was the willingness of some to play the pretend game. Pete and Amy both know why Warren won't say "My plan will cause taxes to rise, but people will see a net gain in income because their wages will rise and their medical insurance and medical care will decrease at a rate that will more than offset the rise in taxes."

After she says that sentence, the only part that will be in the news will be "My plan will cause taxes to rise." Many people are too stupid to see the math or so limited in brain power that they think their employers insurance plans are free to them. The republicans will love that line. Indeed, these formerly honorable candidates themselves showed that they would be willing to join republicans in simplifying a complicated and vital issue it if means they will gain a point in the polls.

Both Pete and Amy were high on my list when I tried to decide my favorite. But I guess politics is politics and eating your own is just part of the game.

Both Amy and Pete know that Medicare for All is the least expensive way to achieve universal coverage. They should be the honest ones and admit that their plans will cost much more if they will really achieve universal coverage. That is fine with me. I've never minded paying taxes. But they ought to be honest in their demand that Warren be honest.

... of the things that makes me think she's smart enough to be president. Her refusal has become a point of discussion, and if it's a real discussion someone will bring up the points you just made.

Go, Elizabeth!!!

to create a real discussion about this. There are poll points and ratings to think of.

As I said. Some here just don't seem to be able to do the math or are willing to ignore the truth that her plan is real and the others are smoke and mirrors. You just want her to say taxes will go up so you can have a campaign club. I don't believe that it is because you are unable to know how insurance works. Either way, if Warren is our candidate, the republicans will be grateful for the help that is given by those who keep shouting their talking points.

contemptuous of all Democrats who don't agree with her.

Her plan isn't the only "real" one. They're all real, and the public option plans have much more chance of becoming law.

What isn't "real" is the belief that people won't know Warren will be raising taxes on the middle class to pay for MFA, just because she ties herself into rhetorical knots trying to avoid saying so.

Bernie comes across as much more direct and honest on this point.

Evasiveness is NOT a good look for Warren. Even if Warren fans like Frank Bruni praise her for being evasive and slippery, as he did after one of the debates (Bruni admits it isn't noble, but thinks it's a winning strategy; again, evasiveness doesn't work when everyone can see right through it).

You tell me how there is a cheaper way to do that. Do you believe in the concept of universal health care? If now, who do you think should be left out?

If you favor any plan for universal coverage, then you need to be honest about the fact that it will cost billions more than Medicare for All.

And yes. It is a terrific benefit to the republicans when Democrats set them up with their only weapon against M4A. And yes, "She will raise your taxes" is a republican talking point. You know it is.

And you know - as do the candidates using the phrase last night - that them minute she says that taxes will go up, that is all that the media will tout. They won't examine the whole plan.

The evasive and slippery candidates are those who know they are doing their best to avoid doing exactly what they are accusing Warren of. They either should admit that they will live hundreds of thousands out of affordable health care or they will raise taxes even more than Warren's plan to pay for their media friendly but undefined plans.

So evasiveness seems to work only if you are willing to do the other side's job for them. You accuse someone of being evasive while that is exactly what you are doing.

As the debate over health care heats up during the 2020 election cycle, it is challenging to separate truth from disinformation, memes, and outright lies by a defensive private health insurance industry and its corporate allies struggling to preserve their profits on the backs of patients, families, and taxpayers. Within this debate, the three main alternatives to reform the financing system for U. S. health care are (1) to build on the Affordable Care Act of 2010; (2) to adopt some kind of a GOP plan, not yet finalized; or (3) to adopt a single-payer Medicare for All system, with two such bills in Congress (H. R. 1384 in the House and S-1129 in the Senate).

In reaction to the single-payer bills, centrist Democrats have brought forward several other incremental proposals, such as Medicare Extra for All, that would include a version of the public option that people could buy into and preserve a role for the private health insurance industry. 1

We are now seeing a political battle royal over whether or not private health insurers should continue as a major mechanism for financing health care in this country. Corporate stakeholders and their lobbyists are pulling out all the stops in their own defense.

Here are some of their false claims vs. evidence-based responses:

https://pnhp.org/2019/09/16/fact-check-on-claims-by-opponents-of-medicare-for-all/

Thank you.

I am a huge fan of Elizabeth Warren, and have great respect for the position you are taking here.

The question remains: if Warren becomes the nominee, Trump will ask this question every five minutes. It will be the question that starts every Presidential debate.

I think Senator Warren simply needs to come up with an answer that is honest, powerful, and does not have the appearance of ducking the question.

What we saw last night probably struck most viewers as dodging the question. And that is never good... and certainly not for a candidate who is most powerful when she speaks clearly, forcefully, and from the heart on so many issues.

that the republican talking point that the other Democrats threw at her last night (along with the headline seeking media) will come up in the general. She will have an answer, but if she has to use it up before then, the republicans will have a chance to pick it apart and come up with a way to turn it. Because of her planning and savvy, I'm pretty sure she has a good reply and a way to turn the attack back on the attacker. She shouldn't have to waste it on her fellow democrats.

The thing that depresses me is that each of those Democrats attacking her last night knows this. But they are willing to help the other side if it means a few points for them. That's why I called it a low point.

Bernie was honest and gave an excellent easy to understand answer, saying taxes will go up but total costs will go down and people will save money. . Warren is on my shortlist, maybe she should just steal Bernie’s straight forward answer.

Claiming that M4A will raise taxes while avoiding the idea that costs will go down is exactly what the right wing media and politicians are saying. It is in their handbook.

Bernie can afford to be "honest" because there is no way he will be the candidate. The minute Warren tries to explain the complications, the only part of the explanation that will hit the news will be "Warren plans to raise taxes!!!!!!!!!!"

She will have to deal with it in the general (and I have no doubt that she will be able to do that then), but she shouldn't have to use up all her strategies in the primaries. Again, the sad thing is that those who were doing that attack on her last night know that. They are hiding the costs of their plans too. But they are willing to damage a probable nominee with right wing attacks while hiding their own plans to raise taxes or leave poor people and the middle class to fend for themselves.

It is not a good look for her to appear evasive. Of course your mileage may vary.

I like Warren and know she can do better.

Warren is honest. She says that costs (taxes plus healthcare costs) will go down.

The "give everybody a choice" candidates are the ones being dishonest. The need to admit that their plan will either leave millions without coverage or will cost millions more than M4A.

I'm good with the extra cost, but they need to admit it. They know the problems with their plan compared to M4A, but they are willing to wave the right wing tax shibboleth if it deflects from them.

So far, Warren hasn't been willing to attack her more hypocritical fellow candidates. She has more concern for how the general election will turn out. She isn't willing - yet - to say stupid things about them just to get a few primary points when she might have to face those words in November 2020 as she supports someone else for the general. I'm ashamed for the Democratic attackers because if Warren is the candidate, each of them will be pressed on the campaign trail about how they were critical of Warren for wanting to RAISE TAXES. That is in bold because that is all that will come up in the campaign coverage.

As I said - republican talking points.

Yes and its telling they play their game regardless. Neither one of the them will rise up as Warren has.

"No one is protecting billionaires. Not even the billionaire wants to protect the billionaires".

I was amazed how after hearing Steyer deliver a pretty damn good income inequality answer with his status that Warren used that line.

if you think it is fine for the middle class to pay for insurance the is substandard so that the rich can have their elite, golden insurance plans. No media pundit pays for their own insurance or for any copays or deductibles. It is understandable why they believe that they should be left to their plan even if millions of middle class workers are gouged and cut off.

Klobuchar knows this. She has a nice insurance plan too. But if she admits that or admits that her "give everybody a choice" plan will cost billions more than M4A will cost, she loses points. So he hypocritically attacks Warren for doing exactly what she is doing in order to deflect attention to her plan.

they're starting to sound a lot like defenders of the status quo (and the one percent) to me.