Her refusal to say until now whether she would impose new taxes on the middle class, as fellow progressive White House hopeful Bernie Sanders has said he would, had become untenable and made her a target in recent presidential debates.
Under the Medicare for All Act, introduced by Sanders in April and cosponsored by Warren, all U.S. residents would be automatically enrolled in a national health care plan administered by the federal government. Employers would have to calculate the amount they spent on health care "over the last few years and divide that by the number of employees of the company in those years to arrive at an average healthcare cost per employee at the company", Warren writes; employers would then pay out 98 percent of that figure to the federal government.
The mainstream media's response differed from one outlet or network to the next. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., on Friday in response to Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren's written explanation of her "Medicare for All" plan. Instead, critics point to groupthink and how the details could have been cherry-picked to portray a positive outcome for the proposed plan.
Warren says the current health care system will cost $52 trillion over 10 years anyway, so she's not proposing a system that will cost much less - she's proposing a system that will funnel the money to the federal government instead of private insurance companies.
It would mandate that employers pay the government the same amount that they now contribute for private health insurance for their employee.
Health policy experts see the feasibility of Warren's plan in a similar light: If other governments can provide universal care without breaking the bank, surely America can as well, at least technically.
Nonetheless, Sanders had beforehand launched fee choices, together with a four% tax "premium" on revenue that kicks in after the primary $29,000 for a household of 4 - very a lot affecting the center class.
Warren, D-Mass., has been touting healthcare reform from the outset of her campaign and rival candidates have been pressing her on how she would pay for such a massive program. Warren also wants to provide undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, which would bring new taxpayers into the country.
Here's the headline: My plan won't raise taxes one penny on middle-class families.
The more moderate Buttigieg, 37, has also pushed back against Warren´s plan, arguing Americans should be able to keep their insurance if they want. That's bigger than the biggest tax cut in our history. The higher take-home pay for workers could generate an additional $1.4 trillion in tax revenue for the federal government to help fund Medicare for all, she said. According to the senator, her measure will cost $52 trillion over the next ten years. And a serious diagnosis can financially ruin a middle-class family even if they have insurance.
Over the weekend, Warren and more than a dozen other candidates will be in Iowa, which will in three months hold the nation's first presidential caucuses. "Or, if they are unwilling to do that, they should concede that they think it's more important to protect the eye-popping profits of private insurers and drug companies and the enormous fortunes of the top 1% and giant corporations, rather than provide transformative financial relief for hundreds of millions of American families".
It would extend Medicare, the US government's health insurance program for people 65 years and older and the disabled, to cover all Americans, including at the roughly 27.5 million - 8.5 percent of the population - who are now uninsured. She estimated approximately $1.15 trillion of the $11 trillion would be paid in taxes.