Medicare for all

Elizabeth Warren's plan.

Kevin Drum Mother Jones liberal suggests that you should view it as no more than a signal that Liz is a very serious lefty– a "lunatic," as he puts it: "...these M4A plans... should be treated like Republican tax cut proposals. Nobody bothers to analyze them (except for liberal think tanks, natch) because no one takes them seriously. They are meant merely as markers to show where your heart is."

Tyler Cowen libertarian wants you to take the plan quite seriously, at least to the extent that we should evaluate its fiscal (in)feasibility: "Can we spend another $52 trillion without raising middle class taxes? The question seems like a joke, right? Yet because so much of our elite media class wants Elizabeth Warren to win, they are contorting themselves into every possible direction to make this one sound coherent."

So, paradoxically, those sympathetic to Warren ask you not to take the proposal too seriously, and those who think she's a disaster ask you to take it very seriously.

Me? I wish the social democratic wing of the Democrats could find a more aspirational language that still treated the electorate like grownups– people who understand politics and appreciate that policy is contingent, and who thus don't require elaborate nudge-nudge-wink-wink plans that will never be enacted, supported by overly optimistic if not downright dishonest analysis. Something more like this: "I will work with Congress to ensure quality health care for all, which will build on Obamacare by offering a robust public option and implement practical cost reductions. I value the dignity of work and will leverage government to build skills and produce good green jobs through R&D and infrastructure spending, but I will also make sure that the safety net protects the livelihoods of working people who are innocent victims of the inevitable dislocations associated with modern technology and global markets. A universal basic income could play an important role here. Progressive policies don't come cheap. We expect everyone to pay their share, but I think simple fairness demands that the very rich pay a much bigger share of taxes than they do now, as they did 50 years ago: something more like the 50% of their income that they paid in 1960 than the 30% of today..." and so forth and so on.

Maybe I should take another look at what Mayor Pete and Senator Harris have to say for themselves.