How Single Payer Would Make Outbreaks Like Coronavirus Worse

The past several weeks have seen two trends with important implications for health policy: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s burst of momentum following strong political showings in both Iowa and New Hampshire has drawn greater attention to his proposal for single-payer health care, as China struggles to control a coronavirus outbreak that first emerged at the end of last year.

The two events are linked by more than just time. The coronavirus outbreak provides a compelling argument against Sanders’s so-called “Medicare for All” program, which would upend the health-care system’s ability to respond to infectious disease outbreaks.

In an Outbreak, Could You Obtain Care?

For starters, supporters of Sanders’s plan have admitted that under single payer, not all patients seeking care will obtain it. In 2018, People’s Policy Project President Matt Bruenig claimed that while demand for care might rise under single payer, “aggregate health service utilization is ultimately dependent on the capacity to provide services, meaning utilization could hit a hard limit.”

By eliminating virtually all patient payments for their own care, single payer would increase demand for care—demand Bruenig concedes the system likely could not meet, even under normal circumstances. Consider that an outbreak centered more than 6,000 miles from the Pacific coast has already led to a run on respiratory face masks in the United States. During a widespread outbreak on our shores, an influx of both sick and worried-but-well patients could swamp hospitals already facing higher demand for “free” care.

Bureaucrats’ Questionable Spending Priorities

While Sanders’s legislation attempts to provide emergency surge capacity for the health-care system, experience suggests federal officials may not spend this money wisely. Section 601 of the House and Senate single-payer bills include provisions for a “reserve fund” designed to “respond to the costs of treating an epidemic, pandemic, natural disaster, or other such health emergency.” However, neither of the bills include a specific amount for that fund, leaving all decisions for the national health care budget in the hands of the Department of Health and Human Services.

And federal officials demonstrated a questionable sense of policy priorities in the years leading up to the 2014 Ebola outbreak. Of the nearly $3 billion from Obamacare’s Prevention and Public Health Fund given to the Centers for Disease Control in the years 2010-2014, only about 6 percent went towards building epidemiology and laboratory capacity. Instead, CDC spent $517.3 million funding grants focused on objectives like “improving neighborhood grocery stores” and “promoting better sidewalks and street lighting.”

Socialized Medicine Brought to Its Knees By…the Flu?

Including a system of global budgets as part of a transition to single payer would leave hospitals with little financial flexibility to cope with a sudden surge of patients. Sanders’s Senate version of single-payer legislation does not include such a payment mechanism, but the House single-payer bill does. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other liberal think-tanks believe the concept, which provides hospitals lump-sum payments to cover the facilities’ entire operating budget, can help reduce health-care costs.

But in its May 2019 report on single payer, the Congressional Budget Office noted that consistently slow growth of global budget payments in Britain’s National Health Service has “created severe financial strains on the health care system.” And how: Rising hospital bed occupancy rates have created longer wait times in emergency rooms, with patients stuck on gurneys for hours. In one example of its annual “winter crisis,” two years ago the NHS postponed 55,000 surgeries due to capacity constraints, with one ER physician apologizing for “Third World conditions of the department due to overcrowding.”

A British health system barely able to cope with a predictable occurrence like a winter flu outbreak seems guaranteed to crumble in the face of a major pandemic. Voters lured by the siren song of socialism should bear that in mind as they ponder news of the coronavirus and Sanders’ “Medicare for All.”

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Is Elizabeth Warren Trying to Use a “Goldilocks” Strategy to Win the Democratic Nomination?

In blessing the presidential candidacy of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), former Housing and Urban Development Secretary and recent presidential dropout Julian Castro used an interesting rationale to explain his endorsement: “More than any other candidate in this race…Elizabeth Warren is the candidate who can unite the entire Democratic Party.”

That premise may well explain the strategy behind her campaign, to win the Democratic nomination as the “Goldilocks” candidate—not too hot, and not too cold.

The strategy wouldn’t make Warren a political moderate, by any stretch. No nominee who has endorsed a conversion to a single-payer system of socialized medicine would fall into that category. But making Warren the candidate most acceptable (or least unacceptable) to moderates and leftists alike does mean that, the longer the nomination fight plays out, the stronger her chances might get.

Contested Convention Ahead?

In the past several weeks, multiple stories have analyzed the possibility of a prolonged contest for the Democratic nomination. In the fourth quarter of 2019, four candidates—Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Warren—raised more than $20 million, suggesting they will have ample resources to compete in primaries throughout the spring. The nomination fight also features two billionaires who have the ability to self-fund their campaigns, Tom Steyer and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Couple the field of well-financed candidates with the Democratic Party’s proportional allocation method, in which any candidate exceeding 15 percent of the vote in a state receives a share of that state’s delegates, and you have the recipe for a prolonged campaign of attrition. In this year’s “bizarro world” scenario, each of the half dozen candidates has the means to continue competing in primaries, and because many (if not most) will amass delegates along the way, they will have every incentive to do so.

It seems premature to make definitive judgments on the complexion of the campaign weeks before the first ballots get cast. But Democrats may convene in Milwaukee this July without a single candidate controlling the majority of delegates necessary to win the presidential nomination.

Least Common Denominator Candidate

If Democrats do end up with a contested convention, it seems unlikely to result in an outcome in which a previously undeclared candidate emerges from the shadows to win the nomination. Given the acrimony throughout the 2016 campaign, when Sanders’ supporters (rightly) protested at a process rigged against their candidate, the idea that a “white horse” candidate such as Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, or someone similar could win the nomination without having entered a single primary seems far-fetched, not least because of the outrage that would ensue.

So a contested convention would feature the candidates currently declared, and only the candidates currently declared, battling for the nomination. At that point, it likely would become less a contest of persuasion—which candidate can I most enthusiastically support?—than an attempt to cobble together a coalition of delegates that focuses on a different test: Which candidate offends the least?

Of the four candidates leading the polls, Warren appears to win this test, by a fairly wide margin. Consider the negatives against the other candidates:

  • Biden’s age (77) has raised questions throughout the campaign about his physical stamina and mental acuity. Even after he reversed himself (under pressure) on taxpayer funding of abortion, Biden’s history of positions on issues—from his support for the 2005 bankruptcy bill, to his vote for the Iraq War, to his support for the 1994 crime bill, to his treatment of Anita Hill—remain to the right of the party, drawing scorn from leftists as a moderate supported by corporate interests.
  • Like Biden, Sanders’ age (78) remains an issue, particularly given his heart attack in October. While many on the left believe he has strong appeal to working-class voters, particularly in the Rust Belt, who have deserted the party, establishment types worry that a self-proclaimed socialist will prove unelectable in November.
  • Buttigieg has age concerns as well because of his relative youth (he turns 38 this month). He has little political experience outside South Bend, won his last mayoral election with a total of 8,515 votes, and lost his only statewide campaign by a nearly 25-percentage point margin. And his experience working at McKinsey has become fodder for attacks by the far-left, who love to hate the candidate they call “Wall Street Pete.”

By contrast, Warren has comparatively few obvious drawbacks. While a septuagenarian, her age (70) makes her several years younger than Biden and Sanders, and younger than President Trump. She has endorsed a host of far-left policies, but insists she remains a capitalist to her bones. And in a field that has shrunk to become dominated by white men, a Warren nomination would provide Democrats an identity politics card.

For all these reasons, Warren remains the top second choice of voters in most polls, even as her standing as voters’ first choice has shrunk. It makes her well-placed to serve as the compromise candidate should Democrats face a contested convention, which by definition would involve at least some delegates choosing their second-favorite candidate as the nominee.

The two biggest strikes against her appear largely self-inflicted: The controversy over her ancestry (exacerbated by her DNA test), and her evasions on health care. While Trump would bring the latter up often—indeed, has already done so—it seems unlikely any opponent would make it an issue during a fight for the Democratic nomination. (At least he or she would not do so publicly.)

As for health care, she evaded questions about how to pay for single payer for months, and finally released a funding plan in early November, only to say two weeks later she wouldn’t push for single payer until the third year of her term. This bobbing and weaving coincided with a pullback in her polling numbers. But to take the longer view, it syncs up well with a larger “Goldilocks” political strategy.

Her eventual position, in which she pledged to enact a robust “public option” immediately, followed by a push for single payer later, drew little love from either moderates (who don’t like talk of single payer at all) or leftists (who want to enact single payer immediately, as Sanders has promised). But it represents the kind of clunky political compromise could easily envision a party’s platform committee drafting. That makes it entirely consistent with an attempt to position Warren in ways that offend the fewest number of Democrats—a helpful strategy in the event of a contested convention.

Obama Wild Card?

One other figure could loom large over a prolonged nomination fight: Barack Obama. Two reports in recent weeks suggest first that Obama doubts Biden’s connection with voters, and second that Obama has talked up Warren’s candidacy behind closed doors. While one must caveat the articles with two of the biggest weasel words in politics—“If accurate”—these reports suggest that, should the nomination fight become prolonged, the last Democratic president may weigh in on behalf of the Massachusetts senator. While such a development might not decide the nomination, it could go a long way in doing so.

After Warren’s fumbling on health care this fall, some had begun to write off her candidacy. Indeed, this author said she had “Swift-boated” herself, by turning her supposed strength as a policy wonk into her biggest weakness. Paradoxically, however, while Warren’s machinations cost her in the polls over the short term (and would harm her in a general election campaign), they could help her to win the Democratic nomination.

This post was originally published in The Federalist.

Three Ways Pete Buttigieg Is No Moderate

In recent weeks, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has enjoyed a boomlet in polls for the Democratic presidential nomination, helped in no small part by fawning press coverage. Politico and others have examined the candidate and his supposedly “moderate” message.

Rhetoric aside, however, the substance of Buttigieg’s policy plans seem anything but moderate. On multiple issues, Pete has embraced positions far to the left of anything Hillary Clinton dared endorse in her campaign four years ago, and which seem “moderate” only in comparison to the socialist delusions of candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

1. Big Tax Increases on the Middle Class

As I first noted last month, Buttigieg has supported at least one, and quite possibly several, tax increases on the middle class. His retirement security plan included one explicit tax increase on working families, endorsing legislation that would raise payroll taxes as part of a new regime of paid family leave.

The retirement white paper, released just before Thanksgiving, implicitly endorsed a second tax increase on the middle class as well. The plan proposed a new entitlement program, Long-Term Care for America, designed to replace the CLASS Act included in Obamacare, but which Congress repealed prior to its implementation due to solvency concerns. Buttigieg’s paper didn’t say how it would pay for the new spending created by the program, but other studies cited by the campaign did: They proposed another increase in the payroll tax, which would also fall on middle-class families.

I wrote about Buttigieg’s tax plans in the Wall Street Journal last month. Yet following that article, no one from the Buttigieg campaign bothered to refute, smack down, or otherwise correct my assertion that their candidate wants to tax middle-class families.

The deafening silence from the Buttigieg campaign regarding my op-ed suggests the candidate does indeed want to raise taxes on the middle class—he just hopes that no one will notice that fact. It seems like an ironic bit of silence, given that Buttigieg attacked Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) for being “extremely evasive” on the issue of middle-class tax increases last fall.

2. ‘Insurance, Whether You Want It or Not’

Buttigieg likes to advertise his health care plan as “Medicare for All Who Want It,” but as several stories over the holiday revealed, it comes with an intrusive twist. While his plan says that “individuals could opt out of public coverage,” they could do so only “if they choose to enroll in another insurance plan.”

In other words, Buttigieg would compel people to buy insurance—whether they want to or not, enforcing this revived individual mandate through the tax code. On April 15, individuals who didn’t enroll in health insurance the previous year would get a bill for coverage, which could total $5,000 or more, whether they wanted that coverage or not, and whether they knew they had that coverage or not.

It’s far from clear that this new “mandate on steroids” would pass constitutional muster. In 2012, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts blessed Obamacare’s mandate as a tax in part because “for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance…It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance.”

Roberts justified Obamacare’s mandate as a tax because it gave the public a genuine choice: Buy insurance, or pay the IRS a tax. Buttigieg’s plan would give the public a Hobson’s choice: Buy insurance, or have insurance bought for you. It represents a significant increase in federal powers—one courts could (and should) strike down.

3. ‘Glide Path’ to Socialized Medicine

Notwithstanding his use of a strengthened individual mandate, Buttigieg ultimately wants to end up with a single-payer system of socialized medicine. He has made no bones about his objective, claiming that his health-care plan would provide a “glide path” to socialism.

As with most of the 2020 Democratic candidates who haven’t endorsed single payer explicitly, Buttigieg’s plan contains several characteristics designed to promote the growth of government-run health care. For instance, he would automatically enroll millions of individuals into the government-run health plan. (He claims Americans could opt out of the government plan, but if he wants the system to end in single payer, how easy would he make it for them to do so?) And he has proposed capping the amount that both private and public insurers can pay physicians and hospitals for health treatments, another way to funnel Americans into the government-run system.

Buttigieg’s plan would create the architecture to create a government-run system of socialized medicine. He just would build that edifice slightly more slowly than Sanders would. It represents but one of the big-government dreams of a candidate who, despite soothing rhetoric, has little in the way of policies to justify the term “moderate.”

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Joe Biden’s Obamacare Gaffe Points to a Larger Truth

In Iowa just before the New Year, former Vice President Joe Biden had an interesting response to a voter’s concerns about Obamacare. The voter said his father had lost his coverage when the law’s major provisions took effect in 2014, and the “replacement” plans proved far more expensive. Asked to apologize for what PolitiFact dubbed its “Lie of the Year” for 2013—that “If you like your plan, you can keep it”—Biden demurred by claiming the following:

There’s two ways people know when something is important. One, when it’s so clear when it’s passed that everybody understands it. And no one did understand Obamacare, including the way it was rolled out. And the gentleman’s right—he said you could keep your doctor if you wanted to, and you couldn’t keep your doctor if you wanted to, necessarily. He’s dead right about that.

On its face, Biden’s comments initially resemble House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” gaffe. But in reality, they hint at a larger truth: the federal government has gotten so big and sprawling, nobody really understands it.

Pelosi’s ‘Kinsley Gaffe’

Just before Obamacare’s passage in March 2010, Pelosi made comments that conservatives have parodied for most of the ten years since:

Upon closer inspection, though, her comments centered on the political messaging about the law, rather than the underlying policy. She prefaced her infamous quote by noting that “You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill.”

But in Pelosi’s view, the American people had not heard about the substance of the bill itself: “I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future.” She went on to talk a bit about preventive care measures contained in Obamacare, which in her view would lower health-care costs. She then gave her infamous quote about passing the bill “so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Pelosi’s statement still seems extraordinary. She admitted that, even with Barack Obama—who won the presidency in fair measure through his rhetoric—in the White House, more than 250 Democrats in the House, and 60 Democrats in the Senate, Obamacare had proven a political failure. Democrats had lost the messaging battle in 2009 and 2010, and could only hope that enacting the legislation and allowing Americans to see its purported benefits could turn the dynamic around.

But Pelosi’s comments said “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”—emphasis on the second person. She still claimed to know the contents of the legislation, contra the recent claims of the vice president at the time.

So Much for ‘Experts’

On one level, Biden’s comments echoed Pelosi’s. He talked about “the way it was rolled out”—a likely reference to the messaging battles of 2009-10, the “debacle” of the exchange launch in late 2013, or a combination of the two.

But unlike Pelosi—who said the public didn’t understand Obamacare—Biden said that “no one did understand Obamacare.” One wonders whether the statement meant to inoculate Obama from accepting blame for his “like your plan” rhetoric, even though Obama himself apologized for misleading the public on the issue in late 2013.

Regardless, Biden’s rhetoric echoes the example of Max Baucus, at the time the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Asked shortly after the legislation passed whether he had read Obamacare prior to its enactment, he responded that “I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every single word of that health care bill,” because “we hire experts” who are the only people who “know what the heck it is:”

Except that four years later, one of those “experts” who worked on Baucus’ staff at the time, Yvette Fontenot, admitted that when drafting Obamacare’s employer mandate, “We didn’t have a very good handle on how difficult operationalizing the provision would be at that time.” So, to borrow Baucus’ own phrase, even one of his self-appointed “experts” didn’t “know what the heck it is” either.

Why Expand a Government You Can’t Even Understand?

Biden’s comments once again reveal that the federal government has become too big and sprawling for anyone to understand. Yet he and his Democratic colleagues continue to push massive, multi-trillion-dollar expansions of government as part of their presidential campaigns. Sen. Elizabeth Warren goes so far as to claim that “experts” can fix just about everything that’s wrong with the world, even though Biden’s admission shows that they need to start by fixing the problems they caused.

As the old saying goes, when you’re in a hole, stop digging. That axiom applies equally to Biden’s propensity to put his foot in his mouth and Democrats’ desire to expand a government they do not understand.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Elizabeth Warren’s Health Care “Choice:” Dishonesty

In Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) may debut before a nationwide audience a surprising mantra for someone openly committed to enacting a single-payer system of socialized medicine: Choice.

NBC reports that Warren said on Saturday: “We’re going to push through…full health care coverage at no cost for everyone else who wants it—you can buy it for a modest amount. You don’t have to, but it’s your choice.”

To clarify her “you can buy it” comments, Warren’s most recent health care plan said she would immediately make “free” coverage available to anyone making less than two times the federal poverty level ($51,500 for a family of four in 2019), with sliding-scale premiums capped at no more than 5% of income for those making more than 200% of poverty. Her recent speeches have focused on selling this “transition” plan—“free” coverage if you want it, but only if you want it—rather than her earlier single-payer program.

Some conservatives have claimed that Warren’s change in rhetoric marks the “last gasp” for the left’s move towards socialized medicine. Don’t you believe it. Warren hasn’t given up on anything. Nor have Pete Buttigieg and the other candidates who have campaigned against “Medicare for All.” They, and she, have just chosen to become less candid with the American people about how they hope to achieve their ultimate objectives.

Why Warren Pivoted

Two reasons in particular explain why Warren suddenly embraced the mantra of choice. First, most Americans who have health insurance right now like their plan. A Gallup survey found that nearly seven in ten Americans find their health coverage either excellent (27%) or good (42%). In the 18 years since Gallup first started asking this question, the approval number for Americans’ health coverage has never dropped below 63%.

When millions of people received cancellation notices as Obamacare took effect, Barack Obama found out in 2013 how much people like their current coverage. He felt compelled to issue a public apology for his “Lie of the Year,” telling people they could keep their existing plans when many could not. In part due to these events six years ago, the fear of taking people’s coverage away has dominated the health care discussions at this year’s Democratic presidential debates.

By emphasizing choice, Warren seeks to minimize this potential source of controversy for key constituencies. In the Democratic primaries, union households who have negotiated generous health benefits may blanch at losing those benefits; one confronted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) about the issue in Iowa this past summer.

Then in next year’s general election, educated and affluent voters who have good health coverage will similarly fear a new plan taking that coverage away. As Philip Klein recently noted in the Washington Examiner, proposing the eradication of existing insurance options could well cost Warren in places like the suburbs of Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee—critically important battleground areas in battleground states.

De-Emphasizing (Middle Class) Tax Increases

Second, Warren’s earlier rhetoric about taking coverage away from all Americans implies another, similarly awkward question: How will you pay for this massive expansion of government? Warren tried to answer this query by releasing a funding proposal in early November, but in truth, it raised more questions than it answered.

To give but one example: Since Warren released her plan, one study found that her proposed wealth tax would raise $1 trillion less in revenue than she claimed. That $1 trillion gap represents money that she would have to get from somewhere else.

Her revenue plan has myriad other gimmicks buried inside (analyzed in detail here). For instance, her estimates didn’t take into account the fact that the tax increases will shrink the economy, and therefore by definition won’t produce all the revenue she claims.

Warren released her revenue plan claiming that she could fund the full cost of her single-payer plan without raising taxes on the middle class. But the more she pushed that plan, the more people would pick apart all the gimmicks—and Warren’s opponents would rightly claim the gap between what she said her plan would raise and what it actually does would end up coming from the middle class. As a result, Warren “chose” to pivot to her “choice” mantra, navigating away from the Scylla and Charybdis of taking away people’s coverage, and raising taxes on the middle class to do so.

Forcing People to ‘Choose’ Socialism

The change in Warren’s tone doesn’t mean she’s changed her ultimate objective, however. Consider her comments at a town hall on Monday: “When tens of millions of people have had a chance to try [the buy-in proposal], I believe, at that point, we’re going to be ready to vote for” single payer (emphasis added).

Like Buttigieg, Warren sees a buy-in program—call it a “government-run plan,” call it a “public option,” call it “Medicare for All Who Want It”—as creating a natural “glide path” to single payer. They remain quite outspoken in their goal: They want to achieve a socialized medicine system. If given the opportunity, they will use policy to accomplish that objective—just slightly more slowly than under an immediate transition to single payer.

A throwaway line in a recent Vox article got at this same point. The article focused on open enrollment for exchange plans, and the fact that insurers must limit enrollment to a certain period of time, because Obamacare’s costly pre-existing condition provisions encourage individuals to wait until they become sick to sign up for coverage. The penultimate paragraph included this claim:

Under the various public options that have been proposed, uninsured people would be automatically enrolled in the new optional government plan. One advantage the government has over private insurers is it doesn’t need its books to balance perfectly; adverse selection [a disproportionate number of sick people signing up] isn’t as big a concern. [Emphasis mine.]

The highlighted line demonstrates how liberals would use taxpayer funds for the government-run plan: subsidizing coverage in advance, or bailing out the government plan after the fact if premiums are set too low, or too many sick people enroll, or both. Vox’s line hints at the left’s true goal through a “public option:” To sabotage private plans, and force people into socialized medicine, one person at a time.

Warren’s “choice” mantra sounds innocuous, but its underlying premise—by her own admission—seeks to create a single-payer system, just over a slightly longer period. Conservatives who think her approach represents anything other than a change in tactics should think again. The wolf attacking private insurance hasn’t disappeared so much as put on a disguise of sheep’s clothing.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Unanswered Questions on Single Payer

This month’s Democratic presidential debate will likely see a continued focus on the single-payer health care proposal endorsed by Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. But for all the general discussion — and pointed controversy — over single payer at prior debates, many unanswered questions remain. The moderators should ask Sanders and Warren about the specific details of their legislation, such as:

►Section 901(A) of the bill states that “no benefits shall be available under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act” — i.e., Medicare. And an analyst with the liberal Urban Institute has said that “you can call (the bill) many things — from ambitious to unrealistic. But please don’t call it Medicare.” Why do you insist on calling your proposal “Medicare for All” when it would bear little resemblance to the Medicare program and, in fact, would abolish it outright?

►You have claimed that single payer will make health care a human right. But the bill itself does not guarantee access to a doctor — it only guarantees that patients will have their care paid for if they can find a doctor or hospital willing to treat them. In fact, in 2005, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that “access to a waiting list is not access to health care,” because patients in that country’s single-payer system could not access care in a timely fashion. Why are you promising the American people access to care when your bill falls short of that promise?

►The Urban Institute estimated that a similar single-payer plan would raise national health care spending by $719.7 billion a year, because abolishing cost-sharing (e.g., deductibles, copayments, etc.) will increase demand for care. But the People’s Policy Project called Urban’s estimates “ridiculous,” because “there is still a hard limit to just how much health care can be performed because there are only so many doctors.” Which position do you agree with — the Urban Institute’s belief that individuals consuming more “free” health care will cause spending to rise, or the position that spending will not increase because at least some people who demand care will not be able to obtain it?

►Countries like Canada and Great Britain, both of which have single-payer health care systems, permit individuals to purchase private insurance if they wish — and many Canadians and Brits choose to do so. Why would you go beyond Canada, Britain and other countries to make private health insurance “unlawful” — and do you believe taking away individuals’ private insurance can pass constitutional muster with the Supreme Court?

►Four years ago, your Senate colleague Robert Menendez, D-N.J., was indicted for accepting nearly $1 million in gifts and favors from a Florida ophthalmologist. Menendez had tried to help that ophthalmologist — who was eventually convicted on 67 counts of defrauding Medicare — in a billing dispute with federal officials. Given this ethically questionable conduct by one of your own colleagues regarding the Medicare program, why does your legislation include no new provisions fighting fraud or corruption, even as it vastly expands the federal government’s power and scope?

►You have criticized President Donald Trump for his supposed attempts to “sabotage” the exchanges created under President Barack Obama’s health care law. How, then, would you stop a future Republican president from sabotaging a single-payer system when your legislation would vest more authority in the federal government than President Trump has?

Once Warren and Sanders finish answering these questions, the American people will likely recognize that, the senators’ claims to the contrary notwithstanding, single payer doesn’t represent a good answer for our health care system at all.

This post was originally published at USA Today.

Pete Buttigieg’s Plan to Tax the Middle Class

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg claimed last month that “everything that we have proposed has been paid for, and we have proposed no tax increase on the middle class.” The South Bend, Indiana mayor is incorrect on both counts: He hasn’t said how he’d pay for all his proposed spending. He has endorsed one explicit tax increase on the middle class, and his recent retirement plan provides an outline for another. Add it up, and middle-class workers could face a trillion dollars in new taxes.

To support family caregivers, Mr. Buttigieg’s retirement plan restated his prior commitment to enact “an enhanced version of the Family Act,” which would provide 12 weeks of subsidized family leave. The candidate has yet to specify how exactly he would “enhance” the Family Act. But that legislation, introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), pays for its new benefit by raising payroll taxes by 0.2% of income.

Mr. Buttigieg’s retirement plan also contains several new spending proposals, including a long-term care entitlement. He says the program would make benefits available to people over 65 and would “kick in after an income-related waiting period.” His plan cites two white papers as examples of “similar programs” proposed by scholars.

Mr. Buttigieg fails to note how both white papers propose to pay for the new benefits. In the first paper, the Long-Term Care Financing Collaborative envisions a program “fully financed by a dedicated revenue source,” including a payroll tax, “an explicit income tax surcharge, or other dedicated tax.”

The second paper, written by researchers affiliated with the Urban Institute, contains several policy details Mr. Buttigieg adopted, including waiting periods for wealthier people to qualify. That paper also proposes a specific funding source: “an additional tax of about 1.0 percent of earned Medicare-covered income.” In other words, an increase in the payroll tax—a tax increase on the middle class.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last December that a one percentage point increase in the Medicare tax rate would raise $898.3 billion over a decade. If Mr. Buttigieg intends to fund his new long-term care program via the payroll tax, that tax increase, coupled with the 0.2% payroll tax hike in the Family Act he has already endorsed, would bring total payroll-tax increases to more than $1 trillion.

If Mr. Buttigieg doesn’t want to fund his long-term-care entitlement with the payroll-tax increase proposed in a paper his campaign cited, he should explain where that money will come from. His own claims notwithstanding, Mr. Buttigieg’s candidacy has lacked fiscal candor. His campaign told the Indianapolis Star last month that it had proposed $5.7 trillion in spending to that point, but cited a total of only $5.1 trillion in tax increases and savings.

Mr. Buttigieg’s retirement-security plan has since added other spending proposals with no mention of a funding source. There’s his plan to make those receiving Social Security disability benefits immediately eligible for Medicare, which will likely cost more than $100 billion. There’s his new requirement for state Medicaid programs to cover community-based services as a mandatory benefit, along with mandates on nursing homes—including a $15 minimum wage and higher staffing ratios—which will raise Medicaid spending.

Mr. Buttigieg called Elizabeth Warren “extremely evasive” for her answers on single-payer health care, saying, “I think that if you are proud of your plan and it’s the right plan, you should defend it in straightforward terms. And I think it’s puzzling that when everybody knows the answer to that question of whether her plan . . . will raise middle class taxes is ‘Yes.’ Why wouldn’t you just say so, and then explain why you think that’s the better way forward?” He should follow his own advice.

This post was originally published at The Wall Street Journal.

The Tax Increase Joe Biden’s Tax Plan “Forgot” to Mention Affects His Pocketbook

The details of Joe Biden’s tax plan emerged on Thursday—“emerged” because the campaign has yet to release a plan on its website. Instead, Bloomberg News obtained and published details of the tax proposal.

Most news coverage of the plan has to date focused on two issues. First, Biden’s plan proposes raising a relatively modest amount of revenue—“only” $3.2 trillion over a decade, compared to $20-30 trillion for the likes of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). As an additional point of comparison, the 2017 tax cut, which Biden called “the dumbest thing in the world,” reduced revenues by $1.46 trillion over 10 years—less than half the fiscal impact of Biden’s tax increase. (Biden has said he wants to repeal those tax cuts, most of which are not included in his $3.2 trillion tax increase proposal.)

Second, stories have centered around the fact that Biden’s proposed revenue raisers would hit corporations and the affluent, while sparing the middle class. But few if any stories on Biden’s tax plan have mentioned one tax he has not proposed increasing—the one he failed to pay himself.

The List of Tax Increases

The Bloomberg story listed ten tax increases included in Biden’s $3.2 trillion plan:

  1. Taxing capital gains as ordinary income for individuals making more than $1 million ($800 billion revenue increase over ten years);
  2. Increasing the corporate income tax rate back up to 28% ($730 billion);
  3. Ending the “stepped-up basis” of taxation, under which the cost basis of inherited property (e.g., stocks, real estate, etc.) for determining capital gains tax liability is the value of the property at the time of the inheritance, rather than the value of the property when the deceased individual purchased the asset ($440 billion);
  4. Imposing a 15% minimum tax on all corporations with net income over $100 million, but who paid no federal income taxes ($400 billion);
  5. Doubling the rate of tax on profits generated overseas to 21% ($340 billion);
  6. Limiting the value of deductions for the wealthy to 28%, a proposal included in several Obama administration budgets ($310 billion);
  7. Raising the top rate of tax back up to 39.6% ($90 billion);
  8. Imposing sanctions on countries that “facilitate illegal corporate tax avoidance” ($200 billion);
  9. Eliminating real estate tax loopholes ($70 billion); and
  10. Ending fossil fuel subsidies ($40 billion).

Among that list of revenue raises, Biden did not incorporate a proposal submitted by the Obama administration in its budgets. That proposal, which would have raised taxes by an estimated $271.7 billion as of February 2016, attempted to end the practice of individuals funneling their profits through S corporations, to avoid paying self-employment taxes on their earnings.

The omission might come because, as previously reported, Biden and his wife used this loophole Obama wanted to close. In taking more than $13 million in book and speech earnings as income from their corporation, rather than wages, Joe and Jill Biden avoided paying as much as $500,000 in taxes—taxes used to fund Obamacare and Medicare. Experts interviewed by the Wall Street Journal over the summer called the maneuver “pretty aggressive” and a “pretty cut and dried” abuse of the system, because the Bidens’ speech and book income clearly came from their own intellectual property, rather than as a result of a corporate creation (e.g., profits from a restaurant, a car business, etc.).

Colluding Reporters?

As noted above, Bloomberg News broke the story of Biden’s tax plan. Its story mentioned not a word about how Biden’s plan omitted the Obama proposal on self-employment taxes, or Biden’s history of questionable tax maneuvers. The silence comes as Bloomberg said it would not conduct investigative reporting into declared candidate, and Bloomberg News owner, Michael Bloomberg’s rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination—but would continue to investigate President Trump.

At some point, reporters should stop colluding with each other to avoid investigations into Joe Biden’s sordid tax history. And they should start asking why a candidate who has campaigned on preserving and building upon Obamacare didn’t want to pay the taxes that fund it.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Warren’s Prescription the Wrong One

In an October analysis the Urban Institute concluded that a single-payer plan, similar to Sen. Warren’s, which eliminates virtually all patient cost-sharing, would raise national health spending by more than 20%, or $719.7 billion a year. In the researchers’ view, the additional demand stimulated by making health care “free” to consumers would overwhelm any potential savings from paying doctors and hospitals government-dictated rates. This higher demand would also raise the cost of single-payer well beyond Sen. Warren’s estimates, meaning middle-class families would face massive tax increases to pay for this spending.

That Prof. Johnson would cite the Urban Institute to argue that Sen. Warren’s plan would lower health-care costs, while ignoring the fact that the institute itself reached the opposite conclusion, speaks to the cherry-picked nature of the proposal, which has drawn derision from liberals and conservatives alike.

This post was originally published at the Wall Street Journal.

Elizabeth Warren’s Health Plan and the Limits of “Experts”

By one count, Sen. Elizabeth Warren used 9,275 words in her health care plan (that is, her original health care plan, not the one she released two weeks later, to overcome the political obstacles she created in the first version). Of that lengthy verbiage, one word stands out: “Expert” appears no fewer than 18 times in the document.

According to Warren, “the experts conclude” that her plan would cost $20.5 trillion over a decade; other “top experts…examine[d] options” to pay for that new federal spending. She cited experts in triplicate for emphasis, noting “the conclusions of expert after expert after expert” that a single-payer health care system can cover all Americans while lowering costs. Warren even pledged that “no for-profit insurance company should be able to stop anyone from seeing the expert…they need.”

Therein lies her biggest problem: In farming out every policy issue for “experts” to solve, Warren effectively insults the intelligence of American voters—telling them they’re not smart enough to solve their own problems, or even to understand the details of her proposed solutions.

‘Experts’ Couldn’t Even Build a Website

The Massachusetts senator’s reliance on experts jives with her campaign’s unofficial slogan. No matter the issue, Warren has a plan for that—blessed by the experts—to enact her agenda. But as Mike Tyson once said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” For reasons both practical and philosophical, Warren and her technocratic ilk might benefit from some humility as they seek to remake the health care system—and the nation.

Six years ago this fall, the failure of healthcare.gov provided a searing example of the limits of expertise. After years of planning and countless federal dollars, what Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called a “debacle” played out in slow-motion on national television. Half a century on from Halberstam’s best and brightest, Barack Obama had to concede that government was “generally not very efficient” at procurement and technology.

Another politician who invoked “experts” regarding health policy, Max Baucus, did so in August 2010. Then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus said he did not bother to read the Obamacare legislation he helped to draft because “It takes a real expert to know what the heck it is. We hire experts.”

Nearly four years later, one of those experts—Yvette Fontenot, who worked on Baucus’ staff during the Obamacare debate—admitted that when drafting the law’s employer mandate, “we didn’t have a very good handle on how difficult operationalizing the provision would be at that time.” Here again, remaking a health system approaching $4 trillion in size brings unintended consequences lurking at every corner.

Yet Warren and her “experts” see no such reason for caution. One of the authors of her health care paper, former Obama administration official Donald Berwick, once said, “I want to see that in the city of San Diego or Seattle there are exactly as many MRI units as needed when operating at full capacity. Not less and not more.” Implicit in his statement: Federal officials, sitting at desks in Washington, or at Medicare’s headquarters in Baltimore, can quantify and assess the “right” number of machines, facilities, and personnel in every community across the land.

Liberals Act Like Voters Are Stupid

A belief that administrators should, let alone can, effectively micromanage an entire health system requires no small amount of hubris. Indeed, Berwick said in a 2008 speech that “I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.”

In this vein, Berwick echoed his Obama administration colleague Peter Orszag, who in advocating for an unelected board to make recommendations reducing health spending—a change included in Obamacare, but repealed by Congress last yearargued that “we might be a healthier democracy if we were slightly less democratic.”

From the 2004 work “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” to the post-mortems after the last presidential election, liberals continue to question why some households vote against their supposed financial interests. The “expert” mentality—as Orszag wrote, “relying more on…depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions”—likely plays a role, as by its very nature and through its soft paternalism it disenfranchises Americans.

For instance, studies suggest most low-income individuals do not particularly value Medicaid coverage, yet neither Warren nor others on the left spend much time debating whether expanding health insurance represents the best way to help the poor. As Reagan would note, they’re from the government, and they’re here to help.

Warren thinks that to win the presidency, she must convince voters she has a plan for everything. In reality, her campaign’s hopes may rest instead on developing a plan to narrow the growing gap between the rulers—her beloved “experts”—and the ruled.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.