Home | About | Donate

Media Badly Botching the Medicare For All Debate

Media Badly Botching the Medicare For All Debate

Paul Waldman

The 2020 presidential campaign will surely wind up being horrifying in many ways. But the good news is that at the moment, it’s featuring a genuine debate about a profoundly consequential policy question.

The bad news is that media are already screwing it up, no less than when they cheered for the Iraq War in 2003 or gave minimal attention to Donald Trump’s spectacular history of personal corruption in 2016.

1 Like

Maybe the only way to have a workable and affordable health insurance is to make sure that EVERYONE in the country is covered----and that the coverage that Congress has is the same coverage as that FOR THE PEOPLE. ( Otherwise Congress will keep saying we can’t afford it.)
Then---- whatever they get, we get. That might be the only fair way. When their health care is the same for all, then I am sure that they will want something good for themselves—which we would get too. : )

1 Like

I don’t want want congress has, which is one of several private insurance plans offered under ObamaCare.

I want improved MFA, not to be some profit center for an insurance company.

1 Like

Certainly, the FACTS (yes, Scarlet - these are what we call, FACTS - not fake, fantasy or fraud) demonstrate that America is fully capable of designing and implementing a health care system that covers all Americans from womb to tomb that will cost far less than the current system, while significantly improving care. The current system, controlled by the “medical-pharmaceutical-political -industrial complex” whose only true care is their own bank account is all about the money - taking it from your pocket and giving to big pharma, insurance companies and others.
According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. pays double per person for health care versus those 6 countries rated the top 6 nations in terms of quality of health care delivered. America health care quality is ranked about #36 in the world. So, we pay double for inferior results. Those that claim “we can’t afford single payer, Medicare for All”, are either not informed or not telling the truth.
If the American people would actually pay attention and read up on what is going on, it would be cause for a revolution. That revolution is about to begin and health care in our country is the opening volley. The liars claiming that Climate change is a hoax are dead meat; vast economic inequality will be tamed, fossil fuels are going away and low carbon clean renewables will reign, our children and all will have an education system that opens their minds and teaches critical thinking; instead of the moron masquerading as education secretary today we’ll have leaders passionate about our children’s future. All this and more can definitely happen - think truth, think “yes we can”, because "WE’ can and WILL make big things happen. This is what American greatness is about - not some ignorant and criminally insane yahoo with a red hat.

3 Likes

"The fact these two highly successful businessmen — whose understanding of investments, costs and benefits helped them become billionaires — can say something so completely mistaken "

They aren’t mistaken–they’re lying. What’s the difference? If they believe that M4A is unaffordable, they can claim to have your best interest at heart. If they are merely pretending to believe it is unaffordable, then we see that they only care about their wealth, not about you at all.

That’s the difference on their side.

On our side, the side of the voters, the difference between thinking they’re mistaken and thinking they’re lying is our gullibility and our willingness to vote for another multi-millionaire (or billionaire–does it really matter once they’ve reached the point that they think you’re dirt?) because they are seen as stable, moderate, concerned, realistic, LOTE, whatever.

4 Likes

The overall costs of health care in other Countries are around half of what the US pays while providing coverage to all wherein the US system does not provide that full coverage and has a high number of Citizens bankrupted by costs.

When Bloomberg and these CEO’s speak it not about “being unable to afford it”. It about two things.

Providing profits to the health care industry which they are investors in and helps to line their own pockets with more wealth.

Ensuring there a permanent underclass of the destiture and poor that can be exploited in order to profit of thier labor and entrench the Class based system in the USA. These guys do not WANT everyone to have the same things they take for granted, including health care because they think they are BETTER then all of those others and more deserved of the benefits a society can offer.

The Media , in asking for the opinion of these Plutocrats are like the media in Nazi Germany asking why the Jews a problem and asking this only of members of the Nazi Party and than pretending what the Nazi’s had to say on the matter was authoritave and a fact.

2 Likes

The media didn’t botch anything, they have been playing M4A just as their corporate masters have instructed them to. When are we going to wise up and admit the current circumstances are by design, not an accident. The Dem party is on board with this deception too, the old HB 676 was the gold standard, there was no need to re-wright it. The new bill, just like Sander’s in the Senate, is meant to confuse the public into thinking they have the gold standard, instead of the watered down version they will receive, if any version at all.

4 Likes

You hit on it SkepticTank, most government employees get to chose from a list of insurance company’s such as B/C B/S. Then it depends on what level of that plan you pick to determine what percentage and copay you get. Most plans cover about 80-85 % just like medicare does.
No free healthcare.
With the ACA congress critters are obligated to restrictions on what plans they can adopt.
This is health insurance by insurance company just like an average job would carry just a few years ago. Affordable, but expensive. ?.?..

Exactly. If the msm attachment to corporate subterfuge is not apparent with the way advertising comes across, you must be a devout consumer.
Look at who is paying for any number of insurance DEALS you can buy on the MSM SHOPPING MARKET.

1 Like

The d-party is sealing its fate. The will be enough awake and aware liberal voters to walk away from the party when they fold on MFA again. We don’t have time for incrementalism – this is a crisis.

3 Likes

Healthoverprofit.org has actions to take to correct the record with these corporate mouth pieces, the MSM. Become a media mogul with them and hit back! You read some falsehood then respond immediately to the media which is perpetrating this and use the excellent tools provided by Health Over Profit.

Solidarity!

1 Like

I believe this is the same “media” that keeps telling us that Maduro is terrible (though it’s hard to imagine anyone more terrible than Trump) and that Bolton and Abrams are out to restore democracy in Venezuala?

5 Likes

THE SOCIOLOGY OF ABSENCES

"The ‘sociology of absences’, developed by Boaventura de Sousa Santos , refers both to the general silences around particular experiences and the way in which these silences are actively created through particular processes. It enables an address of what is marginalised, suppressed, and of what has not been allowed to exist in the first place. It focuses on the processes that obstruct connections to be made between different struggles and knowledges to demonstrate how the ‘incompleteness’ and ‘inadequacy’ of counter-hegemonic forms is produced. Santos suggest that hegemonic globalisation overlays an understanding of the global upon the world that denies and erases local differences. In contrast, ‘the universal and the global constructed by the sociology of absences, far from denying or eliminating the particular and the local, rather encourages them to envision what is beyond them’ (2001: 191). In other words, the sociology of absences argues for understandings of the global to be created through the non-linear accretion of local engagements. "

This concept coined by Boaventura de Sousa Santos to show how that which appears to not exist corresponds, in truth, to something that is actively produced as non-existent. This helps us to understand how the law orients and orders social relationships. The Portuguese sociologist points out five points of logic that compose the non-absence: the ignorant, the backward, the inferior, the local or private and the unproductive or sterile.

  • The ignorant is fruit of the monoculture of knowledge, in which modern science and high culture are the sole criteria of truth and of quality of aesthetics, in such a way that that which is not recognized or legitimated by the canon is declared non-existent.
  • The backward is linked to the monoculture of linear time, according to which history has unique and known meaning and direction, towards progress and modernization. Thus, everything that is asymmetrical in relation to this advance is backward.
  • Inferiority is related to the logic of social classification, through the naturalization of differences, already mentioned, in which the relation of domination is consequence and not the cause of social hierarchy. All that matters is that which is universal and global, with precedence over all other contextual-dependent realities and that, for this reason, considered private.
  • The unproductive serves the monoculture of criteria of capitalist productivity, soon that which does not maximize the generation of profit - whether from nature or from human labor - does not exist. In the case of labor, there is unproductiveness; in the case of nature, sterility.

Pretending that M4A is too expensive is a ruse to frighten off voters.

1st: more than 40,000,000 are either uninsured and underinsured in this country, they will have full coverage under M4A, so yeah, it may cost a bit more especially in the first decade as people that have never or hesitated to seek treatment will now have access to full care. This is not a bad thing.

2nd: eliminate the middle man (insurance) and M4A will be affordable - this is not a bad thing.

3rd: releasing employers from providing insurance to their employees will allow employers to raise wages and/or other benefits - this is not a bad thing.

4th: always on health care will free workers to change jobs, return to school to upgrade their skills, take a sabbatical, or stay home and raise their children w/out fear of falling into medical bankruptcy from loss of insurance - this is not a bad thing.

The current mishmash of one day you’re in, the next day you’re out insurance plans has made the US one of the most expensive places to receive health care for anyone but the wealthy. We already have rationed care in the US – it is rationed by one’s ability to pay.

2 Likes

Hi SkepticTank… but that’s what I want too. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, but if we all had the same equal coverage, and that means Congress too., if we all had the same then Congress would get what we would get—and that really seems the most fair and workable . Medicare for ALL includes Congress and if we all got the same care, then Congress, would finally underdstand the 3 Musketeers slogan " All for one and one for all." : )

the problem with your argument is that many of us already have what congress has: namely, ObamaCare.

Hi SkepticTank, but Congress doesn’t have Obama care , do they really??? I thought that was just for poor people. Does Obama have Obama care? I kind of think not, because hardly anyone can afford to get sick, and the IF the Presidents and Congress all had Obama Care—does that equate into equal care? I thought that We the Poor People did get that, but that people with jobs and benefits had the best coverage, except they can’t afford it.

Hi SkepticTanK; Oh thank you, I don’t know that—so why do the GOPers want to destroy it? But I still don’t understand how it got this confusing—because there are plans that don’t see to cover much at all and People are still dying. I though that Medicar for all would take the stupid blood sucking insurance companies out and replace a national insurance that wasn’t so ridiculous. It seems like Romney Care is till in Massachusetts… or is there omen in the state that says .“NO.”

When my cousin took me to England and France in 2017, I met a retired British soccer coach who I was seated next to on the train. And believe it or not, he told me all about his operation, and he was happily healthy once more. So, as the beach and the seaside swept by I heard all about how wonderful the NIS or was NIH was. Yes, it was a weird one- way conversation, but it was fun listening to him anyway. America doesn’t have that kind of coverage for all which would make more sense.But then, I don’t think that many of the government and insurance company people making decisions actually care about Americans health----unless something big really happens like if America got the plague.

Waldman dismisses any rational hesitation one may have for M4A with the same ideological bias that he accuses Bloomberg and conservatives having when they call it “unaffordable.” Entitlements can still bankrupt the country, even if the total cost for those entitlements are significantly lower than total costs paid to private, for-profit institutions. You can be a good, Rawlsian, “justice as fairness” liberal and still give pause on this issue.

Let’s grant the nontrivial assumption that total healthcare costs paid out via taxes in something like a single payer system would be significantly lower than total costs currently paid to privatized insurance companies. The $33T figure that Waldman cites over 10 years is not unreasonable. The problem is not just the cost, sadly, it is the source of the funds: our broken government and a sovereign debt crisis.

The national debt on publicly owned Treasury securities is right around $16T, with another $6T intragovernmental for a total of $21T comprising our US debt. A single payer system would require massive tax increases to cover the $33T, and the neo-conservatives/Tea-Party ideologies in congress, elected by their equally short-sided constituents, would never vote for the kind of tax increases required to cover that kind of cost (potentially doubling our TOTAL debt currently). Significant increases in Treasury securities and debt obligations are inevitable. As it is, our debt to GDP (currently > 107%) is consistently in the top 50 for all countries worldwide, and rising, sitting close to Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal. That’s not a defining metric for catastrophe by any sense, but it’s an indicator that international markets watch closely, and for good reason. Your debt to income ratio is a primary consideration for any bank when you apply for a mortgage. So too with international capital markets: if international investors fear that, for example, political idiocy coupled with rapid increases in US debt obligations pose serious issues to US credit-worthiness, they will sell off our Treasuries. THAT’S what Bloomberg worries would bankrupt our country. At a debt to GDP of 125% or so, on par with Greece/Italy/Portugal, US debt may lose it’s status as a “risk-free” investment, as international markets fear US insolvency and abandon fiduciary obligations. Further sell offs may result in US currency losing status as the international default currency, causing MAJOR crises like hyper-inflation. Iceland was not far past 100% when they went insolvent in 2008/9.

The point is just to emphasize that it’s not the cost alone that can bankrupt this country. It’s that we would need a functioning government to tax/fund it properly, without leading to a sovereign debt crisis and a politically generated economic disaster.