Home | About | Donate

How Health Insurance Industry Allies Are Going to Lie and Attack Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare for All Plan

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/11/01/how-health-insurance-industry-allies-are-going-lie-and-attack-elizabeth-warrens

1 Like

A difference between then and now on this issue is the glee with which Bernie attacks the health care industrial complex.

1 Like

In anticipation of Sen. Warren’s release of the details of her plan, the well-paid political tools are getting all sorts of space in newspapers in Oregon. In this case it was Rahm Emanuel opining; ya’ know, the brother of Dr. Hack Zekeial Emanuel, OhBummer’s pointy spear on the ACA.
Their message is clear, " be afraid, be very afraid. The Progressives; like the 1965 movie The Russians are Coming, are invading our beautiful resort island of wonderful healthcare. Why It’s almost unpatriotic, foreign-like, to want all Americans to have rights like affordable healthcare and a decent life in old age. So man the battle stations and, by all means, commence firing even before you see the whites in their eyes. It’s the damn American way. "
It truly is not the American way to be objective and honest, when you’re being so well paid not to be. And, Rahm Emanuel & Company are most assuredly overpaid for anything they do.


The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced that CD has to change the way they attach a different comment thread to each story. There should be a new thread started on Elizabeth Warren’s version of Medicare for All and multiple stories should be attached to the same thread.

@dpearl, is that what you suggested to the admins?

I’ll have more to say about Warren’s plan after I get a chance to read it. I’m willing to read Warren’s and Gabbard’s ideas (which I’m afraid are even worse), though there is no way either are pulling me away from Sanders. Still I’d like to know what I’m in for if Warren is the nominee (Gabbard is very unlikely, but given I supported her before, I’m curious enough to skim her plan at least - and if Warren is the nominee even though she’s a far second choice for me, I’d want her to win and would do my best to advocate for her plan to Medicare for All in the effort to unseat Trump and get started on whatever it takes to get there).

@LibWingofLibWing, have you heard about when Tulsi is releasing her plan (or if I’ve missed it)?

1 Like

They should have called it the Partnership for America’s Death and Bankruptcy Future.

1 Like

Yes - they said that the discussion software they are using has those kinds of options but they don’t have the staff time to make the comment section more complicated than the settings they are using.

Regarding Warren’s plans versus Bernie’s. Hers does cost more because she is paying doctors and hospitals more - which removes a lot of objections the medical establishment has had to his plan. That makes it so she has the total cost just a tiny bit under what we are paying under the current system - while his plan would clearly save a lot in total cost but meet more resistance from some Doctors groups.

1 Like

Which means under Sen. Warren’s plan there would be less money for other priorities Sen. Sanders has identified as drastically needed, like the Green New Deal or student loan forgiveness, possibly.
However, since there’s more ways than one to skin fat cats, rejiggering of the entire U.S. tax code may hold the key to progressives getting to keep and enjoy more of the cake they’re making for the wealthiest amongst us.
I still support Sen. Sanders on this topic. The whole of progressive demands must be greater than the sum of their progressive parts. Or, we end up like a car rolling down the highway with two balding tires, and no spare, for emergencies.

1 Like

Interesting. Do you have a rough figure on the yearly difference (or the 10 year difference if it is important to include projections and the yearly difference is not very stable)? And on the revenue side do you have a take on he difference there? Is she getting more revenue from the rich or from everyone? I.e., does it move the crossover point where above a given income you pay more or does that stay about the same and she is only moving rates significantly way above the crossover point? Is her language well written? (I would hope so given her background).

That’s too bad about the admin feedback. If I get a chance I’ll read up on discourse and make my own case with a bigger donation.

Between 2005 and 2015 US Border Patrol facility square footage and staffing increased tenfold along the US/Canada border.

Seeing how immigrants have never been streaming across the northern border I guess the Border Patrol force is that huge just to keep single payer medical insurance from invading from the north.

Be scared…very scared.


Yep - that is exactly the situation (assuming there is some issue - even if just a political one - with growing the total deficit). Warren spends much less elsewhere than Bernie does and has more political room to spend more here (they both advocate all medical care having no cost at the time of service).

After reading her website I now see that she has the same idea as Bernie on payments to doctors (payment at the Medicare rate). It is with Hospitals, where she argues that they lose money at the Medicare repayment rate and so she gives them 10% more.

1 Like

They are also going to evoke the health insurance company employees who will lose their jobs.

Seriously, couldnt Elizabeth Warren at least spin the whole “abolish private insurance” thing away and create a rhetorical grounds for deniability? Polling indicates that M4A is much more popular when you claim that it doesn’t mean getting rid of private insurance.

Interesting. So she buys the Delaney argument that the rate is too low for hospitals to survive. Not that I agree with her but if she felt that way she could have said so at the debate. I’m sure Delaney would have appreciated it.

With the Trump Administration, lies are the new truth.

“You can keep your insurance” didn’t turn out to be a great line for Obama. It’s a rhetorical trap.

1 Like

Most people WANT it … so PASS IT, already!
— THAT, if I recall correctly, defines democracy: Majority Rules.

What we have here is an assault on DEMOCRACY by a tiny, powerful Minority.
They wish to DENY M4A, independent of the voters’ desires.
THIS is a FIGHT for the very SOUL of the U.S. & its Constitution. Nothing less.
•• •• •• ••
The corporate ELiTE is always USED TO getting their way, and do not intend to let that change.

They abhor the very idea of democracy … but won’t say it out loud.
Medicare For All EMPOWERS ordinary citizens to live their lives healthier and more freely, making decisions about their lives and work with NO worries about their families “not being covered.” THAT is Freedom!

Big $$$ will attack, Warren or Bernie or ANYONE pushing for M4A.
They see it as a WAR, and THEY … WILL … WIN. At any cost!

Good point. Of course Delaney was using that as an argument to say that M4A was a bad idea - which she doesn’t agree with. To me, the fact that people without insurance pay the most, the government pays one rate for Medicaid (the lowest) and another rate for Medicare (the next lowest) and then private insurers pay yet another rate (the second highest) - just emphasizes the irrationality of the current system. I also prefer the global budgeting approach for hospitals in the House M4A bill, which is more like the Canadian system, instead of any kind of fee-for-service system like in Bernie’s bill or Warren’s new proposal.

1 Like

TULSI GABBARD is 100% correct when she says this is ALL connected to how the U.S. deals with its military policies and costs.

You don’t see Warren & others thinking that way, what with all the scrambling of “How To Pay”, do you?

We need to get OUT of so many unneccessary and security-harming wars & interventions abroad. When we bring that money HOME, suddenly paying for social services — and democracy — looks entirely different.

Our national priorities change. The Elite fights that with every sinew.

If we followed Tulsi’s idea, we’d be doing less harm, improving international relationships, and paying for our NEEDS at home — those defined by The PEOPLE.

1 Like

I’m just going to ask, do you really think any of these plans are going to come close to reality? I enjoy the healthcare “debate” too, but don’t see a path anytime soon under the best, present conditions.

Just to lay out the most positive scenario: Sanders wins the primary, wins the presidency, Democrats take the Senate, keep the House. The Democratic majority is 53 seats in the Senate, featuring three “hard” moderates, Manchin, Sinema, and Joni Ernst’s replacement from Iowa. Sanders has two years to move a few items on his agenda. Where do you see room for a single payer bill given the types of Senate majorities historically needed to pass major legislation? What do you see happening in reality if a single payer bill gets shelved?

Warren’s oligarchy-backed plan is M4A “lite”, and probably something that will not be pursued if she wins. The only clear choice, and even Bernie pulls his punches somewhat by not calling for bringing everyone in at the same time, is Sanders’ plan. Objections by doctors and other health care workers over their salaries would be blunted if we also implemented Sanders calls for free college tuition for all (including medical students) and college debt forgiveness (the average MD graduates with over $100K in student loan debt). Wiping the cost of becoming a doctor or RN out would be like giving those in the profession a raise, or at least negating any cuts they might have to take going to M4A. It all has to be a package though - M4A, student loans forgiveness, free college, living minimum wage, taxing the super-rich out of existence - which makes the goal extremely hard to reach. However, it would vastly improve life for a majority of Americans. We need to make that understood by the majority of the electorate against the headwinds of corporate media and their shills.