Econ Twitter Thread: Lamenting Healthcare's Role in the Democratic Debate

My mind keeps returning to this Twitter thread from Noah Smith a few days ago in which he expresses distaste for the focus on healthcare in the Democratic primary. I'll post the thread and then offer a tldr below it (since it is long).

TLDR: Through enlisting a team of legitimate economists to craft policy, Warren crafted policy proposals that could have a significant impact in the broader economy but are often difficult to visualize from a voter's perspective. Meanwhile, Bernie forced her hand on healthcare policy which is dragging her down.

Those earlier proposals are a lot of the reason I like Warren. Even looking past the topics of the proposals, they were smart, thorough, brave, and heavily relied on actual field experts. They were crafted for policy, not politics, and we need more of that in the political realm.

That being said, while I wish they weren't overshadowed entirely by the healthcare debate I can't help but feel it was inevitable - Healthcare effects people's lives in such a massive and direct way that it was going to come up eventually. I share Noah's opinion that it would have been better had her earlier work not been completely overshadowed, but I don't share his surprise - I feel like only someone who is insulated from that industry's pitfalls couldn't see it coming.

I think looking at this string of events from a 10,000 foot view is revealing of the two candidates in a lot of ways, and I'm curious if it changes your views of the candidates at all (or have any other thoughts on the matter).

I'll say for my part that Warren's announcement that she would try to enact medicare for all in her third year as president, a year that historically nothing substantial gets done for presidential agendas, shifted my view of her substantially. I no longer believe that she really wants to do that as president, that it's a campaign promise and nothing more.

Now it's still a balance as I like her plans for action on climate change and getting the richest people and companies to pay their fair share of taxes (Amazon among other multi-billion dollar companies, didn't just pay nothing, they got billions back and that pisses me off), and the support of unions pleases me a great deal, but ultimately Bernie has similar policies and stances without basically saying that he simply won't support Medicare for all.

That said

Those earlier proposals are a lot of the reason I like Warren. Even looking past the topics of the proposals, they were smart, thorough, brave, and heavily relied on actual field experts. They were crafted for policy, not politics, and we need more of that in the political realm.

Can you actually support this argument? I want to say that I agree with it, hell I agree that more people should support it, but the reality seems to be that they don't. If it's not a winning strategy to put out plans that add up, then shouldn't politicians logically try to work with that reality rather than against it, just hoping that they win regardless of the fact that they pushed back against said reality?

Supposedly Democrats won the House in 2018 mainly on the topic of health care.

Bernie is the Medicare For All guy.

Warren positioned herself as the "a got a plan for that" lady (which I noted early on was, at least superficially smart since it distinguished her campaign from others).

She inevitably needed to show a plan for the most important issue among Democrats if she were to win the Democratic primary.

https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Political-Intelligence-4.23.19.pdf

She made a political calculation to release a (fairy tale) plan that wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. She also made the mind-blogging decision to release a two part plan in which she first would pass a public option in year 1 and then M4A in year 3.

Now she seems to be treading water.

What she could have done differently? She couldn't continue to evade the "will you raise taxes on the middle class" or it would have sunk her credibility. But she eroded her credibility anyway by releasing her fairy tale plan which makes Bernie look sincere and truthful because he plainly states that taxes will be raise for the middle class in exchange for better healthcare. That's the argument she needed to make, but made a political calculus and seems to have lost and I'm glad that she got called out.

I wonder at which point Bernie's people start calling for her to get out of the race so he can consolidate the left (it isn't that easy but that's another topic).

Warren has lots of plans, except one to tell the truth.

@Serraph105: Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me to provide support for. That we need policy focused proposals in the political sphere?

Yes, but more specifically policy focused proposals that add up according to policy experts. If they're not big and daring, if they're boring and don't excite voters and they make people say, "Meh, that works, but it's not what really I want," then should it be done? Because those types of proposals satisfy people who want that sort of thing, but not enough to win elections.

If it can't win, should it still be focused on?

@Serraph105: I think the conversation of the big ideas is more important than the numbers during a campaign. In the proposals referred to in that thread, it's not the numbers that are important but what's being discussed (and that they're considered workable). The numbers can, and will, shift during legislation crafting which the president doesn't even have an official role in.

I do agree that it would be wise to address the corporate system in the US.

The corporations own the US. It's through them that the oligarchs in the US buy the political system through campaign contributions.

It's a system that ensures that what they want happens no matter what candidates or party gets elected.

However because those that are voting aren't very bright they just blame the other party.

Yep. It's good to at least have some interested in the policies.

I think that corporations do play a huge role in the political process. But I wouldn't go so far as to label the entire voting public as stupid. That doesn't seem very bright, either.