No Mondale moment: Elizabeth Warren releases her plan to finance 'Medicare for All'

[BeyondGeography]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., released a detailed plan Friday that she says would fully fund a "Medicare for All" bill that would cover every American without premiums or deductibles, while requiring "not one penny in middle-class tax increases."

Warren's campaign estimates her plan would keep combined public and private health spending "just under" $52 trillion over the next ten years, in line with projections under existing law, but would require the federal government to absorb over $20 trillion in spending. It seeks to use efficiency savings generated by Medicare for All to cover the uninsured at a similar total cost and add new benefits for dental, vision and long-term care.

“Medicare for All is about the same price as our current path — and cheaper over time,” Warren said in a Medium letter. “That means the debate isn’t really about whether the United States should pay more or less. It’s about who should pay.”

Warren places most of the revenue burden on businesses and the wealthy. She plans to carry over almost all existing health funding from employers and state governments, while also levying a variety of new taxes on the rich, corporations and high-earning investors — including doubling her signature wealth tax on billionaires.

Warren backs up her revenue and cost estimates with 44 pages of analysis from experts, including former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson, former Obama economic adviser Betsey Stevenson, Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi, and former Obama-appointed Medicare and Medicaid administrator Dr. Donald Berwick.

...With her own answer now firmly in hand, Warren challenged those Democratic candidates who oppose Medicare For All to “put forward their own plan to cover everyone, without costing the country anything more in health care spending,” adding a final counter: “We need plans, not slogans.”

While Warren’s plan promises “not one penny in middle-class tax increases,” it does assume a reversal of President Donald Trump’s tax cut — a move Warren previously had backed that would raise taxes on some middle income families. Other sources of revenue include raising her wealth tax to 6 percent on fortunes over $1 billion, treating capital gains for the top 1 percent as earned income and requiring taxes to be paid annually, imposing $2.9 trillion in new taxes on corporations and foreign earnings and creating a new 0.1 percent tax on financial transactions.

More at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/elizabeth-warren-releases-her-plan-finance-medicare-all-n1074981

[oldsoftie]

1. OMG this is a disaster. 5+ TRILLION a yr? The current full US budget is less than that.

And then you have to add in the other programs she's proposing and it gets even more ridiculous. And yet she STILL stays with the "no middle class tax increases" line.
Are we trying to GIVE this election away?? A lot of people cant stand trump & that what should be focused on. They cant stand him, but when they see numbers like this, they may very well hold their nose. Again.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Actually, this is a disaster

[oldsoftie]

4. And it doesnt add up to nearly 5 TRILLION dollars a yr either. Good luck winning with that.

And to add, I've spoken with many people locally and NONE have anywhere near those numbers in premiums. I know I dont. Coverage for two adults is about 4800 a yr.
ALL of the people I've talked to support a Medicare buy in. Most of them are happy with their current coverages. None of these people are "politically active", meaning they'd never post here or anywhere else this early. But they DO listen to someone saying "you're current plan is gone"
But again, good luck beating trumo with these numbers.

[BeyondGeography]

11. It's a fact that health care is creeping up on 20% of GDP

That is crowding out investments in infrastructure, education, a new energy strategy you name it.

It's also a fact that the US spends 2X as much on health care than the rest of the western world.

I'm happy for your friends, but the current system is completely out-of-control and unsustainable. If we're not honest about that we're going to continue to move sideways and lay the foundation for something much worse than Trump.

[George II]

12. When I was working my individual coverage was under $2,000, and when I went on my wife's....

....coverage (disclaimer - she worked for a hospital) coverage for BOTH of us, with dental coverage, was $19.50 per week, $1,014 annually.

I don't know where some of these numbers come from.

[crazytown]

16. Kaisers numbers include the employer contribution.

[Fiendish Thingy]

27. I had "Cadillac" insurance through my Union, but have friends and family who pay thousands per month

In premiums, not including deductibles and copays.

Of course, I live in Canada now, so it's a different story- just retired, and my extended benefits coverage (dental, prescriptions, vision, etc) costs about $70/mo.

[crazytown]

13. I think Kaiser would have a firm grip on what the numbers are,

nor have a reason to inflate them.

These are the total contribution Employee + Employer. Employees pay only a fraction of the total cost.

[CaptainTruth]

19. My wife & I are paying close to $16k/yr for a decent silver plan.

Apparently these affordable plans I keep hearing about aren't available in my area of FL?

[Blue_true]

64. My Florida plan as a single is $9,500 per year for a silver level plan.

[SLClarke]

44. Plus what the employer pays

The $4800 might be what your average person pays, however many of my clients pay more than that. For instance one client pays $238 a month, plus their employer pay $238 per month. That comes to $5712 a year, that plus co-pays is way more than $4800.00.

[KPN]

47. It is a disaster ... and exactly why MFA makes good sense.

While you can choose to simply call it a disaster, it’s a reality and ignoring these costs (which are going to happen with or without MFA) would be an even huger disaster. The national annual nationwide cost for health care in 2017 was $3.5 trillion and is projected to grow at an annual rate of 5.5+ percent and ballon to over $6 trillion annually in just the next 8 years (by 2027).

So ... you can choose to torpedo Warren’s proposal right out the chute with a knee jerk reaction and personal anecdotal information from a relatively microscopic scale, or you can choose fact-based reality and provide a different solution for this disaster. The numbers are readily available. Look them up.

By the way, the numbers above don’t include the costs that aren’t incurred by the millions who choose not to get health care today because they can’t afford it.

[uponit7771]

22. This is not accurate, the average family doesn't pay 20k in HCI

[BeyondGeography]

24. As crazytown has pointed out, this is what the plans cost

Employees are sheltered from the total cost because of employer contributions. The chart reflects all monies paid into insurance plans, not just what you see on your pay stub.

If that doesn’t work for you, ask how the US spends twice as much per person on HC than democracies all over the world without these numbers being accurate, or how we spend 18 percent of gdp on HC when single-payer nations typically spend closer to 10%.

[uponit7771]

26. Then its still inaccurate, the average company isn't putting half of 20,000 into HCI payments ...

and the chart doesn't source that claim either.

Lets get an accurate amount for the middle class worker of how much a company is putting into HCI payments.

Not healthcare payments but HCI payments alone so the question about where all the money is going is not relevant here.

We know where it's going and HCI's have endowments that grow and we also have government subsidized HC (not HCI) that includes the VA ... for example of why our HC in the US cost so much

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. You can't separate premiums from deductibles and copays

That's not an honest calculation of out-of-pocket costs.

Lots of bronze plans have low premiums, but super high deductibles and copays.

Even with ACA, we currently have a tiered system; with M4A, it's a single tier, and EVERYONE gets covered.

[uponit7771]

30. Still not 20,000 per family, I'll believe this claim when the company part of 20k is sourced.

[NewJeffCT]

40. Here is the link to the survey

and the data behind it.

https://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/2019-employer-health-benefits-survey/

[uponit7771]

50. That is not the median its an average which includes the NFL commissioners ungodly HCI plan

... that skews the cost.

The average "small or medium firm" is not paying 14,000 into employer cost HCI ... alone.

That's crazy.

It doesn't matter though, even half 20k is too much

[sofarfrome]

33. middle class

Since I recently retired as an HR rep for a F500 company with 40K employees I can tell you how much our family of 4 plan cost. With a $6500 deductible and approximately $450 per month premium the company had to pay an additional $6500. Yes there are variables. But the numbers Warren provided are close enough to paint an accurate picture of what to expect moving forward. Not to mention that the average American family will also pocket an immediate $12K raise in pay.

[elleng]

45. Thanks, and welcome.

Where does the immediate $12K raise in pay come from?

[oldsoftie]

65. So if we spend 18% of GDP now, why is this plan going to spend 20+%?

i thought we were saving money

[BeyondGeography]

66. If we keep things as is it goes that high by 2026

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/healthcare-spending-20-gdp-thats-economy-wide-problem

[oldsoftie]

67. By 2026, this plans costs wouldnt rise? Of course they would.

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

56. My family pays close to that.

I put in $700+ per paycheck (2 week cycle). My employer puts in another $300+ per paycheck. This covers my whole family including vision and dental. That's ~$2000 per month or $24000 per year. If you just take my contributions and leave out the employers it is still almost $16,000 per year. And that is just the premium.

This is a high deductible plan (the cheapest my employer offers) so the insurance company doesn't start paying out until I have paid $6000 out of pocket on actual medical bills. So that is a likely $22K+ out of pocket each year. A decent HSA blunts that pain, but it is still there.

I would be happy if my taxes went up $500 a paycheck if i did not have to pay the $700+ per paycheck on insurance.

To me it is about the total out of pocket, not whether the money is going to taxes or insurance or both.

Am I happy with my health care providers? Sure. But I was on medicare for 6 months when unemployed and I was just as happy or happier with that plan.

There are lot of good docs out there. I am willing to change if it saves me significant money without reducing coverage.

Just my experiences as a middle-aged, middle-class voter.

[uponit7771]

74. "average" is the key word and not all families have more than 2 people in it.

[ProfessorPlum]

73. I was recently offered a job

And one of the better plans would have cost $1700 per month for my wife and three children.

[Turin_C3PO]

8. Americans don't vote based on cost of plans.

Most vote on likability and whether they connect with the person. Biden and Warren both do well in this regard so I’m not worried that idiots would vote Trump over her.

[elleng]

46. Thanks, and we shouldn't vote 'based on cost of plans,'

as no one really knows what the costs of ANY plans will be at this point, or even what they will look like with administration changes. Remember how long it took for ACA finally to take shape?

[oldsoftie]

55. But they may vote based on them thinking they're going to lose what they already LIKE

[thesquanderer]

10. There is NO increase in the amount being spent on health care.

What changes is who has to pay how much of it.

And it's not $5/trillion a year, it's $50 trillion over ten years (i.e. identical to current estimates if we do nothing). It's not the same thing, because a ten year projection reflects the fact that things will cost more ten years from now than they do today.

In 2018, health care spending was $3.65 trillion, but you can't simply multiply that by ten to get a ten year projection, which is why current ten year projection tops $50 trillion instead of being $36 trillion. Warren's plan targets NO increase compared to current projections, but it shifts who has to pay for it, as it also assures that everyone gets covered, and more fully than they do today.

[George II]

14. A recap of what we've seen over the last few days with these "plans"...

Overall costs will not go up
Millions more will be covered
Several million jobs will be lost

Seems like some of these plans were devised by David Copperfield or Harry Houdini.

[thesquanderer]

20. I don't see your point.

Overall costs will not go up
Millions more will be covered
Several million jobs will be lost

So...? What is "magical" about any of that?

[sofarfrome]

25. perhaps you missed something

Collectively we already pay $52T / 10 years for health care. Warren's claim is we will spend less over the next 10 years of we institute her plan. There will be no tax increases. Not to mention that the average American family/household will automatically receive an approximate $12K increase in take home pay.I have researched this. It is a solid plan.

[MichMan]

34. How will people receive an additional $12k in take home pay?

She clearly states that not only will employers be required to maintain their current level of funding, there will also be higher taxes on corporations. Why would people get an extra $12,000 increase in take home pay and where is it coming from?


"Warren places most of the revenue burden on businesses and the wealthy. She plans to carry over almost all existing health funding from employers and state governments, while also levying a variety of new taxes on the rich, corporations and high-earning investors — including doubling her signature wealth tax on billionaires."

[wellst0nev0ter]

48. Uhh...

From Warren's plan:

"Right now, America’s total bill for health care is projected to be $52 trillion for the next ten years."

That's the status quo. Warren's plan seeks to cut costs in prescription drugs and basic hospital procedures.

Don't conflate the two.

[Hortensis]

51. No, it's a distraction for fools. If other nations can afford national

healthcare, so can we. As for Warren's plan, congress writes and passes legislation, not presidents, and our Democrats include some of the nation's most involved experts on healthcare policy. Not to worry that they'd take any steps that weren't viable.

We really need people to get their distracted, suckered heads out of their healthcare asses and look around. We have huge problems that come before that.

No Democratic majorities, no national healthcare at all, much less universal.

No majorities, the stripping of individual rights by the religious and nationalist authoritarian right will broaden and speed up. And, no, this isn't just a minority or immigrant problem; white citizens will not be safe. "Lock them up!"

No majorities, no big national efforts to sustainable wellbeing.

Everyone does realize eventually the forests of the eastern half of the U.S. are going to burn, right? It's already started, just not enough to compel attention yet. But as the climate crisis advances, evacuations of hundreds of thousands and even millions, and all they mean,certainly will.

[turbinetree]

2. And has this thread was being opened the media is now attacking this plan................

and Warren is correct........................... “We need plans, not slogans.”.......................

[Demsrule86]

6. This is a disaster and will cost us the general if she is the candidate...but I honestly think that

after this plan release, she will not be the nominee...combine the costs with the job losses...we need some sort of universal care...but starting over and ditching the ACA makes no sense. If we try, we lose the ACA and will be voted out long before any MFA plan can happen...we will end up with nothing.

[cannabis_flower]

38. I don't believe the job loss predictions...

I think there will be jobs lost in the insurance and advertising industries. But I think we will have a big increase in the number of doctors, nurses, home healthcare aides, lab techs and other healthcare professionals and hospital and doctor's office staff to actually provide healthcare to all the people who are going without right now.

[SterlingPound]

32. +100

[thesquanderer]

5. The details don't matter much, but this does two important things...

...it takes away the criticism that she hasn't shown how it can be paid for (though in the end, this would all be determined by congress which is why I say the details themselves aren't so important)

...from a position of strength on the issue, it allows her to flip the argument on everyone else... saying to everyone with some other plan, "okay, you say your plan is cheaper, but it still costs something, how do YOU pay for YOUR plan... and how do you deal with the fact that it leaves people uncovered or out of pocket for more things?"

[Demsrule86]

7. Honestly that is just not true...they will poke holes in her plan and use it against her and us.

[Kahuna7]

9. Every Democrat running will have to defend her many plans...not just this one.

[George II]

15. The "I have a plan for that" is getting overused...

$1.5T for this, $1.0T for that, $50T for the other, etc. etc.

Has anyone ever thought to add up the costs of all the "plans"?

[Kahuna7]

17. I've been saying that from the beginning. Too many plans. Pick...

one or two signature plans and run on those.

[dansolo]

18. $20 trillion? It is going to be a whole lot more than that.

Most estimate peg the increase of government spending at over $32 trillion, and that is with very generous assumptions. I think Warren is severely underestimating the costs because she can't find enough tax revenues to cover it.

[backtoblue]

21. Good on Warren for releasing this

Bottom line is...if you werent a Warren supporter before, youre not going to magically change your thinking because of this.

You cant please everyone. This release of estimates at least shows she's serious about her proposal. It also presses everyone else to crunch their own healthcare numbers. (Which can be a great opportunity for all of our great candidates)

She's likely not going to sway opinion of her drastically based on these numbers.

She's changed the "show me the numbers" opposition to "convince me this will work for ME" .

Can she do that?
We'll see.

Let's go Elizabeth!

[uponit7771]

23. Unnnn, I might change my thinking for Warren if this plan is viable. I've been waiting on her to ...

... come out with something regarding MFA.

I still don't see how ditching ACA vs building on it is a good thing overall, I don't see anyone answering that question directly.

[backtoblue]

29. That's where she's positioned herself now

It's now up to her to convince voters why this is our best healthcare option. (Including myself)

I honestly don't know how she will do that, nor how she would get it passed through congress if elected.

Your question is a good and important one, which alot of voters share.

She will have to answer for these astronomical numbers and how she thinks it will work.

We'll see if she's able to do that.

[Hoyt]

31. Will be interesting to see how Sanders and Warren reconcile the overall cost. Sanders says $34 T

over 10 years. Warren -- after looking at it a little closer -- says $52 T.

[BlueMTexpat]

35. I trust Eiizabeth's numbers more.

The affordability of healthcare - and its impact on American families - is something that she has been grappling with since she first began her studies on the effects of bankruptcy.

She has thought about this long and hard. This is not an "election fad" for her.

There are a lot of things that we can continue to quibble about in hypotheticals and "cosmic" law. But they won't make ANY difference at all if we don't win in 2020.

The principal problem, IMO, is for us all to make sure that whoever is our Dem candidate not only wins, but also has sizable Dem majorities in BOTH the House and Senate.

We also have to get rid of the absolutely horrible judicial appointees that Trump and McConnell have foisted upon us.

We must.

[Hoyt]

43. Agree, we must win. Not sure MFA is a winner for us, though, putting us farther away from goal of

universal coverage.

[BlueMTexpat]

57. I don't follow your logic

at all when you say that MFA puts us farther away from the goal of universal coverage,

[Hoyt]

60. If Warren gets nomination and loses general election, we are farther away.

[BlueMTexpat]

69. Why would Warren lose the

election - unless people like you do not vote for her?

I could say the same thing about ANY of our Dem candidates if I wanted to be the voice of gloom and doom.

Right now Warren polls just as well or better against Trump as do our other top-tier candidates.

IMO, that will only get better.

[Hoyt]

72. I will support the Democratic nominee, thank you. She'll lose, especially if trump is out

or is severely wounded by Impeachment. People aren't going to buy her populism and promises, even if her proposals are needed.

In interest of full disclosure, I'm not a Warren fan. I believe she was partly responsible for giving us trump with her unjustified/misinformed criticism of Obama -- and Clinton by association -- right up to 2016 election over global trade, playing right into trump's support.

She also bowed to pressure from Massachusetts's medical device manufacturers over Obama's medical devise tax which was designed to make those who profit from healthcare help pay for the ACA.

[BlueMTexpat]

75. I do not share

your opinion. Thank you.

[MrsCoffee]

36. K&R

[Gothmog]

37. Statement from Biden campaign

Link to tweet

?s=20

[BeyondGeography]

41. Joe received 2% support from IA voters under 45 in today's NYT/Sienna poll

The survey found Iowa Democrats in a divided and perhaps indecisive state about what the party must do in order to deny Mr. Trump a second term. They are an ideologically mixed group, with younger voters trending to the left and leaning strongly toward Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders. Mr. Biden remains the favorite candidate of older voters, but only 2 percent of respondents under 45 years old said they currently plan to caucus for him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/iowa-poll-warren-biden.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

[Midnightwalk]

39. It's a paradox to me

The healthcare system in the US is broken. Everyone should be covered and we need to drastically cut costs.

The further reaching a plan is the more it may reduce costs in the future. Only if it is enacted and implemented. That means winning multiple elections.

I don’t give credit to Americans for having a lot of sense. Bush and trump both won elections in the last 20 years. Yeah they lost the popular vote and tampering at least with voter rolls but it shouldn’t have been close.

We all know what the attacks in the general election. I don’t agree with them but our answers have to be convincing to most people or we may lose. Losing what ACA did would be devastating.

This update improves our answer from “yes you lose your work insurance and taxes go up but trust us you’ll come out ahead” to “yes you lose your work insurance and taxes go up on some, but trust us not for you. You’ll come out ahead.”

I don’t think that’s an easy answer to sell. I worry it will make us lose. I wish Warren left room to maneuver but l think she’s stuck now.

I’ll also point out that changing how the healthcare system works for over 100 million people and taking a trillion dollars a year of costs out seems like an enormous endeavor. The engineer in me would rather do that in more than one step so we don’t screw up. I like knowing what l ultimately want and then being able to do it in multiple steps.

[geardaddy]

42. What's with the dis to Mondale?

[wellst0nev0ter]

49. He was too honest and said we need to raise taxes

Unfortunately, honesty doesn't take you very far in politics, as you can see right now.

[Baked Potato]

52. This plan just made the perfect graphic for all attack ads against Democrats

Just superimpose a giant $52 TRILLION graphic over whatever picture they want to use.

[BlueMTexpat]

58. So you are advising GOPers now?

Wow!

[Baked Potato]

62. Yeah, because nobody else could figure that out

... please.

[BlueMTexpat]

70. You would do

much better, IMO, to post something positive a bout YOUR candidate than to snipe at OPs where mine is featured.

[wnylib]

53. I like Warren. She is one of a few that

I consider in deciding who to support. But I can see 2 ways her opponents will attack this plan in the primaries and in the general if she is the nominee.

First the wealth tax which has not worked in Europe and was abandoned there. So what happens to her funding plan without it?

Second is the increase in corporate taxes. I am all for corporations paying their fair share which they do not do now. But Republicans (and some Dems?) will say this will hurt jobs by hurting employers.

How will Warren defend those criticisms?

Warren has the personal appeal in reaching out to people that successful politicians have. She is bright (how refreshing these days) and well organized. But as pointed out up thread, her plans and the details can be a liability if excessive. They rely on her getting support for them if she gets to the WH. But the process of passing plans into law means that they get tweaked. Some things get dropped. Others get added. The outcome is different than promised in the campaign.

Plans that rely on too many details interconnected become liabilities when faced with the legislative process of implementing them. I am sure her opposition will press this point. They can be liabilities in the general election and will be strongly attacked by the financial establishment, some of whom are Dems.

I think she is digging a hole for herself. Bernie admits that taxes will go up for some in the middle class but they benefit in the end by no premiums or co pays. He presents a better and more practical way to universal coverage IMO.

I will support whoever our nominee is but I am thinking that Warren's health coverage plan will mean working really really hard on fielding attacks.

[andym]

59. This is a combination of a brilliant cost-shifting plan and one that makes medical care universal

Corporations will pay more in taxes, but will no longer pay premiums for employees-- could even be a wash.
The very rich will pay for having the opportunity to make so much money and help all those who essentially worked to helped them become so rich.
Citizens who pay premiums will save all the money-- greater than the biggest tax cut ever Warren stated.
Everyone gets medical care.

[wnylib]

63. Sounds good as you describe it but how

will she condense the details into something that the general public can follow? A lot of people lack interest in details and facts. Sad but true. And there is still the issue of the viability of the wealth tax.

Also, people with good health plans now will object to losing them. Remember the people who lost plans they liked when Obamacare was passed? True that in those cases there were costs to the new plans which Warren says will not happen with hers. But the mandatory change will open up that issue again. This will be exploited by the opposition and she will need to defend her plan with promises that she may not be able to keep if she lacks support in Congress to legislate the plan.

The weakest point, though, IMO, is the wealth tax.

And even Canadians have private insurance options.

I like Warren's willingness to fight. I like her knowledge and experience in economics and her recognition that we need some economic changes. Some of the more moderate candidates do not or will not see that.

I like her energy and broad vision. As a guest on late night TV she shows wit and humor that remind me of JFK. And like RFK, she sees things that others do not see and says," Why not?"

But she is already fighting uphill nearly alone. Any weaknesses in her plans, like the wealth tax, could really hurt her. Not to mention the establishment battle ahead if she does win. Are we up to that?

[Raymond O]

54. Glad I took the initiative to plan my life, TRICARE. 😉

[OilemFirchen]

61. "... her plan would keep combined public and private health spending..."

What does that mean? What private health spending?

nb: I'll admit that I didn't read the article, nor do I intend to. The cited portion is preposterous enough.

[Gothmog]

68. a nearly $9 trillion payroll tax (or, perhaps, a head tax with some small-business carve outs

Link to tweet

Right now, Warren's plan says, employers spend about $9 trillion a decade on health insurance coverage. Her plan aims to move the private spending onto the federal budget. Under her proposal, large employers who currently pay for health coverage would be required to pay a comparable amount (equivalent to 98 percent of what they pay now, adjusted for the number of workers they employ) in order to help finance Medicare for All.

Warren shies away from calling this a tax, and she even claims "we don't need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny to finance Medicare for All." Instead, she refers to it as an employer Medicare contribution, under which companies "would send payments to the federal government for Medicare."

But there is a commonly accepted term for a plan that requires companies to send payments to the federal government in order to finance government programs. That word is tax. And that is essentially what this is—a nearly $9 trillion payroll tax (or, perhaps, a head tax with some small-business carve outs). It is thus hard to see this as anything other than a massive middle-class tax hike.

[Gothmog]

76. Exclusive: Economist who backed Warren healthcare plan has doubts about her wealth tax

Link to tweet

- A leading economist who vouched for Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s healthcare reform plan told Reuters on Thursday he doubts its staggering cost can be fully covered alongside her other government programs.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, also voiced skepticism that the wealth tax provision in Warren’s plan - a key funding mechanism - will produce predicted levels of revenue because those targeted by the tax will seek to dodge it.....

Zandi said despite signing a highly touted letter last week backing the calculations for Warren’s Medicare for All plan, he does not support shifting Americans off the private health insurance they have in favor of a single-payer, government-run regime.

“I am not a fan of Medicare for All,” said Zandi, who is not affiliated with any Democratic presidential campaign and does not speak for the Warren campaign. “We have 160 million people who have private insurance and are pretty happy with what they have. Why change that?"

”