Home | About | Donate

Liberals Strike Back... Against Single Payer


#1

Liberals Strike Back... Against Single Payer

Michael Lighty

With the explosive growth of the movement for single payer healthcare, it should not be a surprise to see the Empire Strike Back.


#2

You can’t be a liberal and be against Single Payer. Fake headline. These people are not liberals. They are soulless money worshipping zombies who are paid to promote the corporate agenda. End of story.


#3

To all the onlys that end the article add this: only when the Democrats rid themselves of the Pelosis, the Schumers, and upcoming phonies like Kamala Harris, will there be anything worth supporting on the progressive wing of anything representing a progressive political party or organization.


#4

'Liberal" is a term that really sticks in my craw! That term maybe once meant something progressive - but mostly the deceit Phill Ochs sang of. Since at least Bill & Hillary Clinton’s administration the Dem establishment have betrayed the 99% to serve their own advantage and corporate/banker/wall street/MICC paymasters!

DINO Dem “liberals” or “centrists” or DNC/DLC establishment, or any other damn distorted label, are in fact the tweedle dee to the R’Con tweedle dumb corporate whore.
One party tells us to our faces they will and are screwing us, and the other does so behind our backs, offering just enough jive talk and a few deceitful half-measures and propaganda (on a good day) to keep the gullible coming back for more - the lesser evil good-cop lie!!
They are all corrupt to the core in service to the vulture capitalist greed-driven 1% - all we get is talk, obfuscation, deceit, lies and betrayals…Frell 'em all! The only voice speaking honestly and openly to as many issues as he wisely can, is Bernie Sanders…


#5

The American health care system is ranked 41st in the world. we are in last place. I think the point can be made that it isn’t in 41st place for everyone and that is elitism that is built into our system. We also have Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS and other National public health programs. Veterans Services which are Universal Health Care and Indian Health Services. With the advent of Trump Care (opposed by just about everyone including the AMA) we also have Medicare for All (which still has a lot of unknowns but it doesn’t expand this care it de- funds all National public health programs except Veteran and Indian Health and replaces it with something else which is still not clearly defined in the bill). If you know what it would ne it would be great to hear what that is. This implies that these are our only options, this just frames this discussion to what we preserve of our current health care system to one that is not yet determined to eliminate elitism and still retain the protections of our national health care mandate as part of the Social Security Administration. Insurance is a problem and this is addressed but it is not the only problem. Some of these problems still exist either way. For one thing holistic health care is not even provided which could be innovative and other areas where people obtain services that currently will not be covered. This is just an example of how we would pay for a system that is not inclusive.


#6

I agree, liberals want to preserve elitism but the good thing is in our changing world we don’t always know what that is. Kind of a be carefull what you wish for moment for liberals.


#7

I don’t think people on the right distinguish between liberals and progressives. To them everybody on the left is a liberal and they don’t like the views of liberals. But, with regard to healthcare. I don’t think people should give up the movement for single-payer, This should remain a long term goal. I think Switzerland has universal health coverage using insurance companies but I believe the government plays a role. However, it is also important right now to be realistic and pay attention to some Republicans who say they want to work with Democrats to improve Obamacare. This is the only possible thing can be accomplished before 2019 at least and it is needed. It should be possible to fix Obamacare to bring down some premiums. Obamacare works but it needs to be improved. But then there is Trump who is out to wreck Obamacare and replace it with nothing. Republicans are going to have to decide whether they support the destruction of Obamacare or actually want to help millions of people obtain healthcare coverage. Voters will have a chance to have their say next year.


#8

Very good point. This hasn’t been debated yet and that is the next step. We need the public to be informed and participate in the discussion especially with their representatives.


#9

You have a chance to have your say right now. Call or write your, er, “representative”, and let them know what you think of them, especially if they’re Dems.


#10

To hell with corporate toady Democrats like the Clintons, Krugman, and Lrx. “Realism” my ass, they are toadies for the looting class.

We need to get the looting class the f#@k OUT of health care. Those vampires have NOTHING to do with health care, they are profit-sucking and literally murderous vampires.

i’m fighting for the REALISTIC goal. Not for another looting-class Trojan horse, no matter how they pretty it up and cover it in propaganda.

Universal coverage, single-payer, Medicare for all. To hell with the toadies who line up to fight in the trenches to protect the looting class.

i trust National Nurses United, and the California Nurses Association, FAR more than i trust any of the corporate Democratic toadies.


#11

Actually opposing government economic interventions such as single payer is “liberal” in the classic, outside- the-USA definition of the word. Why do you think resurgent uncontrolled capitalism is called "neoliberalism’.


#12

Unfortunately, the economic liberals are right. The time when changing to either single payer, British NHS, or even the hybrid private-but-regulated insurer systems of continental Europe was possible through normal legislative processes - especially in the USA - is gone. The economic interests arrayed against it are enormously powerful. To achieve this today is pretty much going to require something more along the line of what the Russian people did 100 years ago. I’m not saying this to discourage the left, but instead to encourage the left to start thinking that the change we want will have to be revolutionary in nature, but unlike the Russian workers back then, we are nowhere close to having the organized power to even think about planning such a thing yet.


#13

I agree. Why wait? It’s too late already. The Toadies are trying to make us believe it may be possible “someday.” For MILLIONS of Americans that will be too late.

The article mentions Improved Medicare for All. I would say “improved” is the operent word here; but even Medicare for All is way too short-sighted. Let me explain.

I have been on Medicare for several years and for you who are not, here are some facts.

-Medicare bills me directly by deducting $106.50 monthly from my Social Security, which is of course a retirement plan I earned by paying in to the system for the last 52 years and still paying.

-Prescription Drugs. Well, so far I only have two. For these I pay for my own plan…in addition to Medicare.

-Supplemental Insurance. Many tests and procedures are NOT covered by Medicare. I pay about $330 per month for Blue Cross/ Blue Shield Platinum.

-Other Medical expenses. Eye glasses / eye doctors are not paid by any of the above, nor is any Dental work. As it turns out, neither is a shingles vaccine such as Zoster. That shot will cost me $260 out of pocket. Ouch!

Medicare is great, but it is only a start both for Seniors and for the US population as a whole. To Hell with the Pelosies, Krugmans, Clintons and Lrx. We can’t wait. And DON’T SETTLE FOR LESS!


#14

In your previous post I think it depends on how you do it that defines it as liberal or neoliberal. In other words what does the outcome look like. And there is a growing interest in single payer because it is a cost reduction model.


#15

I was just pointing out that “liberal” in the classic sense means an advocate for laissez-faire capitalism. For example, right-wing the pro-business Liberal Party of Australia.


#16

I think for many, liberal still means pre laissez-faire capitalism but it is a valid point. .


#17

Well, revolutions happen when institutions in society are no longer up to the task and when there is too great of a gap between what people want and what the dominant institutions are able to provide. Maybe we are at that point, we might be, but the longer that becomes apparent, the more radical people will become. The danger in this country is that the radicalism could take a right wing form, and then things get ugly. I think those in power have gotten too comfortable and have expected people to deal with institutional inequality, corruption, and have inflicted pain on working people for far too long, and it is going to shock them when it becomes obvious that the game is over. Whether it is a good or bad thing, that moment isn’t far off, especially given what is coming for us environmentally. One way or another, these Democratic hacks are going to be out of a job in the future, cause they’re worthless, nothing more than boot lickers that provide cover for a powerful elite whose days are numbered. Once their corrupt employers are out on their ass, what can they possibly add to society? That’s exactly why their ire is directed towards the left. The left is serious about changes that would take away their gravy train.


#18

Medicare for all changes a lot of that and is one of the good things.


#20

Does it change that or do you just think so? The reason I ask is because I see a ton of talk, but no real policy right now. I worry it’s going to lead to a lot of acrimony, anger, and screams of “selloutism” when people realize a slogan isn’t policy.

To put it into perspective, Conyers bill HR 676 envisions a “modest” payroll tax for employers and employees, an amount undefined (§ 211). In legislative lingo, this is what is called a “placeholder,” typically a controversial or challenging part of a bill. Why would this be there? Well, the more inclusive the coverage, the higher this tax will be. This is especially the case if the new bill “fixes” out of pocket costs of current Medicare enrollees and includes comprehensive coverage for everyone else. For many CD readers, the new payroll tax increase might be fine, but that’s not going to be the case for a large swath of people that split the cost of coverage with their employer. Likely, Congress is going to be tempted to keep benefits in check to keep these taxes “modest.” The “fix” may not be as assured as you think, in other words.

I say this not to dissuade from conversation or single payer efforts, but just to note that not everything is as clearcut as it appears to be.


'Make Your Stand': Medicare for All Supporters Ready to Hold Dems to Account
'Make Your Stand': Medicare for All Supporters Ready to Hold Dems to Account
#21

Two thumbs up!

Part of the problem today is that far too many call themselves leftists when they are not really leftists … they are reformers also known as pseudo-leftists. These pseudo-leftists are not even close to be willing to pay the price for real change.

They fool themselves that a political revolution will achieve their goal when in reality, only a real social and economic revolution will get the job done.

By the way, Leftist, how many posters do you think really know the complete details of the Russian Revolution beyond the capitalist propaganda? How about the Spanish Revolution later on?