Home | About | Donate

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

I always look forward to @dpearl’s thoughts but as far as many progressives go, it is commonly discussed that the revolution isn’t finished at that point - Sanders will have to go campaign for Manchin’s primary challenger (and told Kyle Kulinski he would). I’m sure he won’t be the only one we need to get rid of. (note this is not equivalent to Manchin saying he would vote against the Democratic party if Sanders got the nomination). But full court press of EIMfA starts now and I’m not buying your arguments to the contrary. Step 1 is bringing in the disenchanted voters. I’m convinced Sanders can and maybe Warren can too (but I’d rather not find out).

So the bills won’t be shelved in your scenario but I have no problem with incremental reforms if that is all we can get for 2 yrs or even 4 years. But now is not the time to full court press on that.

Wouldn’t it be amazing if someone in the debates asked this question? - why not the House Bill payment method? (and why 2 bills at all? - I’ll never yield on my claim that was a bad idea). Instead we get a Republican talking point question repeated over and over. I wish Krystal or Sagaar from Hill TV were asking the questions.

I wasn’t making an argument, just asking about the best case scenario for, say, Sanders with a bare Democratic majority in the Senate. What I’m not seeing in your response, is any substantiative reality where a single payer bill has votes to get close to passing. Sanders, after all, didn’t bring out a bunch of atypical voters last primary and tended to win small, exclusionary, party operated contests (caucuses). It’d be interesting to debate what we could get with a House and Senate majority that’s likely not going to be full of CD readers. My bet is something more akin to Pete Buttigieg’s plan. That paired with the House prescription drug plan would be a massive step forward.

Of course, if the 5th Circuit decides a change in law (inseparability) means the entirety of a law must get tossed, which is what they are deciding with the ACA, no plan will be safe no matter what passes.

No. If I do I’ll post.

1 Like

Politics generally changes in fits and starts rather than in smooth transitions. In 1959, a year before the 1960 Presidential election, a commentator like yourself might have asked a similar question about the Civil Rights Act coming into reality before the Presidential election of 1964 - especially given Mississippi Senator Eastland’s position as chair of the Judiciary committee - and the near impossibility of breaking a Southern filibuster should the legislation ever get to the floor - given the solid block of southern senators opposed.
I guess if you want me to provide a fanciful vision along the lines you started - Here it is. I would start with Elizabeth Warren challenging Chuck Schumer and becoming Senate Majority Leader. At that point President Sanders first pushes for major tax legislation that undoes the Trump tax giveaways, lowering overall taxes on the middle class and adding taxes on financial transactions, reclassifying capital gains and carried interest as regular income (all subject to Social Security tax), and adding a modest wealth tax. With the tax legislation being decoupled from the health care legislation under the budgetary process, the legislation is passed through the Senate under reconciliation (the move to reconciliation following the precedent set by Mitch McConnell’s Senate to pass the Trump tax giveaway in the first place). Next, the single payer system passes the House under Speaker Barbara Lee’s guidance after Nancy Pelosi’s retirement and the shepherding of Representative Jayapal (now Chair of the Budget committee that strategically aligned the tax bill to the future needs of her “unrelated” health care legislation). So the bill moves to the Senate where it meets strong opposition and only has 46 votes likely in support. Knowing she doesn’t have the votes to directly pass the bill, Warren proposes her plan for an “evidence-based policy solution” that attracts recalcitrant Democratic Senators. Under Warren’s compromise legislation - each state can decide whether it wants to be part of the Improved Medicare for All system starting the following year or not. In states that stay with the current system every resident that pays for insurance gets an income tax credit covering 8% less than their total health care expenses to balance the free health care benefits given to the residents of the M4A states. An agreed upon set of success metrics are attached to the legislation so that the entire country would move to the new M4A system if it does better by those metrics in the next four year period. States who signed up for the M4A system could stay on the new system regardless at the same federal funding levels. President Sanders is against the compromise but agrees to sign the bill - and happily the M4A system works so well that all but 3 states move over to the system before the four year period is finished.

1 Like

As you know, I think a variation of this is the most likely version of what we’ll see under the current iteration of the Supreme Court. I don’t count this element as fanciful at all, but more akin to what I’m thinking is the edge of passable under the most positive scenarios for Congress. Thanks for the reply.

This “Lie and Attack” plan is theater, for a good show.

Senator Warren isn’t a threat to private insurance, as she now tracks to the center. She’s following Obama’s lead on this. Make a lot of noise early on and attract interest, then track to the center. Yes, that’s how Obama won.

Once Warren names Mayor Pete as VP or Chief of Staff, there will be no Medicare for all. And the public option won’t materialize either. We’ve seen this script before.

Only Bernie 2020.


Sadly, Warren has taken the bait from the anti- M4All contingent and produced a bizarrely complicated tangle of funding proposals that virtually guarantees “long term” wiggle room she has inserted into her discussion on getting a fully functional plan in place.
And, unlike Sanders, Warren reverts to form by proposing a more regressive, tax structure with her per employee ‘head tax’ on businesses. This is not only harmful to the idea of decoupling business as much as possible from healthcare (which was a mistake from the very beginning) it also penalizes businesses and industries that actually do/make things and thus require more employees.
The reality, which Sanders honestly makes clear, is that as impressive as Warren’s detailed plan is, it is a distraction that is ultimately more harmful to the goal of a fair, equitable and TIMELY enactment of a M4All system.
And there is practically zero likelihood of enacting all the moving parts of her plan, even in her “long term” strategy. And the longer it takes to get this up and running, the less likely it is to ever get off the ground.

1 Like

M$A is just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic of healthcare. It doesn’t change the way healthcare is structured which is what needs to change, not just access or how it is paid. American greed.

Amongst the allies of the insurance industry, and big pharma are of course the corporate media. They are very against any kind of medicare for all. I find it disgusting to watch them talk against medicare for all, and pretend to be objective. Followed by the ENDLESS ads put out by big pharma, and the health insurance industry. It is obvious where their money is coming from. Sad that connection is not so obvious to so many people who will be scared away from medicare for all. This of course is why I rarely get my news from the corporate media, and just drop in to see how they are spinning things. Greed knows no bounds in the corporate media again.

Elizabeth Warren’s plan? When asked if she supported single payer during her Senate run she had a one word answer, “No.” Choose the socialist leaning guy who is not a Mary-come-lately to government run healthcare, assuming you’re sticking with the Democratic Party at all.

Now is not the time to ponder what is passable. It is time to swing for the fence instead of kneecapping ourselves by stepping up to the plate with plans to bunt. Presidents do not pass legislation but set the vision for the country. Do people really want another “pragmatic”, corporate, Obama-type? I think 2016 answered that question. It’s how we ended up with the crappy ACA.

Our history is replete with presidents whose plans never come to fruition or become quite different once Congress gets to work. I asked dpearl because I was curious given 1) the many discussion we’ve had and 2) the very real challenges any proposal will face.

Warren has been all over the place on MFA:

  1. I’m with Hillary (2016) who is against MFA.
  2. I’m one of many co-sponsors to Bernie’s Senate bill. (2017)
  3. I’d like to have a town hall to discuss how we get there. (2018)
  4. I’m with Bernie on MFA. (early 2019 debate)
  5. I don’t have a step-by-step plan to get to MFA. I’d like to have a roundtable discussion with all the stakeholders and figure out how we get there. (August 2019 meeting with union leaders)
  6. I’m not with Bernie on increasing the Medicare tax to pay for it. I want to tax the wealthy and corporations who have the biggest stranglehold on our democracy.

Every Democrat who hasn’t co-sponsored the bill in the house or senate should be primaried. Every house Democrat who voted for Pelosi to be speaker should be primaried.

Most Democrats are fake progressives who lie before getting into office and then sabotage MFA in various ways. Hillary’s MO was to bring the insurance industry to the table who never let it pass go.

Warren is trying a “third way” to create more confusion and havoc by generating conflicting cost estimates and killing Bernie’s primary and natural way to pay for it. Namely to convert private insurance premiums (which is private taxes) to add to the existing public Medicare taxes without the pre-existing condition surcharges of course.

That is like saying, “You can keep your predatory parasites.” The health insurance industry does not provide care. It doesn’t sit up with you, take you to appointments, advocate for you (just the opposite). It DOES sit in the middle sucking up money. They take it in from all ends and provide nothing in return which wouldn’t be there anyway.
In the mid 1980’s I supervised a line of data-input people in temp jobs for a tax preparer. One of them had a full-time job with an insurance company. Her job was to decide what care to allow for patients with insurance with her company. She was proud of all the denials she issued. She had a high-school education and nothing otherwise related to health care yet there she was, saying yes or no to the doctors about their care. In other words practicing medicine without even the ghost of a license.
A not-rich person, acting on behalf of rich people, to deny care to other non-rich people. Isn’t it always so? (rhetorical question)
So yeah. Get rid of the damn insurance companies. Oh, don’t worry. They will stick around, as they do in other countries, they just won’t be total system parasites. Those are companies which don’t deserve to exist and whose demise will be better for all of us.

Whatever the case, polling indicates that people are more open to M4A if you state that you can keep private insurance. And in politics, as with many things, perception is reality.