.@BernieSanders' #MedicareForAll plan achieves the same goals as @ewarren's – but costs $20 trillion less over 10 years, has a clear timeline, and addresses hospital monopolies & drug research.
@BernieSanders @ewarren She notes that another plan about the transition is forthcoming and criticizes the M4A Act for not clarifying "How much we will pay for medical care and for prescription drugs" (Which, at least for medical care, I feel like has been pretty clear from the beginning: $0).
@BernieSanders @ewarren All in all, Warren's plan isn't bad – but with her top-down theory of regulatory change, as much as she claims to be building a grassroots movement (not from what I've seen), I highly doubt her ability to whip the votes for a plan that's MORE expensive than Bernie/Pramila's.
@BernieSanders @ewarren Warren supporters concern trolling about new taxes on the middle class haven't been listening to #MedicareForAll advocates over the past four years. M4A under the Pramila/Bernie plan is a tax cut.
@BernieSanders @ewarren Nothing that Warren suggests in this plan is bad – I would love to tax the rich – but it's more expensive, more convoluted, and (with her theory of change) easier to gut.
What concerns me most is that playing into the GOP anti-tax talking point only does more do turn leftists against the Bernie/Pramila M4A plan - the plan for which single-payer advocates have been advocating for years. This helps Warren but hurts the movement’s credibility.
And opening up more revenue streams that are unrelated to healthcare for M4A allows the GOP to cut those revenue streams 1 by 1 - then the narrative is then in THEIR hands. Under Bernie/Jayapal, we have a healthcare fund - and you can’t cut that w/o political consequences.
Again, none of this is bad, it’s just unnecessary. And it makes single-payer advocates’ job harder by forcing them to have to overcome more anti-tax rhetoric. I like @ewarren but this is not what a movement-based campaign should be doing.
