Home | About | Donate

It's Time for the Adults in This Nation To Talk Seriously About Medicare for All


It's Time for the Adults in This Nation To Talk Seriously About Medicare for All

Dr. Carol Paris

Hundreds of people slept overnight in cars, or camped for days in a field. They told stories of yanking out their own teeth with pliers, of reusing insulin syringes until they broke in their arm, of chronic pain so debilitating they could hardly care for their own children.


Is the suggestion here that if you don’t support Medicare for all you aren’t an adult?


All about profit — Follow the money

(1) Politicians are the most responsible for medical industry enriching itself upon the misery of the sick to the tune of $3.3 trillion a year, more than double what it should be compared to other nations. For a politician’s highest priority is to maximize jobs, the economy and profit for the rich.

(2) The all encompassing goal being to give the privileged upper-half of society all of the land, wealth, political power and healthcare. Which is why the 50% laboring-class must be kept powerless by poverty, terrorized by killer-cops, addicted to a fat-rich diet and mind blown by the horror of suffering a premature death without healthcare.

(3) To maximize profit in the medical industry you must maximize repeat business, the number of patients, the amount of treatment and with the duration of illness always on the increase. Start by not giving doctors the slightest training in diet or the correlation between nutrition and ability of the body to repair itself. Corruptions of such a system are unlimited, such as increasing the cost of healthcare by 40% just by the 100 year old practice of doctors receiving a 40% kickback each time they refer a patient to a surgeon or specialist.

(4) To maximize profit in the food industry, you must maximize processing and refining, as it maximizes cost, profit, taste and addiction. It maximizes sickness also, but frosting on the cake for all who profit from the sickness industry.

(5) Health insurance industry keeps 30% of all money spent for healthcare, the main reason why there is dead silence on anything relating to illness prevention. Also why insurance premiums are never reduced for those into a healthy lifestyle, nutritious diet, free of addictions or engaged in an occupation requiring vigorous exercise.


The healthcare system has two very serious problems. One is the extraordinary cost of providing healthcare. This seems much higher than in any other country regardless of what kink of healthcare system they have. I think almost 20% of the GDP is healthcare which is should be unacceptable. The second problem is that almost 10% of Americans have no healthcare coverage. This should be 0%. Given the Republican party’s aversion to the government getting involved in healthcare coverage I see little hope of Medicare for all. Just keeping Medicare intact may be a challenge. Both parties should be interested in reducing healthcare costs but here they may be afraid of the push back from all the groups that find providing healthcare to be so profitable. This takes political courage but that seems to be in short supply.


Your comment is pure fiction, especially the fiction that only 10% of society lacks healthcare.
For the 50% laboring-class is impoverished, so poor they have no funds to pay the deductible
expenses needed to use health insurance.


I wouldn’t put too much hope in Sanders. I expect his Medicare for All Bill will turn out to me more Public Option than single payer. Even though there is no reason to rewrite the legislation for the Senate Bill as HR 676 has been vetted by the CBO and passed with flying colors, I expect Sanders will let us down again. We can be bold in rhetoric but not in action.


Just as they have for the past three plus decades the Democratic Party’s corporate paymasters will continue “to talk seriously about Medicare for all” with all of the Democratic Party politicians.

Perhaps they even play the Rolling Stones’ Sister Morphine in the background while they talk, just to remind the politicians that the corporate money flow stops when Medicare for all starts…COLD TURKEY.

Recall then Senate majority leader Harry Reid reminding us daily that “I don’t have the votes” when anything other than corporate welfare disguised as health care reform got anywhere near the Obamacare negotiation table ?


No, just that you’re not acting like one – or at least like a rational sentient being.


Good call. The Democrats will never deliver. It won’t be allowed.


I beg to differ. A politician’s highest priority is to maximize contributions their campaign and their party.

This is the all encompassing goal of the campaign contributors.

Only partly true. Certainly pharmaceutical companies want to maximize the number of sick people. I’m not sure that’s true for doctors and hospitals, though the incentive structure certainly supports the notion. On the other hand, insurance companies want to avoid sick people at all cost and only insure those who don’t need insurance.

This can be a slippery slope. On the one hand, insurance companies only want to insure health people so that they can offer lower premiums. On other hand, it’s not in our collective interest to allow them to carve out only the healthy to insure – this the heart of the pre-existing condition issue.

As for the dead silence on anything related to illness prevention, I’m not sure I follow your logic. It seems a bit of a non sequitur to assert the diversion of money from healthcare (to overhead and profits) is in furtherance of anything related to illness prevention – at least from the insurance companies’ perspective. Could be true for pharmaceutical companies, and arguably for health care providers, but I don’t think the latter face a shortage of demand for their services, even if we improve health overall will illness prevention.


The title identifies the article as a pure echo chamber piece. The author’s not trying to reach anyone who’s not already on the train. Think of it as a pep talk.


I’m not acting like anything, it was a question


True, in the sense of what we pay overall. Not so true, in the sense of what actually gets spend on real care. With a third of our money wasted on third parties, it’s not so much the cost of care, as it is the market failure caused inefficiencies of our payment system.


I agree on the political courage issue. But, I remain perplexed about why businesses are content to bear the cost of providing insurance to their employees. If we got that expense of their books and onto the government’s budget, they would all be much better off and our economy would be much stronger. It’s a mystery to me why the Republicans, who tout themselves as the representatives of business, don’t understand this fundamental issue. Well, it’s not that big a mystery, I suppose – you just have to look at the contributions from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to answer that question.


I didn’t mean you, I meant the object of your question.


If the shoe fits, but really, do you think that the Party of No has acted in a reasonable and mature way for the last sixteen years? They have behaved as though they were in retrograde.


Dear Dr. Paris,

“What are we waiting for?” How about getting your union, the American Medical Association, to drop its century-long opposition to universal health care and put the health of the American people first? If the AMA dropped its oppositiion and endorsed single payer I think it would give it enough momentum to pass.

Sincerely yours,

David Fairley


Yes! Although the AMA is not a union…


The US has the finest government that special interest money can buy. Which under the rulings by the Supreme Court is perfectly legal.


So… this is what Sanders has been waiting for?


As it is currently employed, Medicare could not, by a long stretch, be termed Universal Coverage. It is highly privatized beyond the 80% coverage of part A and involves what are costly premiums to get anything near full coverage, no affordabel dental for people in the lower income or fixed income brackets. Even the basics require premiums that are taken out of Social Security every month… to people who make under 30,000 in retirement that 100-150 bucks a month is unaffordable.

80% might sound good to a healthy person, but have an emergent situation that cost 500K and you’re still screwed big time. I worked as a social worker for 35 years with low income working and retired people and have seen how this can destroy a life. And it happens often enough. The devil is in the details. And don’t give me the lesser of two evils crap. Almost anything would be better than what we have now. As it is, it seems to me the people who think this is a good idea already are covered or can afford the various “parts” to make sure theya re covered.

We need 100 percent coverage. If they change Medicare to do this then fine. I don’t care whet they call it. If the insurance companies get on board in some fashion that’s okay too… but it has to be 100% coverage for all or it ain’t Universal.