Home | About | Donate

'The Time for Single-Payer Is Now': Countering Corporate Lies, Doctors Run Ad Providing the Facts About Medicare for All


'The Time for Single-Payer Is Now': Countering Corporate Lies, Doctors Run Ad Providing the Facts About Medicare for All

Jake Johnson, staff writer

As momentum in the fight for Medicare for All continues to grow nationwide thanks to persistent grassroots organizing efforts led by nurses, democratic socialists, and progressive activists, a group of California doctors placed an unprecedented eight-page ad in a


Is there enough room in California for the other 49 states residents?


Edited: A million people left CA I wonder why?


Try to avoid the nebulous term ‘single payer’ and stick with medicare for all, even after reading articles like this.

Yes, if California provides universal health care insurance for Californians, it won’t be medicare for all; it will be will be a version California state public healthcare insurance for all Californians.


and it will be a miracle. And it will be a godsend for all Californians (except those in the health insurance scam). and it will be an opening to get finally get a decent health system to everyone else in the country…


California has lost a few people in the last couple of years, but that’s only due to a lack of affordable housing. There are still plenty of good paying jobs. It still grows about 20% of the food that Americans eat. It produces almost as much oil and gas as Texas. In short, no matter what phony conservative tilted articles appear in fox and Breitbart, California is now the fifth largest economy in the world. Without its production the USA would drop back to third and perhaps fourth in GDP numbers.
What’s your point fern?


Certainly not because of having a Single Payer system of healthcare in place. Heck, many of those factors influencing that exodus since 2006 (about half the rate during part of the 90s) like expense of housing, etc., would be ameliorated by single payer.

If California ever passes such, PonyBoy’s comment will have a California rush of truth to it.


The Masters of the Universe know that their empire is on the rocks. We want Medicare for All but they don’t want to give it to us. They seem to be trying to milk as much as they can out of their system before it self destructs regardless of appearances and consequences. We may be kidding ourselves that we can salvage their (electoral) system. Its demise could be a blessing in disguise if we can change to a new paradigm and govern ourselves without an oligarchy.

Direct Democracy



It was more of a question than an expository statement. I’ve read various explanations but more people are leaving than coming to California. I agree that it is a large economy but over time it slipped from 3rd largest to 5th. The housing shortage is pretty bad as well.


They might reconsider if they looked at the 200 billion the state would have to provide from taxpayers.


Single payer stands absolutely no chance of passing on the national level. For it to have any chance it will have to come from the laboratories of democracy, the states. Only when enough states forsake the Medicare and Medicaid system and begin using that money to fund their own single payer systems will you ever see change on the national level.
Godspeed California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Maryland and Minnesota. The more liberal states will either lead us out of these new dark ages we find ourselves in, or we will whither and die like all the other arrogant empires before us.
I used to hope that the conservative states would just secede and get it over with. However that is never going to happen as, while they are a dim lot, they aren’t so stupid as to realize that they just couldn’t go it alone without the far more prosperous liberal states to pay for their public services.
Imagine a nation where California, Oregon, and Washington leave the union. The remaining states would flounder and struggle, most likely slipping into economic collapse and civil war.
Social democracy may not be perfect, but it’s a damn site closer too it than the proto-fascist theocratic nation we have become.


Oh yes, it is so much better to redistribute healthcare dollars through corporate structures like the Big Insurers, where those same taxpayers would pay much more for healthcare.

Surprise surprise, you are for keeping this wretched and cruel system in place.


200 billion eh?
And where did that number come from?


Medicare for all is already written and requires only minor edits to include 100% of the people and to change 80% coverage to 100%.

The important step is to cover everyone with what we have and avoid debates between representatives who will write in backroom deals if given the chance.

Once we have medicare health insurance for everyone, then try to get representatives to add dental, vision and long term care.

Representative democracy does not represent people, it never has and it never will.


Funding wasn’t included in the bill but analysis of $400 billion in terms of cost, with $200 billion from taxpayers.


I didn’t say that.


The problem isn’t that corporations are lying. They always lie when it is in their interest. The biggest problem is Romney/Obama Care and the lying Dems who say that they will “transition” into Single Payer. It’s a bunch of crap to keep their corporate owners happy and get their (increasingly stupid) “progressive” supporters to fall in line. Of course it works.


There are arguments for and against single payer ‘Medicare for all’ healthcare. Think first of the arguments against as cautions of what can go wrong…

The first argument for is political in character: a guarantee, a legal right, that everyone can obtain healthcare, healthcare that can’t be taken away, in the words of Bill Clinton.
- The rest of the arguments impress me as empty promises, akin to Obama’s “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”, and “your insurance premiums will go down by $2000.”

The arguments against are numerous, and I find them believable. I have other things to do and won’t spend time to list them all here. And most readers here won’t be persuaded anyway. …

As example argument against #1, that promise that everyone one can and will receive health care runs up against ‘The Problem of Production’, the topic of the first chapter of E.F. Schumacher’s book ‘Small is Beautiful’. It simply isn’t possible to produce everything that we want, so some form of denial will occur. In the free market you get price rationing. People here reject price rationing, so something else will occur. Often the faceless bureaucracy, what Sarah Palin called ‘death panels’, decides. Two recent examples of their work were Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans in Britain.

As example argument against #2, Example is the public school system. Teachers complain about the growth of administration consuming dollars that could go to teachers and education. And they have a point, as can be seen when comparing administration in public schools vs. administration in Catholic schools. When healthcare goes public provision we will see the same thing. The administration of it will grow outsized, and doctors and nurses will complain about the dollars it consumes that could go to doctors, nurses and healthcare instead. Dr. Max Gammon has documented this very thing happening to Britain’s NHS single provider healthcare system.


I’m sure that more than one person has pointed out to you the conservative lean to that article and complete lack of understanding of how and where medical funding comes from.
The article doesn’t mention that California and its residents would no longer need to be part of the Medicare and Medicaid system. They would also no longer be paying nearly 15-20% of their paychecks for private employer sponsored health insurance. When you add those numbers together the average worker already pays in excess of 20-25% of their income on current or future health insurance coverage (and that’s not counting deductibles and co-pays).
In the end every person and every employer will pay less for better coverage. Of course, we could just do nothing, and let the good times roll.


You have a point there, but I think the most important aspect on that article is that until costs are contained it is not a good plan. I think that is why they tried to pass it without fully stating what the funding would be.