Home | About | Donate

Liberals Strike Back... Against Single Payer


Nothing of any value – at least so far as I can tell.  O’Bummer talked a good game – at least in 2008 – but in reality stood for little and accomplished only a big give-away to the health insurance industry.  SFAIK, he didn’t even TRY to bring the war criminals – Cheney, Rove, Rummy, Yoo et al – to trial, and instead of helping all the millions who had been screwed by Wall Street to retain their homes he gave the bailouts directly to his puppet­eers (none of whom ever came to trial).  I’ll confess that I fell for his B.S. rhetoric and voted for him in '08, but by 2012 I had wised up.


Yes, I know this issue has a long history both in and out of government, that is how the ACA came into being from at least 1991 When Hillary Clinton was trying to reform healthcare and Massachusetts and a few other states were testing grounds. The Institute of Medicine is an advisory group and Medicare for All is a good concept. It is now time. well past time for a public discussion. The U.S. spends 1.2 trillion dollars of tax payer contributions to see that we have a healthy population and a reliable health care system that will include everyone. I’m good with that.


This is why medicare is actually a real compromise------just like Bernie Sanders(who I like)is a moderate democrat. Can we get real here–all this argument of right or left is useless—WE ARE DEALING WITH A CORRUPT BROKEN POLITICAL SYSTEM-This is why Trump got elected----the political class in the US is a complete failure----just as the insurance industry is a complete failure(or a complete success at pulling in all kinds of profits for doing next to nothing-the so called" health insurance" industry that covers people when they are healthy-the government covers people when they get sick-this is the great thing about work insurance–if a person gets really ill they will most likely leave their job and lose the private insurance----what a scam!)
And the real villain is the media in this country-----Jimmy Dore talked about tonight how dems and reps in the house voted to increase the “defense” budget by 100b to 700b and how little coverage this gets—this is 50b more than what Trump asked for----I know this happened a few weeks ago but it shows how corrupt the whole system is------we are in perpetual war and little to no discussion about the BIGGEST part of the budget???


I wasn’t saying that single payer wouldn’t bring considerable savings - it will. My point is that deciding on an appropriate funding mechanism is not “simple” as you stated. For example, the “existing cashflows” you mention are currently mainly government programs and businesses providing insurance. Businesses not providing insurance - the Walmart’s of the world - are getting a free ride. But I presume you would not want that under a new system so there would need to be new requirements. Payroll tax or income tax? How progressive should the tax be? How should capital gains be treated? I have my own preferred method of funding the system and others have a different preference. My point is that things are not inherently simple - so people need to coalesce around a good plan that might move forward.


You are correct - I was only speaking in broad strokes.


@Leftist - Classical liberals such as Thomas Paine would disagree with you in his advocacy of basic income, old age pensions, etc paid through land rent and progressive taxation. It was a 20th century invention that classical liberalism was defined as opposing government economic interventions.


Yes. You are correct.

My point is very low level.

Do we agree that Medicare for all expanded to dental, vision, and long term care is what we want?

This is what most civilized countries have. I know in Cuba people go see the school nurse when they take their children to school the first school day of each year and this opens a door to preventive care. Every country does it differently. How does Cuba do it for bigger schools. We need to send scientists to Cuba to find out. And that’s just one small country.

Do we agree on the basic idea is simple. Devising methods of payment will require the focus of many people, probably many hundreds if not many thousands working like at CERN or some similar large scientific endeavor.


Yep - I agree with the desire - and with the idea that the medical coverage part of the overall system is fairly simple conceptually. People or businesses pay into a system - the government and care providers come to an agreement on price for services - Care is provided - and the government pays. Savings accrue because administrative costs go way down when there is only a single payer and because the government negotiated rates are lower in many areas. Health outcomes improve because people don’t worry about whether they are covered and more preventative measures can be built into practice. That’s the concept and the chief benefits.

Progressive people have several challenges in making that “no-brainer” of a concept come to reality including

  1. how to best move forward politically. Should we focus on state-by-state strategies and/or a national strategy?
  2. coalescing around a good plan - even if the details are not precisely those we prefer (the left has not traditionally been very good at coalescing around details like the funding source plan needed here)
  3. Reaching the public with an effective defense against the lies that are told by the powerful interests aligned against single payer


Forget arcane diversions into funding.

Focus on an articulated goal.

Medicare for all expanded to include dental, vision and extended care.

Do we as citizens see the logic to that?

Cradle to grave.


Medicare for all may be a good alternative to what we’ve got but it is NOT single payer. As long as the focus remains on making money, even by not-for -profit HMOS we will never have a single payer system that addresses care needs first after balancing the profit margins against how much giving necessary care costs.


Start now. Watch FIX IT on you tube so you will be prepared to discuss the benefits of single payer for all. Business would be helped, health professionals would be able to practice their healing with their with patients and stop spending time and money in needless battles with insurance agencies, all would be covered in an affordable manner. It would save taxpayer money for the government. We on medicare paying for our coverage as would all in a single payer. There would just be larger numbers of healthy persons paying into medicare than there are now. Insurance agencies need to see that we are serious about this matter now; they will even consider lower premiums in the interim to try to protect the system their threatened system.


That is not correct. The expanded Medicare being discussed is very much a single payer system. You might be confusing a socialized medical system like they have with the National Health Service in England with a single payer system like they have in Canada where care is generally delivered privately and paid for by the government.
The best information on international comparisons of health care systems is provided by the Commonwealth Fund.


You’d have to show me the details as they are enacted and put into place before I beleive this. Calling something single payer simply because the money is funneled through the government does not make it a universal provider. I worked too long with the Medicaid and Medicare system and the HMOs, the not-for-profits, to buy into some pie in the sky politician generated rhetoric that promises something it is unprepared and resists delivering.

Quibbling by the use of favored terminology like “single payer” vs something that has been made suspect like “socialized” is disingenuous at best.

I would have to be given an opportunity, full participation through non-aligned systems analysts, to come to the conclusion myself that the HMOs that are being allowed to participate in how this plan is constructed and rolled out would not put cost above care.

My understanding is that private insurers will be made a part of the plan. I have a pretty good understanding about how the Canadian system works, having seen first hand the on-the-ground funding mechanisms and payment structures…

The cultures of our insurance companies aka HMOs are diametrically opposed to the kind of care delivery that Canadians have been able to build and provide. Simply put, they do not know how to do it.

Best to start with a plan that starts anew with people who will not be dragging their feet or confused to the point of malfeasance by the entire attempt from day one. They will not make money, and if they do, they will not be providing a single payer, Universal, delivery system.

Besides, if you start building a Single Payer, Universal system by including entities diametrically opposed to such structures, they will, in the end, as happened in the ACA, be able to compromise and/or sabotage willingly, or simply because they do not know how to function any other way, any true effort at a single payer, universal system.

As it is, they provide financial backing for both parties… they back whoever wins and influence whoever wins. They will not roll over for a system that makes serious inroads into their money making ability… they suffer from hoarding disorders and are, at their core, pathologically unable to give up their ability to hoard… however that is expressed… through pure profit capitalism or exhorbitant CEO and lobbyist fees and kickbacks.


“…single payer is the reform that establishes health security and enables greater equality and freedom…”

All too true, as an increasing number agree. And, as others say, all citizens have a right to good health. So, when you really think about it, why should government have the right to tax you if it does not also provide your right to single payer health care which will better ensure your ability to pay taxes?

In other words, why must citizens, instead, now pay corporate health sharks (who pay little or no tax) for health care and also pay government taxes - for the pleasure of keeping the Consumer Society healthy?

Do you feel doubly shafted?


I will watch it. I don’t dispute it needs fixing but this bill does far more than that and it is not the only way. The global budgets that would be created, think of failed managed care in the 90s. Global budgets = Managed care. There are far better ways to fix this. One would be to simply raise the tax on Medicare which hasn’t been increased since 1985. When I read the bill, I kept asking myself. where is the rest of it.


Bernie comes to the right places at the right time–speaking at Hancher in Iowa ‘City, Thursday, August 31—if you are not there inside, be there outside:

The last election revealed establishment members of the Democratic Party to be more tinged in Republican red than Democratic Party blue-collar true. Last time establishment Democrats insisted on nominating stylish Republican-light Hillary Clinton and served her up as poster politician of the party’ failing to be first-last-and-and always committed to the greater public good for the masses of working Americans that do the dirty work, heavy lifting and attention to detail that keep the nation going and most need their share of good. When the party turns its back on these masses of people it turns its back on the Democratic activist centers of the nation, like Johnson County and people that do not sell their souls to pretend fighting for what only matters in appearance but does not make one damn difference in terms of government of the people, by the people really being for the people.

In the last of the late 1940s after long years of Democratic Party success, some establishment party members started using their positions of prominence to ensconce themselves conspicuously high on the hog in place of getting down to vigorously rooting up ever better times for all. This did not set well with Fair-Dealer Harry Truman and young members of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) who had vigorously worked to secure a surprise 1948 reelection victory for Harry (the polls were also wrong in that election). On leaving office Truman gave the keynote address to the ADA national convention and said in his opening remarks:

“It is a real pleasure to speak before the national convention of the ADA–Americans for Democratic Action. The ADA was set up in January 1947. Those were dark days for the liberal forces in America. But you people had the courage to take up the fight and go forward. You dedicated yourselves to fight for progress and against reaction–against reaction of the right and against reaction of the left.”

Harry went in concurrence with these young people’s disgust with the play-it-safe drift of the Democratic establishment by saying:

“The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don’t need to try it.
“The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election . . … When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn’t believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don’t want a phony Democrat. If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don’t want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.”


Obama expanded wars and made drones legal. He did nothing of any real consequence for the people.