Home | About | Donate

Medicare for All Is a Winner for Democrats, as Ocasio-Cortez and Others Have Shown


Medicare for All Is a Winner for Democrats, as Ocasio-Cortez and Others Have Shown

Erica Payne

Last month's upset primary victory by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who beat 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley in a New York City district, was decisive proof: the Democrats’ path to victory requires exciting their base with a bold, fearless agenda that includes Medicare for all.


What we need is Universal Healthcare like the rest of the civilized world. Medicare includes private “health insurance” providers in the system who treat Medicare members just like they treat everyone else–they pay their employees to do everything in their power to keep from paying anything you give them money for their insurance to cover. Medicare also does not cover dental, medications or eye care–more ways to include the private health vultures.


Like we need a millionaire businesswoman to tell us about health insurance? WTF?!?



Let’s not get bogged-down on terminology, here! Lest “divide, distract and conquer” wins another day for the current occupiers of our beloved Democracy! And we find ourselves, “not at the table but on the menu”, again! When the term “Medicare for All” gets thrown around - and it gets thrown around a lot - let’s not lose site of our goal!

To unseat the corporate warmongers in D.C. - we must stop the bickering distractions. Whether the wholesale sell-out Repubs or the corporate anti-Bernie-wing of the Dems - We the Poor People were made poor by forced voter suppression, forced systemic racism and a forced and lied about war economy. These war-like enforcements and theft of our treasury by the so-called tax cuts - all of this adds-up to war on the Poor! These cruel acts have cost We American citizens the amount that is equal to the $20 trillion of the so-called national debt (and more, if you add in nuclear waste clean-up from untold numbers of accident sites and decrepit plants that need closing and - MY GOD - climate change)!

These acts of violence are why we don’t have: Not “Medicare for All” - But, “National Improved Medicare for All” - A single payer, pay it forward like Social Security, non-profit (no private hospitals, no third-party insurers or anyone else that does not agree to a written and enforceable contract to provide services on a pre-approved basis only!)

So let’s not quibble over the little differences and take down these folks like Pelosi and Schumer and others - or make them back-off, back down and do what’s right for a change!


Medicare for All has been around for a long time but it never moved an inch because people that actually understand what it is wouldn’t dare. It is the best propaganda to come along in sometime. Like the obstruction of Obama care, we won’t pay for healthcare, we will give you MFA. Here is a clue It originates in the Rand corporation and Libertarians love it. Gracious, she is actually telling the truth, except she fails to mention the bone they are throwing to everyone else.

This is called negative reinforcement:


Where are you getting that information Bob?





While Medicare for All is much better than Obamacare, it is a miserable failure when compared to comprehensive Universal Care that includes medications, eye and hearing care along with nursing home care.

That the very well-to-do author endorses Medicare for All – with no mention of Universal Care – fully illuminates that Medicare for All will continue to be a capitalist system in which the elites will continue to profit by keeping us sick. After all, keeping us sick benefits their financial positions.


It fails to mention that for the next 15 years we will be paying off those corporations that will lose money on the deal. All part of the plan. And we are already conditioned who to believe about healthcare regardless of statistics that say otherwise.


Clearly a health care system that provides insurance coverage for everyone is better than one that doesn’t. Most developed countries have a combination of government and private insurance that covers everybody. Also, insurance should not be linked to employment. This makes it very difficult to leave an undesirable job and it creates additional anxiety about losing a job. But in the present political context there is no possibility of getting Medicare for all or any single payer government system. Even Obamacare required the Democrats to have 60 seats in the Senate, to control the House, and of course have a president who is a Democrat. And since the Republicans have moved even further right. So single payer is not really about a change in the healthcare system but the conflict within the Democratic Party between the center left and progressives. It is one of the main tools of the progressives to try to move the party to the left. There seem to be differences of opinions which way the party is shifting. Base on primary results so far convincing arguments are being made by both sides that their side is winning.


To win a national single-payer health care system. Because access to healthcare is basic to human dignity



This is what terrifies Democratic Party Leaders the most.

Thus, I present you with one of our resident Pythons, a Pythagorean triangulator par excellence and general leftist naysayer:


Apparently LRX believes you should only campaign on the immediately achievable items (which means doing whatever the Republicans want), not on real policies or vision about where we should be headed.


Absolutely correct. We need to eliminate the middleman: insurance. They do nothing to provide care, they serve as a gatekeeper to our receiving care.

Medicare for All, while a better choice than Obamacare, is actually still too expensive and covers too little causing those covered to carry a bigger burden of the cost. In the past few years seniors share of prescription costs have increased substantially. Probably because Medicare funds were raided for Obamacare and cut again for Trump tax cuts for the very wealthy.

Universal health care for everyone that is free at point of service, including prescription coverage, dental, vision and hearing, is the only way to go. It should be paid by a progressive tax on everyone. This can be done, there just isn’t the will to do so. And frankly I’d rather see Trump keep his hands off Medicare, what he’d do is shove the 30 million uninsured onto it without the funding necessary to pay for it causing everyone to receive substandard care and much higher out of pocket costs, probably to the point of causing many on Medicare to forego necessary medical services due to the cost.


European (socialist) countries that still use insurance to provide medical care highly regulate and oversee their operations. They are held in check and likely are not for profit.

This would never work in the US. No one in Congress has the fortitude to regulate insurance. Our Congress is owned by big Insurance and big Pharma.

Obamacare is government-subsidized (in degrees) insurance for some and far too expensive insurance for others. The co-pays, monthly premiums and yearly deductibles are in fact barriers to service and are far too costly for the majority of Americans.

The whole idea w/US health care is to set up as many roadblocks (mostly financial) to keep the less well off from using it. Why? The joke in Congress for the past three decades has been, (paraphrasing) “We can’t afford universal health care in the US. Why? Because if we had it everyone would use it!” (thus making it too expensive) hahaha All while members of Congress (and theirs) receive the best health care this country has to offer.


Obamacare, as it is designed, is a direct transfer of money to the capitalist elites. Furthermore, it is “a known” that it will keep poverty – or near poverty – as a designed scheme to keep the working class and poor without true access, meaningful benefits or affordable quality care.

Obamacare is theft and a sham.


Only in some states. States that have expansion cover just about everyone and provide emergency care to everyone. Medicare for All will eventually add military health care which is now separately funded. In my state we had a bill to cover those individuals but it was cancelled when Trump was elected and the state could not get the waivers it needed.


Most Americans polled do not want to abolish ICE.

Ocasio could bolster her chances ending cartel violence by calling for an end to the War on Drugs.


When people refer to NIMA, they are usually thinking of HR 676 or Bernie’s Senate Bill or some melding of the two. I know for sure HR 676 would continue to allow and send payment for service to private hospitals even if they were for profit hospitals. I’d be shocked if that wasn’t the case with Bernie’s bill too. Nobody is talking about the delivery of care being all in the public domain (i.e. the British NHS/United States VA model) though perhaps more public hospitals will crop up. I personally would prefer the NHS model, but I don’t see that happening in the US whereas NIMA is achievable if all Democrats started embracing it. Believe it or not, some Republicans support the idea (though not a single politician has the guts to go against the party just yet). Either that could change or we could get a strong Democratic majority if Democrats became more appealing to the masses (as it has been in the past).


With HR676 there can be all those things, they just couldn’t compete with services Medicare for All provides. They just have to be not for profit. Very few if any public hospitals in my state. They have all been converted to other services, rehab, long term care, out patient services etc.