Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Democratic Debate #2, Night 2 - $3 Trillion??

Well I tuned in to Night 2 of the debates expecting a see a slugfest between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris... and we did see some back-and-forth but no knockout blows.

One thing did catch my attention though and I think it’s worth discussing. At the start of the debate, Joe Biden pressed Kamala Harris on her new health care plan, saying that her plan to cover everyone would cost $3 trillion (I believe that’s per year) and that people would lose their existing employer-based coverage as a result. Harris responded, “You’re simply inaccurate in what you’re describing”... yet she didn’t go on to refute either of the things he said.

Then Biden repeated the $3 trillion price tag and the fact that people would lose their employer-based insurance, and he added that middle class taxes would have to go up to pay for it. Kamala Harris again had a chance to respond, and again she did not refute any of these points from Biden.

Then later, when Michael Bennet harped on the cost and problems of Harris’s health plan, she said, “We cannot keep with the Republican talking points on this. You gotta stop.”

Well forgive me Senator but I need to delve in. That cost — $3 trillion per year — is not something that should be swept under the rug. From what I’ve seen, this $3T/year would be the increased cost to the federal government on top of what they already spend on health care. (I believe Biden and Bennet are putting Harris’ plan in the same ballpark as Bernie’s Medicare For All plan, which increases federal expenditures by around $30T over 10 years.)

If this is to be paid for with taxes, consider that there are today 158 million people employed in this country. This means it would require an average of around $19,000 per taxpayer per year, in new taxes, to pay for health care. A working couple could be looking at paying $38,000/year in new taxes for health care coverage under Harris’ plan.

To put that number into perspective, I looked up and found that in 2018, the average employer-based coverage in America for an individual cost $8500/year (premiums + deductible). I didn’t find a number for copays but let’s assume $500 for copays in a year, which means a total of $9000/year today for employed-based individual coverage (with the employer paying the majority of that). Kamala Harris’s plan would cost around $19,000/year per taxpayer in new taxes.

For employer-based family coverage, the average yearly cost was $19,616 in premiums. I didn’t find numbers for deductible or copays, but let’s assume it’s double the individual numbers above. That would mean a yearly cost of $23,800 today for family coverage, compared to $38,000 under Kamala’s plan! And again, that $23,800 today is mostly paid by employers... whereas the new cost would be paid in taxes.

Now I did make an assumption here (to get a ballpark cost), which is that Harris’ plan would be paid for with income taxes — and I showed the average cost across all taxpayers. I’m sure she’d say she would tax “the rich” to pay for it. But the burden of proof is on the prosecutor here to show us how this will be paid for, and she didn’t address it during the debate. Her plan to tax Wall Street transactions and offshore corporate income doesn’t come close to paying for $30 trillion over 10 years (it would bring in about $2 trillion instead).

Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren all tout health care plans that would cost about $30 trillion over 10 years. And from what I’ve seen of government programs, there are often cost overruns compared to what’s expected at the outset.

It seems to me like a staggering cost to the middle class compared to what many are paying today for health insurance. There’s no way many families could afford to pay >$10,000 more/year compared to what they’re paying today.

In my view, many Democrats at this point are just looking for anyone other than Trump to be our President. I would imagine many Democrats aren’t looking for such a steep, dramatic change that would cost so much — and they certainly don’t want that to be the lightning rod in the general election against President Trump.