astronomical if we want cutting edge. For instance, you can have an MRI overseas (Asia, Mexico, etc) for a small fraction of the US price. However, these machines are the older variety which may not have the same visibility/diagnostic capabilities of the newer versions used in the US. If you cut cost, you cannot have the cutting edge equipment without rationing healthcare.

3.) Family doctors/routing medical care - this is the type of things most people complain about when it comes to hospitals. This is the $50 aspirin and $500/night if being admitted. The reality is that these costs really WON'T DECREASE. The outrageous prices are basically to subsidize the uninsured/non-payers. Nothing really changes in this equation and I doubt you are going to collect significant tax revenues from the people that today are uninsured - these people don't have money. If you want costs to decrease here - you can either ration care OR attack high salaries in the medical field OR stop having cutting edge medical facilities. If you go to a hospital in Italy - it looks nothing like a hospital in the US.

So, at the end of the day, I really don't think this ends up saving ANY money. It will deliver a much better medical experience to those today that are uninsured/under-insured - but those with insurance today will end up paying a lot more for a lower quality of care.

#22 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-19 09:35 PM | Reply

More like the back of his Tequila bottle ..

Still got nothing but low hanging fruit.

No surprise for you.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-19 10:07 PM | Reply

If you are not watching those shows that would mean that you get your DNC talking points via e-mail?

#20 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

LOL that's rich from the Trumper pull cord doll.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-19 10:08 PM | Reply

LOL that's rich from the Trumper pull cord doll.
#24 | POSTED BY JPW

That misinformation tsunami posts nothing but bullshht and right wing talking points.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-19 10:45 PM | Reply

1.) Drug prices - this should be easy to bring under control, but it will come at the expense of R&D. Drug companies simply will not invest at the same rates if their ability to profit from breakthroughs is reduced. So, near term, this is sunshine and roses - long term is a crapshoot.

A. Stop the pharmas from charging us up the yahoo so they can meet price controls in other countries
B. Big Pharma's research is largely paid for by taxpayers.

The CISI study, underwritten by the National Biomedical Research Foundation, mapped the relationship between NIH-funded research and every new drug approved by the FDA between 2010 and 2016. The authors found that each of the 210 medicines approved for market came out of research supported by the NIH. Of the $100 billion it spent nationally during this period, more than half of it " $64 billion " ended up helping the development of 84 first-in-class drugs.

But the NIH doesn't get to use the profits from these drugs to fund more research, the way it might under a model based on developing needed drugs and curing the sick, as opposed to serving Wall Street. Instead, publicly funded labs conduct years of basic research to get to a breakthrough, which is then snatched up, tweaked, and patented (privatized) by companies who turn around and reap billions with 1,000-times-cost mark-ups on drugs developed with taxpayer money.

3.) Family doctors/routing medical care - this is the type of things most people complain about when it comes to hospitals. This is the $50 aspirin and $500/night if being admitted. The reality is that these costs really WON'T DECREASE. The outrageous prices are basically to subsidize the uninsured/non-payers. Nothing really changes in this equation and I doubt you are going to collect significant tax revenues from the people that today are uninsured - these people don't have money.

If everyone is insured hospitals can no longer say they're charging exorbitant rates because of shortfalls caused by the uninsured.

Medicare 4 All could dictate what they'll pay, not have to negotiate what a hospital group will accept as private insurers do. And we need to fix the law that made it illegal for Medicare to set prices that was enacted as part of Medicare Part D in the 2000's. Cost savings across the board, meaning lower lower cost for everyone, the federal government if it was a public plan. Common sense.

#26 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-19 10:46 PM | Reply

"A. Stop the pharmas from charging us up the yahoo so they can meet price controls in other countries"

That is a great idea - except for the fact that systems like the NHS are already in the brink of insolvency. If you passed on higher drug prices to them, that system that you hope to emulate will cease to exist.

"If everyone is insured hospitals can no longer say they're charging exorbitant rates because of shortfalls caused by the uninsured."

This is what you don't seem to understand. That money is being spent today to provide medical care - that cost stays the same or might even go up with better access. So, the balancing act you want to do is to actually collect more money from the currently uninsured to pay for it - problem is that those uninsured represent the lowest income earning groups, thus you won't really collect materially more money whether they 'pay in' or not. What will happen is that you will no longer get a bill for a $50 aspirin - it will just be a nebulous accounting system that extracts the same money from the system.

That is, unless you want to start going after medical professional salaries - like break up the AMA. That could significantly lower costs - but I don't see a single Democrat calling for that. They simply blame 'insurance companies' not realizing it is the hospital charging $50/aspirin, not an insurance company.

Lastly, I see you skipped my #2 as then you would need to admit that the system will need to implement rationing. The wait time on a CT scan or MRI would look like that in Canada where the illness is likely to kill you before you get a diagnosis.

#27 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-19 11:22 PM | Reply

Lastly, I see you skipped my #2

I usually skip your posts entirely. You think you know a lot more than you actually do, on a wide variety of topics.

They simply blame 'insurance companies' not realizing it is the hospital charging $50/aspirin, not an insurance company.

Medicare dictates what they'll pay for services. Hospitals don't dictate to Medicare. Cut out insurance company's and hospitals will get paid what Medicare pays. They have an entire list of codes spelling out what fees they'll pay for services and facility care.

Republicans made it illegal for Medicare to set prices for drugs when they enacted Part D. That needs to go so Medicare can treat drugs like they do with fee for service and ancillary items.

I'm far more familiar with this subject that you seem to be. Might be due to having a bunch of doctors in the family and having been the primary care giver for a couple family members, which included reading itemized bills and dealing with both Medicare and private insurance.

#28 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-19 11:34 PM | Reply

"I usually skip your posts entirely."

They say ignorance is bliss. If that works for you, more power to you.

"You think you know a lot more than you actually do, on a wide variety of topics."

That is a completely inaccurate statement. I don't comment on topics that I do not understand/have experience with.

"Medicare dictates what they'll pay for services. Hospitals don't dictate to Medicare."

As so often with you, you don't understand the problem. So, I will explain it again to you. That $50 aspirin that the hospital bills - does not cost them $50. They simply use the extra revenue from it to offset uninsured/non-payers - it is a shell game. So, if you tell them the most that they can charge is $0.50 for an aspirin, you DID NOT SAVE $49.50 - you simply created a $49.50 hole in the hospital's financials. So, they will either need to jack up costs beyond the cost of service in other areas, cut costs on staffing, or go out of business.

So, going back to Medicare for all - if you totally removed insurance companies from the picture - you could not simply dictate to hospitals how much they can charge for a procedure across the board at a reduced rate unless you expect them to drastically reduce their costs (less money for staff, facilities, diagnostic testing, etc). Outside of staffing, hospitals are not money printing machines - the actual care they provide COSTS MONEY.

As I already laid out for you in my prior post - you will not see reduced costs outside of the $80B/so the insurance companies book as profits. The only way you get your plan to work (assuming you don't attack hospital staff costs or implement rationing) is by increasing revenue to the system by extracting money from those that are not currently paying. Further, you will increase the quality of care for the current uninsured/non-payers by charging the currently insured more and provide a worse quality of care.

#29 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-20 12:40 AM | Reply

Hospitals don't dictate to Medicare.

They just don't accept it, like the MayoClinic. For every patient over age 65, 70% of hospitals in the United States lose money on Medicare patients. .

You gotta pay the doctors/nurses/administrators. As Ira mentions they raise the prices else where, basically us the middle class workers.

Again something you just don't understand.

#30 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-20 01:26 AM | Reply

"For every patient over age 65, 70% of hospitals in the United States lose money on Medicare patients. .
#30 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS"

I don't know what is so difficult for Liberals to understand - the currently insured ARE SUBSIDIZING MEDICARE ALREADY. You can't just assume everything can be done at Medicare reimbursement rates, that is not realistic. Back to my example - it is a $50 aspirin because that is how the industry decided was the best way to subsidize the system to make up for non-payers, uninsured, etc. It is a giant shell game and there aren't any huge savings in the system unless they want to:

1.) Ration care
2.) Address staff costs
3.) Decrease quality of care by using older equipment, etc

The net effect will be those with currently good healthcare (like UAW workers), will pay much more for a much worse level of care. Dems - be honest with your base. You are trying to AGAIN, screw over manufacturing unions.

#31 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-20 01:40 AM | Reply

#29 | Posted by iragoldberg

So you say. Your opinion. Facts are Medicare keeps costs down. Private insurers not as much. Medicare For All, if run like traditional Medicare, would result in lower medical costs across the board.

Our system worked well when there were nonprofit hospitals across America. Before companies like HCA bought them up, tore them down, built new buildings, and began ripping off every patient and insurance company they can get away with. A friend, a psychiatrist at a large hospital here, said every patient, even catatonic psych patients, get 'therapy' every day at $200 a pop. Usually delivered by a nurses aide. Yep, even unconscious patients. How's that for your HCA hospital milking the current system? Thank you Tommy Frist!

You might ask, 'how will be get enough doctors?' Here's what my BIL, the doctor of 35 years, said, "We'll still make plenty of money." Incentivize new physicians to locate where they're needed and encourage them to get into primary care by offsetting med school loans based on the time they practice in under served communities. Europe has no shortage of doctors. And they make a good living working in national health care systems. They aren't fleeing Western European countries for the U.S.

Why are some people so reluctant to try what works well in other countries? Our system is more expensive than any other developed country with poorer results.

#32 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-20 01:44 AM | Reply

but with poorer results

#33 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-20 01:48 AM | Reply

"Europe has no shortage of doctors. And they make a good living working in national health care systems. They aren't fleeing Western European countries for the U.S.
#32 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY "

So much of what you say is just utter nonsense. Here are 3 links on the shortage of doctors in Europe.

The UK lost 441 general practitioners last year and had 11,576 unfilled vacancies for doctors as of last June

French medics warn health service is on brink of collapse (www.theguardian.com)

A surge in retirements, lack of new doctors in training, emigration to countries with better working conditions ... by 2020, Europe could be facing a shortage of 230,000 doctors.
www.europeandatajournalism.eu

Here it is for Canada

"Canada's physician-to-population ratio (age-adjusted) ranked 26th among 28 developed nations that maintain universal access health care. It's not surprising then that some 6.6 per cent of Canadians reported being unable to find a family doctor in 2010. Canada's physicians are unable to meet the demand for health care services because there are simply too few of them."

www.fraserinstitute.org

I will let you digest that before kicking your head in over the other incorrect assumptions you have been using.

Can we just use some actual data rather than ---- your cousin's husband's neighbor's brother in law said? Good Lord.

#34 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-20 02:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#33 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Where did you run off to? It has been a day and no response. No admission that your argument was completely counter-factual? Be a man. Admit you f'ed up.

#35 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-20 09:36 PM | Reply

This is the best part of watching leftists fighting with far-leftists
ibb.co

#36 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-09-21 01:44 AM | Reply

"Warren's strategy has been to acknowledge the tax increase in everything but name, making essentially the same argument as Sanders without actually using the words "middle-class taxes will go up."

"But neither Warren nor Sanders address the millions of Americans who pay very little in premiums for their employer-sponsored health care, and whose average out-of-pocket expenses are $0 a year."

Sanders, and to a slightly lesser degree Warren, are running on platforms based on using taxpayer dollars to buy votes.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-21 03:07 AM | Reply

"Sanders, and to a slightly lesser degree Warren, are running on platforms based on using taxpayer dollars to buy votes.
#37 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER "

Not strictly true as they will end up spending MORE on taxes for a less quality of care - so, their is only the perception of buying votes as long as Warren tries to sell the plan as a free lunch. If the MSM were honest - they would call out this BS.

#38 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-21 05:34 AM | Reply

But neither Warren nor Sanders address the millions of Americans who pay very little in premiums for their employer-sponsored health care,

The employees need to get the benefit back in wages.

When I took my current job I got a high pay rate because there were no benefits. If Health Care stops being a benefit then the employees need to do the same thing I did and get more money. I have heard this argument that employers won't pass health savings on to employees but if you look right now pay rates without benefits are higher than pay rates with benefits so it already happens.

If you think Joe Employee is going to keep working for 50k a year when it used to be 50k plus health insurance you are nuts. He'll switch jobs. I mean all you pseudo=libertarians are always saying the employee can negotiate their wages now suddenly when it is convenient for your argument they can't?

#39 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-09-21 06:59 AM | Reply

"The employees need to get the benefit back in wages."

Or other benefits.

MFA is going to require a massive increase in taxes. The problem is, it's pretty difficult to make people pay taxes if they really don't want to pay them. Providing some form of non-taxable benefit would probably be even better than money.

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-21 09:47 AM | Reply

Many people don't have life insurance.

We could eliminate all life insurance companies and provide a universal payout for death.

This would go a long way for families that must ditch the bodies on the road side.

#41 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-21 01:28 PM | Reply

#40

True we would probably see an explosion in 401k which would be good for the stock market, might even see more employee stock options, not sure about the tax rules on that.

Possibly more paid time off. There would be more money in a lot of people's pockets, I'm sure for many it would be less than the tax increase but for many it would be more.

#42 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-09-21 09:16 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort