Last debate, they all came for Warren - the press, the candidates - trying to get that soundbite of her conceding to a middle-class tax-increase. Despite all that pressure, she did not yield. What might a lesser candidate have done? Uncritically accept the untested conventional wisdom put out by a "think tank" or two that a middle-class tax raise is necessary and shrug: yeah we gotta do that. Or pretend that she wasn't all in on M4A at one point, and walk back her stance saying she just wants a public option.
Warren didn't fall back on the obvious. Instead she put in work. She crushed the homework, and now she's published the most detailed plan for healthcare reform - among any of the candidates - a plan that's all about her commitment to single-payer. And the next time some lamb bleats about "how much are you gonna raise middle-class taxes to pay for this?" She can say with full assurance and authority: "Not one penny." Plan aside, we need someone this resourceful, tough, principled in the White House.
I don't really care much about Warren having a debate soundbite. It's true that she needed a better answer to the taxes question...but I'm not sure this is that? "Will your plan raise taxes?" --> "Not one penny" --> "How?" and where does she go from there? This plan is weedsy, even for her. But that's neither here nor there.
(Lord help me, I'm reading policy papers on my day off)
The Immigration Reform bit makes sense as you put, and you're right: not the part to get tripped up over. Although, where are you getting 20.5 trillion from? Warren seems to be saying that her plan is going to cost around the 52 trillion we're currently spending?
And reading her plan, I'm still seeing a lot of fantasy on where she's going to nickel and dime to bring down spending, I'm not seeing much addressing people/businesses who actually like their private insurance, and I'm not seeing much addressing how she proposes people transition to her version of medicare for all. She's proposing passing immigration reform, reforming military spending, closing significant tax loopholes AND taking on private insurance all at once to make this plan happen. Don't get me wrong, that's all great shit that needs to happen anyway, but you have to start
somewhere, and you have to WIN all these fights (simultaneously) for your plan to work. This is actually the thing I respected the most about Kamala's plan, even if the 10 year timeline opened her up to a lot of heat. Kamala's plan (and Biden's) seem to do the most work in laying out how they propose to get from A to B in a way that makes sense.
So far, Warren's plan is coming across as sensible, while still basically requiring the stars to align in much the same way Sanders' plan does.
Not to mention, if this is how she's working the math to get Medicare 4 All to work...where is she getting the money for everything else she's planning to do?
In a world where you can discuss Medicare for All, here's nothing DOA about passing immigration reform. What, exactly, do you think is harder about immigration than M4A?
Why do you keep conflating these two things? Being skeptical of Warren's medicare for all plan says nothing about my opinion on passing immigration reform (which I'm for, but I shouldn't need to say that because that's not what I'm talking about). Because yeah, our government is keeping kids in cages, some of us haven't forgotten that.