About That Medicare-for-All Food Fight. It is indeed possible to get to universal coverage under the auspices of Medicare, without bankrupting the public treasury or increasing net costs to the middle class. And the coverage would be better, more reliable, and more cost-effective than even the best insurance that people now get from their employers.
Today’s employer-provided insurance is riddled with deductibles, co-pays, denials of reimbursement, limits on which doctor or hospital you can use, and loss of insurance when you change jobs. Sanders and Warren are right about all that.
But the transition problems are far from trivial. The biggest problem is that the people who will save money when they no longer pay premiums are not the same people who will likely pay more in taxes.
So the sponsors of Medicare for All should recognize that a better transition strategy may be the best way to disarm critics, among centrist Democrats, Republican attackers, and the press; and to reassure the electorate and make Medicare for All the big winner that it can be.
The best of the transition approaches are those proposed by Jacob Hacker, with a close legislative counterpart in the Medicare for America Act co-sponsored by Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Jan Schakowsky.
This approach immediately insures entire categories of the uninsured, improves Medicare coverage, and creates carrots and sticks so that employers will cover their employees by buying into Medicare. That dramatically reduces the costs that have to be borne by taxes. Kamala Harris has a version of this, but it’s not nearly as good because it preserves a larger and more prolonged role for commercial insurers.
The flailing second-tier Democrats in the presidential debates who attack Medicare for All and its sponsors are indeed doing the work of Republicans. John Delaney’s claim that there is some other cost-effective brand of universal coverage that is not built around Medicare is particularly disingenuous.
Likewise the mantra that progressives such as Sanders and Warren are “taking something away” from happily insured Americans. It’s important for this opportunistic infighting to stop. None of these people will be nominated; they should cease damaging the front-runners.
That said, Warren and Sanders might think about embracing something like the policy nuances put forth by Hacker and DeLauro. It’s still Medicare for All, but it is more mindful of the transitional challenges, and it disarms critics.
Admittedly, this is all but impossible to do in the context of a free-for-all debate, even harder when giddy moderators are distorting both the policies and candidate positions in order to create or magnify conflicts. Mercifully, the next debate is not until September and the leading progressive candidates have time to fine-tune their narrative and policy details. ~ ROBERT KUTTNER
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Jake Tapper is a clueless corporate shill who is obviously owned by the healthcare rackets in the United States. He should not be asking questions in the Democratic debates. Again and again, in last night’s debate and in the previous rounds of debates, Tapper framed his question about healthcare in a way that included the assumption that Medicare for All would be more costly–specifically, that it would cost average Americans more in taxes.
Get a clue, Jake. Heatlhcare in the United States costs TWICE as much per capita as in the other industrialized countries in the OECD, and outcomes are mostly WORSE. Why? Because those other countries have universal, single-payer plans, while much of our healthcare dollar is siphoned off into the profits of our healthcare RICOs, and much of it is wasted in needless administrative expense in service to private insurance companies.
So, it is a red herring to try to scare people off single-payer, universal care with the bogeyman of “higher taxes on the middle class.” Which of the healthcare racketeers writes your questions for you, Jake?
Here are the facts:
ALL other countries in the OECD have universal coverage.
Heatlhcare systems by type, 2013, from World Health Organization
“Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the Untied States being the lone exception.”
Citation: Praveen Ghanta, “List of Countries with Universal Healthcare.” True Cost: Analyzing Our Economy, Government Policy, and Society through the Lens of Cost-Benefit, 2013. https://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/.
The US has the highest healthcare costs in the OECD
Healthcare costs in the United States, from National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
$10,348 per capita (per person), 2016
Total expenditure, $3.3 trillion, 2016
Healthcare as percent of Gross Domestic Product: 17.9 %
Citation: “Health Expenditures.” National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-expenditures.htm. Accessed April 9, 2019.
Costs for countries in the OECD is much lower on average:
Average healthcare cost per capita, 2018: $4,069 USD
Average cost of healthcare as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product in the OECD, 2018: 8.9 %
Highest percentages: US at 17.2 % of GDP, Switzerland at 12.3 % of GDP, France at 11.5 % of GDP (2018 figures)
Citation: “Spending on Health: Latest Trends.” OECD, June 2018. http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Health-Spending-Latest-Trends-Brief.pdf. Accessed April 9, 2019.
Despite this, our health outcomes are worse:
Comparing health outcomes, life expectancy
Life expectancy of the following OECD countries is higher than in the US: Chile, Costa Rica, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Belgium, Denmark, France, Austria, Korea, United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Australia, Iceland, Span, Sweden, Israel, Norway, Italy, Japan, Switzerland (2017 figures)
Citation: “Life Expectancy at Birth.” OECD Data, 2017. https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/life-expectancy-at-birth.htm#indicator-chart. Accessed April 9, 2019.
Comparing health outcomes, infant mortality
Infant morality rates in the following OECD countries are lower than in the US: Iceland, Finland, japan, Slovenia, Norway, Estonia, Sweden, Spain, Czech Republic, Italy, Korea, Ireland, Australia, Austria, Demark, Israel, Belgium, Portugal, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, France, Latvia, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland, Greece, Lithuania, Canada, Slovak Republic, New Zealand (2017 figures)
Citation: “Infant Mortality Rates.” OECD Data, 2017. https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/infant-mortality-rates.htm#indicator-chart. Accessed April 9, 2019.
But hey, Jake. Don’t let facts undermine the will of your corporate masters.
LikeLike
Exactly right, He works hard for his wages as a corporate agent in the mass media.
LikeLike
Do you have proof of him working “hard for his wages”??? 😉
LikeLike
“The biggest problem is that the people who will save money when they no longer pay premiums are not the same people who will likely pay more in taxes.”
Citation needed. And, even if true, reason that I care. If Sanders has his way, the people who will see the biggest tax increases are the multi-millionaires and billionaires. Their taxes need to go up regardless of whether they benefit from single payer. But the vast majority of Americans will save substantially on the swap from health insurance to single-payer, even with increased taxes.
Secondly, we wouldn’t need to raise taxes if (a) we’d stop bailing out corporations and (b) we’d end our forever pointless wars that are only making us less safe and far less free.
Anyway, it’s hardly “minor” policy differences between centrists and progressives. The centrist Democrats line up far more closely with Republicans than they do with, say, New Deal-type policies. Centrists are “free market” [sic] true believers. Privatization will solve everything. Social Democrats reject that. Major difference because it affects their approach to everything from foreign policy to healthcare to education to immigration to the environment.
LikeLike
BTW, I should add, people who believe in the “free market” [sic] and privatization are not “potential allies” with those of us who believe in a human-centered approach to policy. The two approaches are mutually conflicting and we are natural enemies, regardless of what the centrists say they believe about social issues like race, feminism and gay rights (the centrists’ policies, incidentally, don’t always match their words on those topics – in fact, they do only when it’s economically worthwhile). I will not unite with my enemies, not even against another enemy like Trump.
LikeLike
” I will not unite with my enemies, not even against another enemy like Trump.”
This sounds exactly like “there is no difference between centrist Democrats and Trump.”
We heard that lie before and the Germans heard it when they voted for Hitler.
It shocks me that you cannot tell the difference between a REAL enemy of democracy and people who have more conservative views of how to govern.
Putin says his country is a democracy too. Let’s not notice that nearly all the people who speak out against him seem to get killed. Let’s not notice that there is a big difference in BELIEVING in democracy and just mouthing the words.
And there is something ugly about your comment which implies that African-Americans who want to vote for Biden are your “enemy” and therefore you would not “unite” with them to stop Trump.
I challenge you to tell voters who are not white and who are the victims of Trump’s neo fascist attacks “I will not unite with you against Trump because you are my enemy since you support Democratic candidates who are also my enemy.”
And I would say the very same to any moderate Democrat who called Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren “the enemy” because they have policy disagreements with them. Any person who supports Biden in the primary and then turns around and calls the supporters of Bernie Sanders “their enemy” and refuses to “unite’ with them because Bernie is no different than Trump should be called out too.
Any moderate Dem who says Bernie is no different than Trump and refuses to unite with “the enemies” who voted for Bernie in the primary and made him the nominee is just wrong. Period. They know they are protected from Trump’s real evil and so they don’t care if he wins.
Same goes for those on the left who clearly are fine with Trump’s racism.
Anyone who would minimize the differences between Trump and the Democrats on race is probably white.
LikeLike
^^^Also this is patently false:
“Centrists are “free market” [sic] true believers. Privatization will solve everything. ”
Some centrists like Ralph Northam and Tim Kaine believe in public schools and some “progressives” like Tom Perriello are DFER Democrats.
Some progressives like Elizabeth Warren still see a role for charter schools. That doesn’t mean Warren is a “free market true believer”. Just like Bernie Sanders was not a “free market true believer” when he campaigned for the DFER candidate in Virginia.
By smearing all Democrats in these absolute terms, you are not just dishonest, but repeating the propaganda that the Russians used in 2016 to elect Trump.
I call out anyone attacking Bernie Sanders that way because it is dishonest. And I wish you would stop using the same sweeping attacks in which you get to decide which candidates have completely sold out and which make compromises for good reasons and get a pass.
LikeLike
nycpsp: you go over the top here, imputing arguments to dienne77 she did not make.
I think it’s enough to say: first priority, get Trump out of office. Baby steps. If we have to nominate/ elect a corporate centrist Dem, so be it– at least turn the clock back to an Obama-type. One step back, two forward: we already have a number of Dem progressives in Congress, & a whole generation of younger folk who can help us start turning over the Senate. This will help us push left against a corp centrist Dem admin.
LikeLike
dienne77,
You are correct about: “Anyway, it’s hardly “minor” policy differences between centrists and progressives. The centrist Democrats line up far more closely with Republicans than they do with, say, New Deal-type policies. Centrists are “free market” [sic] true believers.”
GREED and POWER over others = the downfall of America. So long as there are HUGE inequalities, no one is really FREE.
LikeLike
The centrist Democrats line up far more closely with the Republicans of the 1970s!!
The Republicans TODAY are not the Republicans of the 1970s. They are a party of neo-Fascists. Susan Collins votes like a far right winger from the 1970s and she is considered a “leftist” Republican.
Centrist Democrats have nothing in common with todays’ Republicans and I wish people would stop posting this as if there is no difference.
It’s like saying that there is no difference between the John Birch Society Republicans and Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Today’s moderate Democrats are like Eisenhower. Today’s Republicans are the John Birch Society. Of course there is a huge difference.
FYI, the far right/Russian propaganda wants everyone to believe that today’s Democrats are no different than the John Birch Society Republicans. When I hear this repeated by Democrats, I know this country is in great, great danger.
This is how democracy ends.
LikeLike
nycpsp: While you’re correct that the whole political spectrum has swung to the right– & that today’s Reps are like John Birchers of yore– it’s not accurate to say that today’s centrist Dems are on a par w/DDE [centrist Reps of the ’50’s]. He was a New Deal promoter, w/strong union appts to Dept of Labor: a true centrist, w/Dems as well as Reps in his admin. Today’s centrist Dems are dominated by neoliberal, anti-union privatizers. That they are so far to the right of ’50’s Reps has everything to do w/why today’s Reps promote fringe libertarian theory.
LikeLike
the whole political spectrum has shifted to the right.
If FDR were running today, the media would call him a socialist
LikeLike
I tuned in for about five minutes last night, just as Tapper asked his advertiser-approved-and-scripted-question about “taking away people’s private insurance.” I tuned out because I knew the fix was in. The questions I’d like to ask Tapper are: “How do health insurance companies improve individual health care?”, “What value do health insurance companies add to health care?”, “Why should insurance companies be given the power to overrule medical decisions made by doctors?”, “If we took health care costs out of the employer-driven system we now have, how would it add to economic productivity?” We don’t even need to get into, “In any first world country, much less the most wealthy one in the history of the mankind, should a disease diagnosis imperil the financial well being of anyone?”
Here’s the game we’re caught in: Insurer’s are targeting pharma companies’ pricing to limit costs to them (Google the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review [ICER] to see the front lines of this ruse which is funded in large part by…wait for it…John Arnold), clinics and doctor’s associations like the AMA are laying low and hoping no one will notice how they are gouging consumers, pharma companies hide behind the shield of the term of “innovation” (sound familiar to readers of this blog?)—claiming any restriction on their profits will stifle research and lead to the neglect of rare disease research as they reap the benefits of taxpayer-funded basic research funded by the National Institutes of Health. The goal is to avoid systemic reform—by pointing to everyone else as the bogeyman and maintaining the status quo—and maintain the most inefficient health care system in the world.
Add CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and everyone else who benefits off the status quo the list. People like Tapper know who their masters are.
LikeLike
Tapper is the one appointed by his bosses to represent the healthcare rackets who advertise with them, obviously. I have a comment about this, above, but it is awaiting moderation.
LikeLike
It really doesn’t matter what Tapper said…”nevertheless, she persisted,” & so did he (Bernie, that is). I just returned from Windsor (I was there right after Bernie took the seniors there), & spoke w/a # of Canadians who are very happy w/their public health system (& way of life, in general). Yes, indeed, they do pay higher taxes, but their benefits so outweigh what they do pay (&, to agree w/Dienne, the wealthy will pay their fair share!!). &–BTW–one shopkeeper/retired teacher (!) I spoke with had lived all over the world, was of Swedish lineage &, I will say, sagacious, so well knew what she was talking about.
Absolutely loved the Sanders-Warren tag-team last night. Both of them came up w/some real zingers (& body language/facial expressions, esp. Warren to Delaney’s responses to her). “I wrote the bill!” & what Elizabeth said about not understanding why some people were running for president if all they were looking at is what they can’t do. Brilliance!!!
LikeLike
The health care question was framed to sound as if patients would suffer a loss under Medicare for all. Warren and Sanders seemed unphased as they did an admirable job defending their position. It was very difficult for any candidate to get any type of momentum going in a thirty second response. Candidates did not get to elaborate, and they were cut off. A smaller forum would have been more interesting and revealing.
LikeLike
Correction: unfazed
LikeLike
Yep, retired teacher, & same thing tonight, but, yes, they did, indeed, do an admirable job defending the program.
As to the forum…well, that’s msm for ya…
As I watch this minute, Harris still pushing on Biden RE: desegregation (brought up by the Eric Gardner questions–as brought up by the protesters in the audience {who were, in fact, ejected, including Tamika Mallory & Linda Sarsour}.
LikeLike
“…claiming any restriction on their profits will stifle research and lead to the neglect of rare disease research…”
Yeah right don’t make me laugh. They research bread&butter majority disease treatments– biggest market, biggest bucks. My eldest died of a rare disease prevalent (likewise in small numbers) only among like genetics, ie., Nordic types– I found what little research was out there from UK, where universal healthcare incentivizes study of rare chronic disease, because it costs the taxpayer proportionally a lot v-a-v the small numbers afflicted.
LikeLike
I have a different take: Primaries are supposed to be exercises in Darwinian survival of the fittest, not anointments where establishment candidates are able to win without strong ideas. We need a fighter, not a concession maker. So, I loved the debate last night. Bernie was given a chance to remind the electorate that he can stand in the ring and fight buffoon President Anomaly in the debates next fall. Gloves off! CNN tried to rip Bernie apart — every question started with something like “Why do you think this or that Senator Sanders statement is crazy…” — but it didn’t work.
He wrote the damn bill! Loved that. The rightwing moderators and rightwing Democrats onstage stumbled and lost in a TKO, a technical knockout. Medicare For All was a winner last night. It became a given imperative with only the implementation details left to nail down. Most importantly, workers currently with private health insurance, especially unions (especially in swing states) were shown that Medicare For All would allow them to negotiate higher salaries. That’s yuge! Bernie must be given a chance to fight for socially responsible democratic governance. If he doesn’t get to fight, the clarity of his ideas doesn’t get to ring true aloud, and the corporate conglomerate media get to focus everyone’s attention on the circus of rightwing candidates instead.
Last night we felt the Bern.
LikeLike
I posted last night on another thread about Bernie’s spot on reply explaining that his Medicare for All proposal allowing unions to negotiate higher salaries. That was excellent and exactly the kind of argument he and Warren and all their spokespeople should be repeating. The Republicans are very good at repeating these things ad nauseum until everyone is sick of hearing it but it turns out that the public internalizes what they have been hearing relentless and next time a Republican says that Bernie wants to “take away” their health insurance, the voters immediately remember that they can now negotiate higher salaries without being threatened with loss of health insurance and if they lose or change jobs, they don’t have to worry.
One of the things that Bill Clinton was so good at was at explaining his ideas in simple terms so that the voters could put the lies of the Republicans in context. He campaigned on raising taxes on the rich by explaining it in such a way — and over and over again — so that voters weren’t convinced by right wing propaganda that their own taxes were going to go sky high.
Bernie was a very good explainer on that issue last night, and we need more of that.
LikeLike
Yes, NYCPSP, the very thing that anti-Bernie people complain about (he repeats the same things/is saying the same things he said in 2016) is the right way to do it; he tells the truth (as he clearly stated last night), stays on message & repeats the same because what he says still needs to be accomplished. IQ45 does the same thing–but it’s that chestnut whereby “if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it” (just the same as with ed. reform, “standardized” testing is good & necessary, etc.).
Conversely, it’s more important to tell the truth over & over & over again. & that’s what Bernie does (& Warren does it, as well, & has been doing so for years).
LikeLike
Diane, I agree wholeheartedly with your view on the absolutely unnecessary & counterproductive rifts the manner of this primary campaign is creating in the D Party.
LikeLike
I really think that Pete Buttigeig should get a special call out. I completely disagree with him on many issues but after watching last night’s debate I would be perfectly happy to vote for him over Donald Trump.
I agree that the questions were TERRIBLE. But I loved how candidates like Bernie and Elizabeth handled them. And I especially loved that when the moderator tried so hard to encourage Buttigeig to turn on the more progressive candidates, he gave exactly the right answer:
“It’s time to stop worrying what the Republicans will say,” Buttigieg argued.
If they adopt a progressive agenda, Buttigieg said, Republican will label the party “crazy socialists,” a characterization that Trump has repeatedly used against Democrats. If they move to the center, he said, “they’re gonna say we’re a bunch of crazy socialists.”
“Let’s just stand up for the right policy and go out there and defend it,” he said. ”
Buttigieg is right. Democrats MUST stop turning on their own and using those outrageous labels “right wing” “left wing” “socialist” to attack others. Every single policy proposal — whether from the left or from moderates — has some trade offs. The goal should be to DEFEND those trade offs, the way Bernie did when the right says “people don’t want to give up their great health insurance in exchange for Medicare for all”. And it is perfectly legitimate for another candidate to say “wait, let’s do this slower”. It doesn’t make that other candidate “evil” or some right wingers.
The way to convince voters to support you is to do what Bernie did and offer reasonable arguments to why your policies are better. It is not to scream “you are a right winger and you only support this policy because some billionaire wants you to.” Not only is that a lie, but it simply repeats right wing propaganda that helps them win. The propaganda that Democrats are no different than Republicans when the differences between even the most conservative Democrat on that stage last night and Susan Collins are ENORMOUS.
Do you know who lost my support last night? Amy Klobuchar. I hated when she kept implying that the progressive candidates were just “telling people what they want to hear” or “saying things to get elected”.
Whether or not Bernie or Elizabeth Warren’s proposals are flawed or not, they are supporting them because that is what they believe is the best way out of this mess.
And the same is true for the more conservative Democrats out there.
I actually thought Klobuchar made some excellent points about whether we should be offering free college for all to the students whose parents are billionaires, or should it be means tested. That is a perfectly legitimate question to debate and there are arguments to be made on both sides and taking one side or the other does not make you a “right wing tool” or a socialist “telling people what they want to hear.”
It’s too bad that Klobuchar lost me when she used the right wing talking points to smear candidates as untrustworthy politicians who would say anything to get elected.
I hear that same kind of ugly rhetoric from some of the supporters of progressive candidates, too. But I don’t blame the candidates for their supporters’ wrongheaded repetition of right wing talking points that attack other candidates’ honesty and character. However, if, like Klobuchar, the progressives start using those character attacks instead of good arguments (as they did last night) to make their case, they will lose my support as well.
I thought that the Democrats did well — especially Bernie, Warren, and Buttigeig — despite an outrageously offensive moderator panel.
LikeLike
Well, we know where the msm stands (wouldn’t even cover the S.O.S. Marches, or the ALEC 40th birthday protest in Chicago).
I would be interested in seeing the Young Turks moderate the debates!
LikeLike
One of the things we’re seeing playing out in this election cycle is the fact that both the “progressive” and “right-wing” media in the U.S. are owned by the wealthy who are invested in the U.S. healthcare RICOs and by their corporate advertisers. Almost none of them will tell you the truth–that the U.S. is alone among wealthy nations in not having a universal, single-payer system and that it pays TWICE as much as these nations do, per capital, for healthcare because of its backward system.
LikeLike
CNN’s Tapper and others framed questions inside hostile GOP talking points, especially repeating higher taxes on the middle class from Med for All and unions lose their good coverage, etc. This exemplifies political role of media to use their weapons of mass distraction for character assassination and distortion. Another kind of character assassination is the incessant ridicule Trump shouts at opponents–“the crazy left,” etc. B/c major media are in corporate hands there can be no level playing field for political discourse, will routinely tilt in favor of pro-corporate agents and ideas. This is why it is crucial to have an independent network outside corporate mass media, like Bernie has built with his “Our Rev” org, a million folks, copied by Elizabeth Warren, not needed by corporate inside candidates like Biden b/c the corporate mass media do the work for him.
LikeLike
You are correct about the framing, but what I saw was that it was absolutely possible for a candidate like Bernie and Elizabeth to dismiss the framing without resorting to platitudes. Bernie gave an excellent reply to the notion that union members would object to “giving up their health insurance”. That is so much better than just saying attacking the media — instead Bernie demonstrated clearly to all viewers exactly why that framing was incorrect.
What is important is that all of the candidates take a lesson from Pete Buttigeig. When the media tried to get him to buy into the framing that benefitted him, he entirely rejected it. His comment that the right wing will any policies offered by the Democrats as “socialist” no matter whether they are progressive or moderate was exactly right. He said that each candidate should stand up for the policy they believe in and defend it.
Bernie and Warren did excellent jobs of defending their progressive policies without resorting to calling other candidates the same kind of names the right wing propaganda uses. So did Mayor Pete. Amy Klobuchar did not, which is why even though she brought up some valuable and important issues, she lost my support.
LikeLike
The healthcare rackets in the United States are a 3.5-trillion-dollar-a-year scam. There’s a lot at stake for the mobsters who run these RICOs. If a Medicare-for-All candidate clinches the Democratic nomination, expect to see the media inundated by pro-Trumpty, anti-single-payer ads from astroturf groups of “concerned citizens.” Entirely predictable. I can just see these ads now. Heck, I could write them.
WORKER WITH HARDHAT: We fought to get good healthcare. Now the Democrats want to take it away from us.
FARMER ON TRACTOR: We’re independent here in America. We like to make our own choices and not have Socialists make them for us.
MOM AT CHECKOUT LANE IN SUPERMARKET: It’s hard enough to make ends meet. Now the Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for some heatlhcare boondoggle cooked up in Washington.
CHILD IN WHEELCHAIR: Daddy, are they really going to take away our healthcare?
DADDY: Not if I can help it.
Paid for by Average Americans for Healthcare Freedom and Choice.
[End, lies]
LikeLike
In the future, Bernie and Elizabeth and Kamala need to call out these poison-pen questions for what they are. They need to say, clearly, “That question is framed in such a way as to mislead and distract the American people. Shame on you.”
LikeLike
“That question is framed in such a way as to mislead and distract the American people. Shame on you. You know as well as I do, Jake, that Americans pay TWICE AS MUCH per person for healthcare as do people in every other industrialized democracy. Why? Because here we pay for healthcare AND for the profits of the fat cats who steal half our healthcare dollar. We are ALREADY paying twice as much, and we have less choice and worse outcomes. This isn’t hypothetical. It’s the fact of the matter, and all we have to do is look at Canada or Denmark or any other country with a universal, single-payer system. Americans are done with falling for this bs, Jake. So stop it.”
LikeLike
I agree.
Members of the “news” media use the debates to control the narrative and advance their own agenda..
They need to be told in no uncertain terms that this is not acceptable behavior, particularly not from a party that is supposed to act as an unbiased “reporter”.
LikeLike
NPR’s Jessica Taylor was noticably pissed off when Sanders and Warren refused to play the adversarial game that she and other members of the media expected them to play toward one another.
Hacks like NPRs Taylor and Ron Elving love it when the Democrats are at each other’s throats.
LikeLike
I agree, as well. The msm need to be called out for their shenanigans & favoritism, not seen in the days of Huntley-Brinkley, Walter Cronkite & real journalists & newspaper, not “celebs” (which they have become, as much as elected officials & candidates for office)* such as Chuck Todd, who loves to hear the sound of his own voice.
He’s no Tim Russert.
*Actually, that having been said, there had/has been a movement to get Oprah to run as a Dem; lots of people believe she’s the only one who would really beat IQ45. Seriously. Not facetious, not a joke.
(I’m not on that bandwagon, however.)
LikeLike
“The biggest [transition] problem is that the people who will save money when they no longer pay premiums are not the same people who will likely pay more in taxes.”
Actually, that is certainly not the biggest problem.
If by “problem one means “impediment to the transitiion”, the biggest “problem” by FAR will be the for profit insurance companies, hospitals and whorganizations like the American Medical Association which stand to lose billions and will fight to the last breath to keep it from happening.
And of course, the corporate shills –aka members of Congress and candidates — who get campaign contributions from the insurance companies and hospitals, who will forever be trying to reverse any Medicare for all legislation .
LikeLike
And the second biggest problem/impediment to the transition will be the American mainstream media, who whore themselves to big insurance and big pharma.
LikeLike
Yeah!! Like Bernie said, last night’s debate coverage was propped up, in part, by Big Pharma advertising! Just look at the evening world news–ALL of those commercials are for medications (because the largest audience for those evening news programs turns out to be seniors, who are on Eloquis, Xerolta, etc., ad. nauseum).
Oooo–& now IQ45 is going to to something about prescriptions in Canada. Socialist!!
LikeLike
Do not forget the thousands of people who work for the insurance companies being out of a job. There are a lot of books to keep under our present system. Somebody has to keep those doctors from their appointed rounds.
LikeLike
Maryanne Williamson won the debate. Yes, she’s an ignorant flake –but that’s precisely what makes her a formidable candidate. It means she knows how to speak to the masses, who are just as knowledge-impaired as she is. The other Dems do not know how to do this. They talk above their heads. She is to this field what Trump was to the other Republican candidates in 2016: a canny non-politician among out-of-touch politicians. Her knack for speaking intelligibly to common folk could allow her to dominate, as Trump did. I kept looking for this knack in the others; I didn’t see it, except maybe in Bullock.
LikeLike
What an amazing country. When it comes to universal health, the screaming, the yowling, the howling of indignation and disbelief that such a thing were possible in any universe is audible from the Moon. How dare you, where will the money come from and taxes, TAXES I tells you. But nobody screams about money when it comes to wars of choice or the military. Bush LOWERED taxes (mainly on the rich) and then waged 2 wars and 2 occupations, nobody seemed to care where the money was coming from or going to. Trillions for two failed wars and occupations that could have easily been avoided.
If all these mealy mouthed middle of the road Democrats had been around in the 1960s when LBJ was creating Medicare and Medicaid, he would have ripped their heads off and fed them to the wolves.
It’s already a travesty that Trump is president, it says a lot about this country. If he gets a 2nd term I don’t even want to contemplate where we are headed, too horrible for words.
LikeLike
The American mainstream media are driving most of the faux indignation toward Medicare for All.
And not coincidentally, they are also the ones who drive the cheerleading for all the wars.
The idea that they are somehow the “unbiased observers and reporters” that they always pretend to be is just laughable when they are effectively setting the agenda and controlling the narrative.
LikeLike
So true, SDP, so true. & what I said above & yesterday, about MSNBC. We who read this blog–& most of us have been on since its beginning–know way back, from before Mr. “Fake News!” IQ45 about the repressive msm–so many protests, so little (actually, none) coverage. Democracy not only “dies in darkness” WaPo, it also becomes mundane where money is concerned, where ratings are King (which, in large part, got us IQ45–thanks, Les Moonves; glad you did NOT get your {undeserved} “golden parachute” from CBS.
Nevertheless, the eye has suffered from impaired vision…
LikeLike
Yet when all was said and done, we still had Warren and Sanders squirming when asked whether they would raise taxes to pay for M4all . And discussing M4all without an honest discussion of how we pay for it is a guaranteed loser. Not that the format allowed for a real discussion on any topic.
Yes it will raise taxes, would have been a refreshing answer. Of course nobody is willing to say that since Walter Mondale.
But I suspect they would be cut off with that sound bite and not given the chance to say that not only will it eliminate premiums and co-pays but it would raise wages to pay those taxes.
There is no such thing as Employer provided health insurance. Whether in a Union contract or any other employment arrangement. Health insurance is part of a wage package, it is not some free perk. The $27,000 dollar Cadillac plan my Union provides its members; is paid for by $27,000 in deferred wages contributed by the employers to pay for it.
Now Tim Ryan a populist of sorts launched a great defense of keeping great Union plans.
After all “when a Union member loses his Job. The one thing he has is healthcare ”
Sorry, when that Union member loses his Job he almost always loses that healthcare.
LikeLike
Yes, because he LOSES his job–no job, no benefits.
How misleading! Just as the public always has to be reminded that teachers do NOT receive “free healthcare for life.” (Just the other day, I informed yet another person {a lawyer} that, no, teachers do NOT receive free health care for life {& it was not free in my school district unless you qualified as head-of-household; we had to pay something, as you stated).
I pay plenty for my Medicare Advantage Plan, & they pay less in benefits every year (they keep changing the parameters of the plan, &, I think, they count on their customers getting older & less willing–or able–to appeal unpaid claims).
LikeLike
Medicare is expensive now, requiring each citizen to have supplementary coverage that is expensive. Are we sure we want this system? We obviously need some system that is an alternative to the high bills we incur from the present one, but I am not so sure that this plan is the best. I am not sure what would be the best. Perhaps our system might even work if people earned a wage that would buy decent lifestyle.
LikeLike
If you think Medicare is expensive, how much do you think insurers would charge to insure those over 65 today.
But the Sanders plan would cover total costs and I believe there is a provision for long term care as well.
LikeLike
Joel: hard to argue. I just do not know what the best plan is.
LikeLike
Corporate America is speaking. Biden’s against Medicare for All because it costs too much and says that if immigrants cross the border illegally they should be sent back. Nobody can apply for Amnesty unless they are INSIDE the USA. Well, that is the law unless Trump has by now successfully changed it to his own racist demands.
………………………………….
Joe Biden Did Fine, and That Might Have Been Enough
The former vice president had a lot to prove. To those who had written him off after the first debate, he had this to say: “malarkey.”
He accused his peers of underselling the trillions of dollars that a “Medicare for all”-style plan might cost, turning toward two more progressive rivals — Senator Kamala Harris of California and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York — to level the kind of zealous defense of center-leftism that has often escaped him in this campaign: “I don’t know what math you do in New York,” Mr. Biden said. “I don’t know what math you do in California. But I tell ya, that’s a lot of money.”…
Mr. Biden proudly adopted a more centrist mantle, at a time when many Democratic strategists fear some in the presidential field are veering too far with calls to decriminalize unauthorized border crossings. “The fact of the matter is, you should be able to, if you cross the border illegally, you should be able to be sent back,” Mr. Biden said. “It’s a crime.”
LikeLike
I read three papers last night to see their reaction to the debate.
The N.Y. Times praised Biden’s performance.
The Washington Post and the LA Times panned it.
LikeLike
HuffPost also panned him.
…………………………
It Was Everybody vs. Joe Biden At The Democratic Debate
…Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and former Housing Secretary Julián Castro both landed solid hits against the onetime Delaware senator on issues like criminal justice reform and immigration, but it was unclear if the damage to Biden was severe enough to knock him from his front-runner perch…
Article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-pile-on-democratic-debate_n_5d424d7fe4b0acb57fc70bf0
LikeLike
FYI “There’s only one Democrat in the entire U.S. Congress who doesn’t stand with us on net neutrality: Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.
In fact, she’s teamed up with Big Cable’s favorite senator, Republican Roger Wicker, to work on weak legislation to undermine the Save the Internet Act, the House-passed bill to restore net neutrality.1
We can’t afford to have Democrats working with Big Cable to block net neutrality, so Demand Progress is calling out Kyrsten Sinema in her home state of Arizona.
But we need to raise $7,500 by midnight tonight to meet our funding goals for the month of July and keep fighting to defend net neutrality. Will you donate today?
Yes, I’ll donate to help save net neutrality and hold Kyrsten Sinema accountable in her home state of Arizona.
Big Cable has been running rampant over our internet since the repeal of net neutrality took place, throttling speeds and creating de facto paid prioritization with their fake unlimited plans that aren’t really unlimited at all.
In just the past year alone:2
Sprint throttled traffic to Skype in order to push customers to its own video call service.
AT&T and Verizon have been caught degrading video quality when customers use “unlimited” plans to stream content outside the corporations’ own video services.
Comcast throttled speeds on its “unlimited” plan unless people paid extra for HD content.
Sometimes people’s lives are at stake, such as when Verizon throttled speeds to a California fire department during a wildfire in order to force the department into paying higher rates.3
But we’re fighting back. We got the Save the Internet Act through the House, clean and unamended. And soon a federal court will hand down a ruling on the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality that could completely change the game by throwing out Ajit Pai’s repeal of net neutrality.
We’re too close to victory to allow a Democrat like Kyrsten Sinema to stand in the way.
Unfortunately, we’re behind on our fundraising goals for the month, so we might have to make tough choices about cutting back on key campaign actions that we need to hold Sen. Sinema accountable and defend net neutrality.
Will you rush a donation to Demand Progress to pass the Save the Internet Act and defend net neutrality?
Thanks for standing with us.
Robert Cruickshank,
Demand Progress
DONATE https://act.demandprogress.org/go/22013?
Sources:
Multichannel, “Pressure Ramps Up on Sinema Over Net Neutrality,” June 6, 2019
Public Knowledge, “Broadband Providers Are Quietly Taking Advantage of an Internet Without Net Neutrality Protections,” January 29, 2019
Ibid”
LikeLike
There’s Nothing Moderate About “Moderates.” A Primary Example Is Joe Biden.
By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News
01 August 19
The comedian George Carlin liked to marvel at oxymorons like “jumbo shrimp” and “military intelligence.” Now, as the race for the Democratic presidential nomination intensifies, reporters and pundits at corporate media outlets are escalating their use of a one-word political oxymoron – “moderate.”
As a practical matter, in the routine lexicon of U.S. mass media, “moderate” actually means pro-corporate and reliably unwilling to disrupt the dominant power structures. “Moderate” is a term of endearment in elite circles, a label conferred on politicians who won’t rock establishment boats.
“Moderate” sounds so much nicer than, say, “enmeshed with Wall Street” or “supportive of the military-industrial complex.”
In the corporate media environment, we’re accustomed to pretty euphemisms that fog up un-pretty realities – and the haze of familiarity brings the opposite of clarity. As George Orwell wrote, language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”
If Joe Biden is a “moderate,” the soothing adjective obscures grim realities. The framing was routine hours after the debate Wednesday night when the front page of The New York Times began its lead story by reporting that Biden “delivered a steadfast defense of his moderate policies in the Democratic primary debate.”
But how are policies really “moderate” when they perpetuate and increase extreme suffering due to vast income inequality? Or when they support U.S. wars causing so much death and incalculable anguish? Or when they refuse to challenge the fossil-fuel industry and only sign onto woefully inadequate measures in response to catastrophic climate change?
Biden’s record of words and deeds is “moderate” only if we ignore the extreme harm that he has done on matters ranging from civil rights and mass incarceration to student debt and the credit card industry to militarism and war.
Although Biden again tangled with Kamala Harris during the latest debate, she is ill-positioned to provide a clear critique of his so-called “moderate” policies. Harris has scarcely done more than he has to challenge the systemic injustice of corporate domination. So she can’t get far in trying to provide a sharp contrast to Biden’s corporate happy talk on the crucial issue of healthcare.
Harris began this week by releasing what she called “My Plan for Medicare for All.” It was promptly eviscerated by single-payer activist Tim Higginbotham, who wrote for Jacobin that her proposal would “further privatize Medicare … keep the waste and inefficiency of our current multi-payer system … cost families more than Medicare for All … continue to deny patients necessary care” and “fall apart before it’s implemented.”
In keeping with timeworn rhetoric from corporate Democrats, Harris repeatedly said during the debate that she wants to guarantee “access” to healthcare – using a standard corporate-friendly buzzword that detours around truly guaranteeing healthcare as a human right.
No matter whether journalists call Harris “moderate” or “progressive” (a term elastic enough to be the name of a huge insurance company), her unwillingness to confront the dominance of huge corporations over the economic and political life of the USA is a giveaway.
Whatever their discreet virtues, 18 of the 20 candidates who debated this week have offered no consistent, thoroughgoing challenge to corporate power. Among the contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, only Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are providing a coherent analysis and actual challenge to the realities of corporate power and oligarchy that are crushing democracy in the United States.
LikeLike