Last week, in an effort to mute criticism that her agenda would be not only difficult to enact in toto but also highly disruptive if it became law, Warren announced a significant modification of her version of Medicare for All. Instead of trying to immediately pass a complete government takeover of health care that would eliminate private insurance plans, she proposed “a true Medicare for All option,” or what has generally been described as a public option — and that has strong support among voters of all stripes.

Warren’s plan would be “free for children under the age of 18 and for families making at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $51,000 for a family of four)” and provide “every person in America the choice to get coverage through a true Medicare for All option.”

On Nov. 15, Warren announced that if elected, she would wait until her third year in office to “fight to pass legislation that would complete the transition to full Medicare for All.”

Warren’s new stance appears to be an acknowledgment of the fact that her proposal to replace all health private coverage with Medicare for All does not carry majority support even among Democratic primary voters, a liberal constituency, much less the general electorate.

In a survey released on Oct. 19, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that

more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer voting for a candidate who wants to build on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in order to expand coverage and reduce costs rather than replace the ACA with a national Medicare-for-all plan.

In addition, Kaiser

found broad support for proposals that expand the role of public programs like Medicare and Medicaid as well as a government-administered public option. And while partisans are divided on a Medicare-for-all national health plan, there is robust support among Democrats, and even support among Republicans, for an expansion of the Medicare program through a Medicare buy-in or a Medicaid buy-in proposal.

While Democratic economists like Frankel and Summers are sharply critical of Warren’s approach, other liberal economists are more sympathetic, especially toward Warren’s efforts to shift the tax burden from the middle class to the rich.

Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan, wrote:

It’s possible — likely, even — that there will be negative consequences from the various Warren plans. It’s also possible — likely, even — that there will be positive consequences. The big question is whether the positive outweigh the negatives, and I’ve been a bit dismayed to note that much of the popular discussion so far has dodged this question. Instead, we’ve had a lot of gotchas that something bad could happen. Obviously that’s true. It’s also not the point.

Gabriel Zucman, an economist at Berkeley, who has advised the Warren campaign on wealth taxation, looks favorably on proposals to significantly raise taxes on high income earners and the rich, and foresees positive consequences if such hikes are enacted:

The United States has taxed the rich heavily in the past. From 1950 to 1980, the top marginal income tax rate averaged 80 percent, the corporate tax rate averaged 50 percent, and the top estate tax rate averaged 76 percent.” Yet, Zucman continued, “over that thirty-year period of time, GDP per adult grew at a high average annual rate of 2.2 percent.

That stands in contrast to

the last 30 years, the period from 1990 to 2020. Over that period of time, the top marginal income tax rate averaged 37 percent, the corporate tax rate averaged 34 percent, the top estate tax rate averaged 47 percent (and effective tax rates for the rich fell a lot). Yet GDP per adult grew at an average annual rate of 1.3 percent.

Progressive taxation can adversely affect innovation and growth, Zucman noted,

but the effect is likely to be very small compared to the many other factors, such as the quality of higher education, public investment in fundamental research, the quality of infrastructure, etc., that affect innovation and all of which require tax revenue.

While liberal economists have mixed views of Warren’s agenda, a number of political observers warn that candidates for the House and Senate would face a steeper climb to victory with Warren at the top of the ticket.

“It would be tough to run under Elizabeth Warren,” David Wasserman, who studies House races for the Cook Report, said in an interview. “As of now, she runs the weakest against Trump in battleground areas and her proposals are not broadly popular.”