But the specifics of her proposal, released on Friday as Warren seeks her party's nomination for the 2020 presidential contest, reveal the scope of an overhaul that would be one of the largest economic experiments in modern history.
Her plan is built on transferring to the government 98% of the $8.8 trillion she estimates that employers will spend on private insurance for their employees. The proposal not only would lower the medical costs for American families by $11 trillion over 10 years, but also slightly lower the total cost the country is projected to spend on health care over the same period by $7 trillion, according to those experts, some of whom led health care policy for the Obama administration.
The mainstream media's response differed from one outlet or network to the next. Instead, critics point to groupthink and how the details could have been cherry-picked to portray a positive outcome for the proposed plan.
At the town hall, Warren also shared her existing plans to pay for child care and education through a wealth tax on individuals with assets of more than $50 million.
Warren argues the obligation is less onerous than what those employers now face, as they would be shielded from existing runaway healthcare price increases; costs would not rise faster than inflation under her plan.
Warren then says she would bring in just under $9 trillion over 10 years by diverting the funds employers pay to private health care plans to the government.
However, Politico's short summary about how the plan will offset middle-class taxes illustrated how complex Warren's proposal is and how hard it will be for her plan to meet all of the outlined revenue and health spending targets. Several liberal economists have already warned the wealth tax might only generate a fraction of the revenue she envisions. You can argue over how much employer-side taxes pass through to employees' pay - it probably varies a lot depending on the state of the labor market - but to the degree it does pass through, it's the kind of broad-based tax increase Warren is ostensibly trying to avoid.
Warren challenged her rivals to explain why "protecting the eye-popping profits of private insurers and drug companies" outweighs helping regular Americans.
Her plan also calls for providing a "pathway to citizenship" for people in the country illegally, and increasing legal US immigration, which she says will result in $400 billion in new tax revenue.
On Friday, Biden's campaign questioned Warren's calculations, calling them "double talk" and "mathematical gymnastics" and asserting that middle-class taxes would rise despite her vow.
According to her campaign, the current United States health system will cost $52tn over the next decade.
And a whopping 2.3 trillion dollars (£1.7tr) would come from stronger enforcement of existing tax laws - money that would have to be identified and collected before it could be used for a new healthcare system. Instead of paying an insurance company, however, they would pay the government. There also would be a tax on the 40 or so biggest banks. "Elizabeth Warren's admission that it will cost two million jobs - on top of the fact it will destroy the patient/doctor relationship - proves throwing more government control at the problem is not the answer".
Overall views of the USA health care system have been largely consistent for many years: most want fundamental changes or a completely rebuilt system.
Even her progressive ally Mr Sanders said during the debate "it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up".
Eliminate the preferential tax rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends for the top 1 percent of households and apply ordinary income tax rates.