Home | About | Donate

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


#22

"asking the American public whether they want to pay for it"
Really? Is the American public being asked whether to spend on military excursions overseas? Is the American public being asked whether to spend on excellent insurance for its own Congress which the public’s approval level is what? 10-20%?

Yes, this is a litmus test indeed for the D party. What can be more important to the quality of life of people than health security?


#23

No, it isn’t, and I won’t bother to cite the countless studies and data that you are aware of about every other single payer system in developed countries relative to our rotten system, or the amount of overhead in traditional Medicare versus private insurance in this country. Single payer would cost less for most people than this system. The rich would pay more than they get out of the system. The young would too, although they would eventually get old and would start to take more out of the pool than they pay in. Single payer doesn’t have the same inefficiencies that this system does in regards to the massive administrative waste (which alone is larger than the total waste in traditional Medicare), profits, marketing and lobbying costs, and massive executive pay, among other things. It also wouldn’t have the same social costs. Medicare is barred from using its economy of scale to bargain down the price of drugs (the type of thing that Rendon’s chief of staff, the current chair of the California Democratic Party, was hired in past to lobby against), and even with that it still has far less overhead.

It’d be one thing to talk about the need to make sure it is properly funded (and given the examples we have in other countries, that wouldn’t be huge issue), especially in a way that is progressive (relying on regressive or flat taxes wouldn’t be that). It’s another to argue against what we know about single payer systems. I agree with you broadly speaking, it is a long term fight and it needs to be well crafted.


#24

precisely! and that BS is what got us the idiot in the white house. we used to refer to this as “the powers that be”. what a CROCK! if the absolute corruption of the dnc was not evident when that bitch wasserman resigned “just in time” to make it look like party outrage we better ensure “vision care” is included in the enhanced medicare for all that we are now DEMANDING!!!
the fervor and enthusiasm we witnessed as sanders took the nation by storm in 2016 has turned to anger and bitterness over the “OPPORTUNITY COST” we now endure because of the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate. when will Clinton be indicted? soon I hope. but, there are four issues we must address. wealth inequality, universal healthcare, climate change and endless war in our name (preferably all at once)!
we must demand that the crooked politicians who ignore these imperatives for the benefit of those who profit from these abominations be removed from office and prosecuted where appropriate. we are supposed to be about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. let’s get to it.


#25

What did I say wrong? I’m beginning to get the feeling that you resent anyone who knows a bit more about healthcare policy than you.


#26

Many questions are answered here. Those wanting to debate it, or wondering where the money would come from, haven’t been paying attention. The issue of how much it would cost -ultimately a LOT less than we pay now, when ALL things are considered. Physicians for a national healthcare program has a nice summary of FAQ’s:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#bankrupt


#27

Absolutely, let’s have an open discussion as to how our tax dollars are spent. Let’s start with the bloated military budget which no American has ever had a say in. Polls have consistently shown that Americans feel the budget should at best be 50% of what it is today. So let’s get going and start cutting. I like this democracy thing.


#28

In my household, by your calculation (a 7.5% increase in our payroll taxes) we’d save over $2000/year by no longer contributing to our employer-provided plan. If Bernie’s plan offers decent dental and vision care, we’d make out like bandits.


#29

Medicare as it is now would have to be changed very significantly before it could pass as anything that looks like Universal Health Care.

I’d say this “Medicare for all” campaign is supported by insurance companies hedging their bets in relation to the uptick in calls for Universal Health Care.

Medicare, as it is, relies heavily on privately provided supplemental policies to reach toward full coverage, does not cover vision or dental and requires each participant to pay substantial amounts taken out of their social security earnings every month for basic coverage. My wife’s amounts to over $1200 annually out of Social Security (and that does not include premiums she pays for her supplemental private insurance to cover what Medicare does not cover).
Basic Medicare covers 80% of many medical procedures. Sounds good until you have a 100K procedure…


#30

Some will do better, no doubt, but many won’t and some won’t know the difference. Again, it depends on the plan you have now, the generosity of the plan in Congress, and the taxes levied.

Personal preference: if the payroll tax can be kept to 5% or lower, I think that would be ideal. In California, the average statewide household income is basically $60,000. If with the blend of financial transaction taxes and income taxes on high earners, it could be kept to 5%, you’d hit the average premium for an individual statewide, basically $250 per month currently. That could keep the conversation in a more pragmatic, forward looking place.

Then again, Amendment 69 in Colorado proposed a 10% payroll tax with a third being paid via employees, the rest by employers, and it got slaughtered. So my preference may not be a good one.


#31

One can liken the neoliberal bent to maintain the status quo to the Republican’t effort to repeal Obamacare. Both have had plenty of time to come up with alternatives or suggestions to make the ACA a viable program but can’t. The reason of course is the money that is siphoned off by including the insurance industry. This midterm election isn’t a single issue event. We have everything from the attack on our public schools to income disparity to keep the ball in the air and we must pay attention to all of these issues or we will have serious troubles in the future.


#32

How have you demonstrated that you know healthcare policy more than me or anyone else here? I was pointing out facts about single payer, about the amount of waste and overhead in the system, how much this system costs relative to single payer systems, and you pulled out a 1993 CBO study and talked about your own personal situation. Is that you demonstrating you know more about healthcare, especially when we know it costs less overall because of the removal of the systematic inefficiencies. There are also recent studies showing that it WOULD lower costs? I don’t bother posting those studies because you already know them, ignore them and try to manipulate people, per usual. When we were discussing what was happening in California, you denied that corruption played a part, even though that is absurd on its face, and you denied that Brown’s opposition to single payer played any role in what Rendon did. When I pointed out that Rendon’s chief adviser, Bauman, was a lobbyist that was hired to by pharma to lobby against a bill that could have lowered drug costs to the state and how he was installed as the party chair, you brushed that aside. Same with the massive amount of money Brown, Bauman and Rendon have gotten from the insurance industry, big pharma and groups opposed to single payer. You tried to pretend that the bill was “never serious”, but failed that you yourself previously had supported it. You also have connections to the state party, and you provide cover for those people here all the time. Like your friends, you pretend to be in favor of something you aren’t.

Just to let you know, Sanders hired Stephanie Kelton as a chief economist a few years ago. Her work as an MMT economist is pretty amazing and the MMT school has showed that the US government can create money debt free through the Treasury, which the state of California cannot. It can so without the need to tax and without needing to go a cent into debt. Read up on Krugman’s article regarding the trillion dollar coin. We can talk about how to fund the healthcare system, and there are ways to do so without relying entirely on flat taxes, but the truth of the matter is that the system could be funded without the need to tax, and the federal government can do things in regards to money creation that state cannot.


#33

Done so many times and informed the Dems party they will not get my vote if they do not support SP. Tried calling the AMA to protest their position but not able to get through. Time for an open letter to them and to that odious group the AARP foes of single payer.


#34

I am sure that you know more than economists like Friedman and Polin too (and as you know, I could cite many other studies showing similar results), cause you’re KC and you say so.

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

Health care financing in the U.S. is regressive, weighing heaviest on the poor, the working class, and the sick. With the progressive financing plan outlined for HR 676 (below), 95% of all U.S. households would save money.

The study finds that the providing full universal coverage would increase overall system costs by about 10 percent, but that the single payer system could produce savings of about 18 percent. The study thus finds that the proposed single-payer system could provide decent health care for all California residents while still reducing net overall costs by about 8 percent relative to the existing system. We propose two new taxes to generate the revenue required to offset the loss of private insurance spending: a gross receipts tax of 2.3 percent and a sales tax of 2.3 percent, along with exemptions and tax credits for small business owners and low-income families to promote tax-burden equity. Within this proposed tax framework, Healthy California can achieve both lower costs and greater equity in the provision of health care in California for both families and businesses of all sizes. Thus, net health care spending for middle-income families will fall by between 2.6 – 9.1 percent

Employers “pay nothing for insurance in reality,” as health care is a fringe benefit of a total compensation package, said Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University. So when employers stop providing insurance and are required to pay into single-payer, less money will be available for paychecks.

With this adjustment, the average family would save $505 to $1,823 a year.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost


#35

“Citing Paul Krugman’s latest New York Times column warning against the push for Medicare for All. . . .”

Professor Krugman wrote a book titled, “The Conscience Of a Liberal,” riffing on the same screed from 53 years ago as Jeff Flake’s new book. The trouble is that Krugman, and the “liberal pundits” cited in the paragraph just above the one from which this quote is taken, and the majority of the self-identifying “liberals” in the Democratic misleadership, are NEOliberals, the evil spawn of classical liberals of all eras.


#36

Do you think I’m not familiar with those assements? Or say, the CBO’s previous analysis of Wellstone’s bill? Or the work done by PNHP? I’ve never disputed that single payer can save money–I know it can. My point above is that on an individual level, “it depends on the nature of one’s employer provided coverage currently in comparison to whatever new system is developed and the extent of the benefits it offers.” Do you really want to attack this? Is this worth the fight? Don’t you think it is true? I mean, this is basic stuff.

Here’s my point:

You do the math.


#37

What is profane is the insane discrepancy between the fairness of taxes paid by already undercompensated/overworked working folk and that of the 1%. That is the rational for imposing a miniscule tax on financial transactions of the wallstreet sort. If they continue to balk at this very minor concesson, working people have every right to insist upon this just and reasonable expectation. And insist we must and will do. No more coewering in the face of 1% unrivhteous indignation.


#38

In the end, no matter how hard we try, we’re not going to get “Medicare for All”. Why not? Because “they” are not going to let us have it. Really. Can anyone tell me the last time that billions of dollars were funneled away from corporate interests to improve the lot of the common folk?

Serious question. Do any of you know when it was last done, or would this be setting precedent?

They own the House, they own the Senate, they own the courts, and they own the White House. But that’s not the worst of it. While we spend all of our time and energy and hope trying to get this one issue addressed, there are literally dozens and hundreds of other ones–many more important (but not as sexy)–that are not, because we don’t have the knowledge, the awareness, the outreach, the resources, the influence, or the power. That’s not pessimism. It’s reality.

And it’s even worse. Whether or not you believe that “Bernie” is a pawn of the system, complicit in working with the political establishment to obfuscate the issues and keep liberals and progressives from bolting from the system (my own personal belief), or completely transparent and on the level, the reality is that the establishment knows that his focus on this issue does function to keep liberals/progressives from taking too hard of a look at what the system has really becomes, gives many of them unfounded hope, and causes them to not put their energies into all of the other issues that need addressing.


#39

Sock puppet.


#40

We deserve fair and reasonable concessions from the 1%. They can stomp their feet and hold their breath until they turn blue. We are no longer impressed with their unjustifiable superiority complexes. Working people work very hard for inadequate compensation and working conditions. They know it and we know it. Their phony, pretentious unrighteous indignation at our renewed expectations are a ruse to which we are no longer vulnerable. They are spoiled brats who have been counting upon using their cultural con-artistry to wheedle centuries old privileges from the real makers in the world, the working people. They’re nothing without us to boss around and bully at every opportunity. Our complicity in creating the needed contrast to their ill-perceived superiority is ending. Get over it!


#41

Interestingly, in Netanyahu’s Israel, they have universal health care (and a whole lot of our tax money goes there):

"Health care in Israel is universal and participation in a medical insurance plan is compulsory. All Israeli citizens are entitled to basic health care as a fundamental right. The Israeli healthcare system is based on the National Health Insurance Law of 1995, which mandates all citizens resident in the country to join one of four official health insurance organizations which are run as not-for-profit organizations, and are prohibited by law from denying any Israeli citizen membership. "