Home | About | Donate

In 2009, Max Baucus Had People Arrested for Demanding Single Payer. Now He Supports It


#1

In 2009, Max Baucus Had People Arrested for Demanding Single Payer. Now He Supports It

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Former Montana Sen. Max Baucus made headlines—and some people's heads explode—on Friday after it was reported that the powerful Democrat who once stood so firmly against single-payer healthcare now thinks it's a solution whose time has come.


#2

Another way of looking at heads exploding is as the result of some wonderful, wonderful doctors, nurses, economists and passionate teams never giving up, documenting and demanding to be heard.

Many, many, 17th century prejudicial delusional harrumph harrumphs getting their clocks cleaned up one side and down the other. And it is only just beginning.

Tipping points, evolution, black swans on the horizon in our lifetimes. Mother nature is showing the PTB what the consequences of centuries of denial across the board REALLY looks like. In the spirit of admonitions posted by others in these threads… Buckle up kiddies, this road ain’t black top.


#3

I expect he has not moved that far and that Medicare for All doesn’t mean the same thing to him, Harris, Warren, and Sanders that it means to the faithful and committed advocates of a truly Improved Medicare For All system.


#4

He supports it because now it’s an insurance company option and not we all get medicare for all. The big lie is Sanders and Warren double speaking and saying they want Single payer medicare for all when what they’re actually saying is Single Payer and adding medicare for all like that describes it. It doesn’t. Look at all the people who are going to jump on board with this Single payer. It’s like who all jumped on board for the Paris Climate Accord. When it’s oil companies you know the deal is bad. When it’s dems bought by insurance companies you know the insurance deal is bad.


#5

Nailed it.


#6

If Baucus can support Single Payer Medicare for all, maybe some other Dem sellouts will be forced to grow a spine as well, like Nancy Pelosi.

Hillary Clinton took more Big pharma money than ANY other candidate in the last election and Chucky Schumer was number 5 in money taken from the insurance parasites. Now here’s the curious part - other NY politicians - Gillibrand and wanker Clinton-Clone Sean Patrick Maloney (steadfastly ignoring all attempts to answer why not) - also refuse to support Single payer or HR 676 and likely the Sanders Bill as well. Are the NY Clinton Camp pols refusals the result of pressure from sellouts Clinton and Schumer? - collusion or corruption?

Many NY Democratic Party elected officials are co-sponsors of HR 676 to their credit - unlike Maloney! IF Maloney is a “reformer” as he claims, co-sponsoring HR 676 joining the 115 Dems currently co-sponsors, is his opportunity to prove it!

http://www.medicareforall.org/support_by_state.php?state=NY


#7

I’d advise folks to look closely at just what Sanders is proposing, as it might not align with what they conceive to be “a single payer system”

http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/231-kevin-zeese-and-margaret-flowers/3297-single-payer-movement-criticizes-sanders


#8

Not many economists, certainly only a few from the classical mainstream. But as you may know, heterodox schools of economic thought, rebelling against the neoclassical orthodoxy, have been rampant for well over a decade. One of the first groups to catch media attention consisted of French grad students who rebelled against their professors for teaching them “sterile mathematics” rather than genuine political economy, calling themselves the “Post Autistic Economics Network.” Having re-invented themselves a couple of times, they are now the World Economics Association, the largest professional economics association worldwide, and they are the tip of a very large iceberg.


#9

You know if Baucus backs single-payer, then the insurance companies must be supporting the watered down version. The Conyers bill is the Medicare bill that we need. This is a switch and bait. If the existing insurance companies are allowed to remain intact, it will not work. It will be like Obamacare, a boon to insurance companies and a kick in the ass to everyone else.


#10

I suspect that the new bill is nothing like HR 676 and that Clinton and her corporate cronies are behind it. I think this is an attempt to supply Medicare-for-all but it will be underfunded, over reaching, poorly organized and set up to fail from the beginning. Why is Sanders introducing a new bill when we have a perfectly good bill in place already? We can’t trust the Democratic Party insiders as they’re corrupt to the core.


#11

The public support of corporate sell-outs like Baucus and Harris makes my skin crawl.

i await with trepidation, the publication of the actual bill next week.


#12

…and the GOP is NOT corrupt? …just a bunch of nice, compassionate and generous guys?


#13

I have over my 83 year life span changed my opinion an position on a lot of things. He clearly stated: "My personal view is we’ve got to start looking at single payer,"
A single payer can only mean that it is administrated by an arm of government, as it is in every other prosperous country on the planet. And that can only mean that everyone is covered. If “everyone” will include only citizens and green card holders or if it is inclusive of the millions of “ilegals”, who are daily toiling side by side with the rest of us, needs to be addressed.
As an example, if you are in Ecuador and have no insurance, you can still go to any hospital and receive treatment and that goes for American tourists as well.
Time will tell, if we are less generous to those, who are our fellow citizens in all but official papers.

In my opinion we should appreciate Max Baucus’ support and not hold his earlier stance against him


#14

Depends on the language in the bill itself. i will wait and see.


#15

The old corpse is on his way out. He’s done years of incalculable damage. Fuck him.


#16

With politicians it depends on what the definition of “It” is.

In other words, we will have to wait and see what Baucus’s definition of single payer is. I am not optimistic because in 2009 I was involved in the healthcare for all movement and watched as Baucus, almost gleefully, had single payer advocates arrested for doing nothing but asking for a right to set at the table.

I expect he is coming forward now to support a multipayer system that will be defined as single payer. If that is the case, his support for a multipayer system called single payer will only muddying the waters to divide and thus weaken the growing power of single payer advocates and supporters.

I hope I am wrong and that when Sander’s bill comes out of secret hiding (the bill Baucus is most likely to endorse) I can have a huge slice of humble pie.


#17

If you win the lottery on Saturday, does that mean that Sheldon Adelson must be somehow involved? Or, Harry Reid rigged the game just for you, right?
The ACA is failing in rural areas because of lack of insurance companies ( no or only one ) and hospitals monopolizing the regional medical infrastructure, including physician groups. They don’t have to negotiate, the price is the price. Medical costs are higher, premiums are higher. And, where else are you going to go, really? Time being of the essence, often.
Montana is mostly a rural/small city type of state. Baucus & Dems know they need these swing Congressional votes, as well. So, a single-payer gov’t solution meets the need. Hello!
Now, if the Republican governors in the South would get on board, that would do it. But, their 35-40% rural populations are so poorly served and sick, their states low tax-low services model of economic development would crumble. ( It’s racist and classist rotten to the core but what else new ).


#18

I support medicare for all and do not know what single payer is, some say it is riddled with copays for sale.


#19

He has more clout in the Dem establishment than you and I. Therefore we should NOT scorn his support, He helps OUR CAUSE!


#20

To clarify: A bill passed by the House is not “automatically” sent to the Senate to consider. A member of the Senate must introduce it in the Senate. No, it’s not in the Constitution, but in the rules that the two houses make pursuant to Article I, Section 5. For various reasons Senators often view an issue differently from the way that even House members from their own stat e and party do, so often introduce a different bill.

In this case I suspect that Sanders wants to introduce a bill that will be “more acceptable” (to Schumer and Pelosi) than Conyers’ HR 676. He may have been in Dick City too long.