Home | About | Donate

Reporting on Medicare for All Makes Media Forget How Math Works


Reporting on Medicare for All Makes Media Forget How Math Works

Justin Anderson

“Medicare for All,” a federally funded universal healthcare plan championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vermont–Ind.), has quickly become a key issue for progressive voters evaluating Democratic Party candidates for the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 presidential race.


It’s time to send Media Mouthpieces back to school.


“Media mouthpieces” confirm that nothing has changed since 19th century newspaper editor Mark Twain noted that “people who don’t read newspapers are uninformed while those who do are misinformed”.

Although the variety of media has changed during the nearly 150 years since Twain’s admonition, the slant remains the same.


One must remember that the American media is pretty much owned, lock stock and barrel by the same corporations and uber wealthy oligarchs that will fight tooth and nail to make sure a cost effective, efficient public healthcare system never happens in the USA. To them, single payer would be a disaster, as it would accomplish two things. The first being the empowerment of the US working class and poor. No longer would workers have to stay in dead end jobs that don’t pay well because they fear losing their ever more impotent employer sponsored healthcare plan. It would mean employers would have to actually compete for workers again. entrepreneurialism would explode again.
Second, and even more importantly, single payer would prove to the masses that Collectivism is not dead. Collectivism stands in contrast to the mythology of the American Dream that has been pushed down our throats by the oligarchy for generations. Once more people realize the American Dream is more like a nightmare the People may just turn on their taskmasters. That is the Kochs, Mercers, Walton’s, Bezos, Gates, duponts, worst fucking nightmare.


Bernie Sanders is calling attention to this study and the $2 trillion in savings over ten years.

Tea Cup Democrats? Not so much.


The author should at least have mentioned the John Conyers (now Keith Ellison) HR 676 Expanded and Improved Medicare For All Act and the differences between it and the Sanders Bill, S 1804, that are substantial.

Universal, not for profit, Improved and Expanded Medicare for All - HR 676

There is also this critique of S 1804 - https://mltoday.com/critique-of-bernie-sanders-medicare/


Thank You. And there’s this critique as well. Apparently the progressive media don’t know their math either. For real news, check this out (you may have been the first to post it, if so I apologize):


In part. Maybe that’s the secondary reason.

The real reason is that those taxes will be used to fund a program that would end the current system in which the rich investors make a big profit.

Even if certain advocates of Capitalism don’t themselves make their profits from health care insurance, they have something the rest of us don’t have: class solidarity.

If socialize health care insurance and take away the profits for the rich in that area, what, they fear, will be next? The banks? Energy?


Thank you, both of you.

Two thoughts from me.

  1. The article here on CD says that support for this is now motivating progressives suddenly. That’s an outright lie. We’ve been motivated by this for a long time. We tried to get a seat at the table when HRC was working on a plan and we were cut out. We supported Dennis Kucinich in 2004 in large part because he ran on HR676 (also he was really anti-war.) We tried to get a seat at the table when Obama and his people in Congress were crafting the ACA and, again, we were cut out. It’s not that we are suddenly motivated by this. It’s that NeoLiberals who want to get the unDemocratic Party nomination are suddenly motivated to appear to be for this. They aren’t anymore than HRC was against the TPP.

  2. Why in the world did Sanders do this? What is his motivation to jettison a much better plan that actually is Single Payer for this hodge podge joke? It’s not like he must not know the difference. He was a sponsor of HR676. So what the hell?


Yes, the MSM didn’t miss the point, this writer did. It’s no accident the media’s numbers don’t add up, all of these stories are pure propaganda to change the minds of 70% of the citizens.

  1. Thank You for telling it like it is.
  2. I suspect Sanders a) thinks S. 1804 is actually “Medicare for All” (it aint even that); b) thinks people are really stoopid (he’s probably right); or c) most likely his advisors told him he can unite the Party in 2020 around a presidential campaign built on progressive cliches that really package the same old shit.

In any case, even if he should get the nomination, the old guard will screw him again like the Blairites tried to do to Corbyn. They will even break up the Party (not a bad thing IMO) so we could stop having these same losing discussions all over again.


When it comes to doing the math on taxing the wealthy, for the corpress, 2 + 2 always equals “Too much”


Oh, I had missed that one: “Tea cup Democrats.” Priceless.


Back then it was funny. now its downright scary!


Can we think out of the BOX on some of this stuff. The point is everyone should have access to basic healthcare-----I support the idea of community healthcare centers(Sanders has offered bills in this direction)----and the idea that these centers really become a center for local people coming together. I can’t think of a better way to bring people together–around healthcare.


It’s time this nation learned how economics really works:

"The economy—that is to say, the creation and spending of dollars to undertake and accomplish humanly defined goals—is composed of not one, but two, money-creation processes. The first (and most commonly understood) process is the U.S. banking system: Banks “create” new dollars when they issue loans. This is the engine of American capitalism, and the new dollars sent into circulation by the banking system are specifically (and exclusively) targeted to accomplish goals associated with the generating of personal or corporate financial profits in the market economy.

The second money-creation process, as our explanation above has made clear, is the process we have been habitually calling “government borrowing.” The issuing and auctioning of U.S. treasury bonds, as we’ve just discovered, is not “borrowing” money at all, but creating it. Most important, the dollars generated by this process, which are then spent by the U.S. government, are not spent in the pursuit of personal or corporate financial profits. They are spent to pursue the collective goals—and address the collective needs—of society at large.

The problem we are struggling with today is that while we continue to encourage the first money-creating process—the banking system—to “create” as many dollars as American enterprise and consumers can profitably spend, we have habitually constrained the second money-creating process by labeling it our “national debt” and falsely believing it is encumbering us. In doing so, we severely—and unnecessarily—limit and constrain what we undertake to accomplish for the benefit of what could be called our collective “social economy.” This is a mistake we must now stop making."

( full article, The Explicable Mystery of the National Debt, at
new economic perspectives)