Home | About | Donate

As Harris Says 'Eliminate' For-Profit Insurance, Bloomberg Offers Fact-Free Medicare for All Fearmongering

As Harris Says 'Eliminate' For-Profit Insurance, Bloomberg Offers Fact-Free Medicare for All Fearmongering

Julia Conley, staff writer

At a town hall event Monday night, Sen. Kamala Harris's (D-Calif.) unequivocal statement of support for a Medicare for All system which would do away with the for-profit health insurance industry won applause from the audience and universal healthcare advocates around the country, as the senator and 2020 presidential candidate backed the plan that 70 percent of Americans now support.

2 Likes

Medicare for All advocates will demand similar commitments [getting rid of private insurance] from other Democrats running for president and all elected officials.

Yep. I’m not a fan of Harris, but she is still alive to me. Sherrod Brown is dead to me as is anyone proposing some limited Medicare expansion. Single Payer Health care with no private insurance component is the minimum. I’m starting to be less and less keen on for profit providers but not to the point where I’d rule out someone who advocates for their inclusion. But that is a different story than the insurance companies. They bring NOTHING to the table and as Harris says, “Let’s eliminate all of that, let’s move on.”

5 Likes

How about incentives. If your health out come or overall condition saves money for others on the national care plan you get a discounted rate. Regardless of whether your good health is the result of how you treat yourself, or if you happen to have good genes, the discounted rate applies. No penalties apply to your care, only an incentive reward for being healthy in certain test ares.
The same could apply to being accident free. Again, no penalty for being a clutz and breaking your leg multiple times a year, just incentive rewards for the careful and lucky. Like Kamala says, it’s time to move on. My little plan may be garbage but we have to encourage people to be inventive.
Until the climate fairies come to get us.

A multi-payer system is going to have systematic inefficiencies, even if the government helps with establishing prices. The WHO did a report in 2010 that showed that private insurance around the world had three times as high of administrative overhead costs as public healthcare systems, not to mention inefficiencies at the institutional level. That shows that this isn’t a problem that exists within developing countries, or developed countries, or countries with this or that system. Private systems are just more inefficient, and always will be. Same is true of privatized pension systems like Chile’s, where the overhead is much, much higher than the Social Security system.

Anyone that comes forward with a plan that is complex, this group is in this plan, this group in that plan, etc., it will necessarily be a most costly and less efficient system than single payer. You will have to put money aside in the system to manage the complexity. Not possible to realistically to have less complexity than a single payer system, again, if designed right. Single payer is cheap, if designed well, because it simplifies the system. Complexities in the system result in inefficiencies. And to the extent that there are inefficiencies at the institutional level (profits, high executive pay, marketing and lobbying costs, etc.), the inefficiencies in the system will be even worse.

Harris had okay answers (often vague), but I don’t trust her, no reason to. We have seen this movie so many times, she just went to Wall Street to ask for support, and she recently met with Clinton’s inner team in Martha’s Vineyard, hired her communications director (!) if I am not mistaken. Her record isn’t great either. She and people like Booker answering questions like this is a reflection of how much the country has shifted and how indefensible the status quo is. For that, we can thank activists, and I don’t care what anyone says, Bernie. But she is not as absolutely horrible as Clinton was, but what is that saying?

9 Likes

Can we please identify all establishment politicians, and primary each and every single one for termination?

Please.

4 Likes

Bloomberg sez:
“(T)o replace the entire private system where companies provide healthcare for their employees would bankrupt us for a very long time.”

Unless you literally work in a medical clinic, your ‘company’ does not provide healthcare. It provides access to insurance. Often expensive and loophole-riddled insurance.

8 Likes

The United States has a pathetic healthcare system-----its rotten to the core. And I could go on about all kinds of things I have experienced myself------like being told my gallbladder needed to come out-----and really the solution was eating healthy foods? HOW MANY PEOPLE DIE EVERYDAY BECAUSE OF THIS CRAPPY FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM!

This is simple-----We need free community healthcare centers on every corner—because we are one SICK country. Maybe tear down a few starbucks and mcdonald’s.

Just understand Harris is the Obama------she has been groomed by the corporate elite. Just look at her laugh----it says it all------man this is so easy???

4 Likes

She’s already " crawfished " to the billionaires.
Next.

3 Likes

Absolutely. Single Payer. It is simple because the “pool” of people is already there, the entire population. Work it the way the VA works for me. No cost, almost, at all. As a non-combat vet I pay some costs, in copays on some medicines, in this case blood pressure prescription. So far, the most it has cost me for an entire year is $30 for Lisinopril. That’s it. The lab tests, exams, BP monitor, ultrasound scan, vaccinations and more have been “free” (via my taxes). And they keep track of me and keep sending me updates and ready-for-an-appointment notices.

The basic idea of insurance is simply that a group of persons get together to pool their resources to make sure no one is hit with catastrophe that wipe you out. You could also call such a pool, the population, as in government. Once you put in a private party with their own interests in a position to take what they want from the money coming in, to run this they begin to embezzle, although this is skimming off the ever larger “top” it isn’t called embezzlement. It is called CEO salaries, drug company profit margins and “needed cost of business.” Just call it embezzlement. That’s what it amounts to.

As far as Harris, I would trust her about as far as I could throw her. Harris and Booker’s statements on health care, as you noted, are more about constructed political talking points used to cover their real dependencies on Wall Street and other massive monied sources, like Hillary who left the Dem convention in 2016 to go directly to a Wall Street meeting and was so arrogantly tone deaf she didn’t even try to pretend otherwise.

They don’t really believe in what they are saying except as a front to gather votes to cover their collusion with the billionaire class who are really in charge, from the financial backside.

4 Likes

What do we, as a nation, spend most of our money on? Killing things. You are a thing to the government. You do not warrant “health” care. What do you not understand? The mindset of the country has to shift in a dramatic fashion away from the war machine, the fossil fuel machine, the healthcare for profit machine and we have to do it now. But then again, because of Ice Melt, it’s too late.

Obama promised universal healthcare too. Beware.

3 Likes

Well, Harris said it, then stood behind it - though, if you watch her, perhaps with a gulp of trepidation when cross-examined.

Behold the ‘new face’ of the right liberal Democratic Party since a major insurgency by its sizable left flank forced it to admit single payer as a popular demand.

And, though Sanders was the ideal mouthpiece for the message - since he could could speak for it authentically, forcefully, with passion and conviction (vs. Harris’s ‘reasoned’ support) - Sanders did not create the widespread, popular demand; rather, he almost unwittingly - remember his surprise at the movement that sprang up? - released it.

3 Likes

The only reason we don’t have a single payer system in the USA is very simple. It would single handedly re-empower the working class.
Nothing that will transfer power from the oligarchy to the people will be allowed.
There will be civil war before there will be single payer.

2 Likes

“Obama promised universal healthcare too. Beware.”

Obama equivocated on universal healthcare. Mobilize.

Fuck Bloomberg AND that caffeinated ass hole Schultz. We have a rich ass hole for President now and look where that’s gotten us. These “centrist” morons are gonna do better? And, Mcd & Dunkin Donut coffee is better than Starfucks and a LOT CHEAPER.

Edit to add: Why in the hell can’t the “richest country” on the fucking planet have single payer when every other industrial country has some form of it??? WHY?

1 Like

Well, Harris’ support for Medicare-for-all didn’t last long. A couple of shots across the bow and she retreated at full speed. I was asking a couple of days ago whether she was worth a serious look by progressives because of her recent statement of policy positions, including Medicare-for-all. Now she has answered all of my questions. Her progressivism is about as authentic as a three-dollar bill.

She has revealed that she is not actually bold or resolute and in the past she was just posturing. She also apparently is not well-organized or very sophisticated.

I guess for me it is back to hoping for a miracle with Bernie or E. Warren. Oh, well.

“Harris’ support for Medicare-for-all didn’t last long. A couple of shots across the bow and she retreated at full speed…She has revealed that she is not actually bold or resolute…She also apparently is not well-organized or very sophisticated.”

No, not “bold or resolute” - cross-examined about private insurance…it’s not that she back-walked, but that she couldn’t be what she’s not - a progressive populist that would have both focused on the inefficiency of private insurers, but, also, have brought a strong measure of moral condemnation to such a system. Instead, in a kind of mousey, reasonable way, she made a fair, but small-bore point about being denied coverage.

Dunno if it’s about organization and sophistication - unless by that you mean she ought to have anticipated precisely this key question for any single payer advocate…but that’s not just about ‘sophistication;’ as suggested above, it’s about single payer being a recently-adopted, ‘New Democrat’ position…while basically she remains a younger, slightly less ponderous and overly-self-controlled, establishment-oriented, mixed-record Clinton-type…Clinton 2.0 w/a new position on healthcare.

My best shot is - for those taking the ‘reform/primary Dem’s’ approach - they have to be pushed really hard from the outside.

It’s the same as the oil industry. They have a good thing going for themselves and they are willing to protect it. There is no sense of morality, only greed.

My comment about her lack of sophistication was that certainly she should have anticipated the question, and, if she were well-organized, she would have had competent advisers inform her beforehand about the repercussions of her policy proposal, including serious pushback from the plutocrats and the corporate Democrats. I think the best interpretation of her original claim that she supported single-payer a couple of days earlier was that she was adopting Bernie’s position, but in response to apparently unanticipated heavy pushback, she offered the more nuanced and calculated position of preferring single-payer while being amenable to other approaches. Of course this position basically boils down to: “I’m for what’s best, unless there is any kind of significant opposition, in which case I will compromise readily without a fight.”

"she offered the more nuanced and calculated position of preferring single-payer while being amenable to other approaches. Of course this position basically boils down to: ‘I’m for what’s best, unless there is any kind of significant opposition, in which case I will compromise readily without a fight.’”

I think I see what you’re getting at in terms of greater giving in, kivals.

But in the article/town hall clips I didn’t see Harris explicitly retreat to “other approaches” (vs., as I wrote, present a weak defense) - though I would agree her seeming jitteriness and weak defense points in that direction…particularly w/o strong progressive pressure on the Democratic machine…