"The best way to protect Medicare is to upgrade it and expand it to cover everyone. It is time for this country to catch up with other nations and implement a universal system of guaranteed healthcare."
Happy Birthday, Medicare. Here's to many more!
thanks, tireless activists and HCA (Health Care for All, often followed by the first letter of the state, like HCAO for Oregon).
happy birthday as well, for as long as it lasts.
as to expanding it to single payer, we had our chance, but or some reason, the "good guys" supported the empowerment of some of the most ruthless insurance firms ever constructed instead of actually struggling for the best outcome for our people.
and so we go on for another generation of corporate medical terrorism.
Good for Bernie for being consistently in favor of Single-Payer. Good article that connects the issue of inclusiveness and equality in outcomes by focusing on black lives who suffer disproportionately. The issue of Native Americans now must also come to the foreground for similar reasons.
I received an e-mail message from the Dimcrat Party today wanting me to sign a card thanking Obama for protecting Medicare. I considered this akin to Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize before he proved that he DID NOT deserve it.
This is the same Obama who has praised and compared himself to Ronny Raygun more than he has praised or compared himself to any of his other predecessors. Recall that during the weeks leading up to the 1965 signing of Medicare legislation Raygun appeared in TV ads (sponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA) admonishing Americans to stop Medicare legislation lest it lead to socialism.
Bernie also started reading his lengthy SP bill into the Senate record, but stopped after a while because it was delaying Sen business ... That's the problem with Bernie - long on rhetoric, short on delivery - a bit of a paper tiger ...
And the Dems have been all too willing to get on board with dismantling of the social safety net ....
Voting D/R is shooting yourself in the foot - either one ....
" 'Healthcare is a right for all people, not a privilege,' Sanders told a cheering crowd."
So that is why you voted for the ACA? If that's your idea of a "right", think I'll pass ...
Medicare Parts A & B are public health insurance. Since Medicare pays all your medical bills, this is single-payer health insurance.
The ACA is not single-payer health insurance because you choose the private insurance company to pay your medical bills.
Ironically, Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage) is just like the ACA. When you sign up for Medicare, if you want prescription drug coverage, you must buy it from a private insurance company.
The reason Medicare Parts A and B are single-payer, while Medicare Part D is not single-payer is that LBJ gave us Medicare Parts A and B, while George W. Bush gave us Medicare Part D.
The reason there is no public option (single-payer) in the ACA is that this was opposed by 3 Senators who announced they would not vote for cloture if the bill contained a public option. Without cloture bills are filibustered to death. Harry Reid had no option but to bring a bill to the floor without a public option.
If health care is a right, then it is a positive right. The rights in the Bill of Rights are negative rights. This means that government may not interfere with what I am writing because this would violate my right to freedom of speech.
Positive rights mean the government must provide something I deserve to have.
The ACA is a government social welfare program that exists because we the people have a right to halth care. It was Barack Obama who said during the campaign in 2008 that we have a right to health care. You may not like the ACA, but it is still the government providing access to health care, just as Medicare and Social Security are the result of the elderly having the right to old-age insuance and health insurance.
Are you aware that every single piece of social welfare legislation produced in the 20th centrury is the result of Democrats?
Social Security; extending Social Security to spouses and dependants; unemployment insurance; disability insurance; a minimum wage; Medicare, Medicaid; and the ACA were all opposed by Republicans.
I am on Social Security and Mediicare. My life would be much worse had Democrats not been in power to produce these programs.
Please get your facts straight. A public option was not on the table and then taken off the table. 3 Senators (Nelson, D-NE; Lieberman, I-CT; and Landrieu, D-LA) announced that they would not vote for cloture if the bill contained a public option. Without a vote for cloture, bills are filibustered to death. Harry Reid had no choice but to bring a bill to the Senate floor that did not have a public option.
Nelson was my Senator. He was an insurance executive before he went into politics. He opposed a public option because the insurance industry is opposed to competition from the government. Nelson sided with big insurance and against we the people. He did this even though crimson red Nebraska has public power (we have no private electric companies in Nebraska and we have among the lowest electric rates in the country). Go figure.
Yeah, that was a dark day when he voted for ACA just to get that funding for Vermont's community clinics. He will need to be reminded of this along with his views on Israel and equating their overwhelming military superiority to Hamas' rockets. A real false equivalency.
It is about darn time that the US keep up with other "industrialized" nations and provide Universal health care. Expanding Medicare for all is a start. Stop buying drones that kill and then use those funds to shore up SS and Medicare. Stop feeding the voracious military-industrial complex and divert those funds into tending to our crumbling infrastructure (roads, railroads, bridges, etc.) Abolish private funding of national (congressional/presidential) elections and level the financial playing field that will ideally make the candidates more beholding to the folks that may elect them rather than drinking/eating from the corporate troughs. Fund all government agencies that provide regulatory oversight/police corporate operations to make sure they are not polluting or overpaying their execs at the expense of the workers.
Just some suggestions that just may restore our democracy. Pipe dream...sure hope not!
When Bernie was confronted by BlackLivesMatter activists at NetRoots Nation, did he call up his (alleged) support for universal healthcare...what Dr. Claudia Fegan calls critical to the struggle for racial justice"...or his (proven) support for ObamaCare®, (rationing healthcare based on economic class)?
And are you aware that, at least since the ascension of Clinton and the DLC to the leadership of the DP (read corporate takeover), that party basically lost all resemblance to the party that produced the social safety net programs you refer to, and that, in fact, has been subtly, and not so subtly, complicit in going in the direction of weakening them, in favor of privatization and "the market" ... The ACA being a good example
I, too, am on SS and Medicare - and that is why I support a party who would strengthen, not weaken them, and that ain't the DP ... The DP you apparently are grateful to is NOT the DP party of today .... please understand that ...
Today's DP is DINO ...
LBJ's Great Society agenda gave us AFDC, Medicare/Medicaid. One down, two to go. An older generation understood why ensuring basic food and shelter to the jobless poor and the unemployable was necessary to reduce overall public costs, especially medical costs.
Here's another, but it's different than Bernstein's WaPo polish piece.
Cloture isn't a legal or constitutional requirement. The Senate can--and has--operated on a majority plus 1 rule from inception. This is frequently now referred to as "the nuclear option", which is an unusually worded phrase when it essentially means "as the institution was designed" and how the Senate did its business until 1919. In short, any major piece of legislation that is urgent and in the public interest can, in fact, be passed by a simple majority. Amazingly enough, this has been happening for two years on political appointments without much fanfare. The reality si that no piece of legislation in the Senate has ever legally required 60 votes to pass other than that which the Constitution specifies (treaties, ie).
Parties exist to enforce member discipline as well as hand out obedience treats. It is common for party leadership to twist resisting arms by threats of removal from committee positions, or several fundraising perks from the leadership and the party as a way of enforcing the general will of the party and preventing a rogue politician from holding the party hostage. Under no circumstance should 3 lone wolves destroy party cohesion. It never happens to republicans, and it doesn't need to for democrats. It is, however, one of the greatest excuses to engage in two-faced rhetoric ever devised. The entire Civil Rights Act voting process was a clinic in how to twist arms to get the desired result. And its far more common than the public believes.
The reason none of these happened was because it was the party, not just Obama, that wanted any idea of single payer killed as quickly and conveniently as possible. Note that Republicans themselves did a complete about face from their own political rhetoric of a mere 20 years previously when this very same plan was their idea!!! It happens. People say one thing and then do another as it suits them. Never assume that rhetoric in politics is an accurate measure of either ideology or intent. It is not.
One thing we do know: many landmark social pieces of legislation would never have been passed if Congressional rules were as immutable as your masters are trying to have you believe. As a general rule, if a bill desired by a majority does NOT pass, it's usually the case that the bill isn't actually desired by the leadership and elites of that party.
One final thought: let's assume for the sake of cordial discussion that everything you say is true.
There is sufficient precedent for allowing a filibuster to take place precisely in order to politically discredit the filibustering side. For example, Helms' notorious zillion hour long filibuster might have made him an individual legend--and not in a good way--but it also helped destroy the Dixiecrats reputation as cooperative and civilized lawmakers and did a great deal of public damage to the segregationist cause. When you know the public favors a particular political position, allowing a contrary filibuster to occur can be a smart political move. Democrats are terrified not of the threat of a filibuster, but more of that actual occurrence of one. One could only think that it's because many of them simply have to hope for a contrary result to one they might publicly back. It's the political version of "hold me back, bro! hold me back or I'm gonna nail this dude!" when you're about to get your butt kicked.
On a lighter note, I am also from Nebraska, and Nelson is one of the most reprehensible frauds in state political history.
More directly, Bill Clinton ended actual welfare aid, and took the first steps to similarly "reform" Social Security, targeting the disabled. These are necessary steps toward ending the New Deal in whole. Of course, where Bill Clinton left off, Hillary Clinton hopes to pick up, finishing off Social Security. Fortunately, VP Joe Biden will be launching his campaign in early 2016. Any Dem pol can then challenge him for the nomination, and the primaries will determine which goes on to run for president. In spite of efforts by the "latte libs" (MSNBC, etc.) to sell Clinton, her own record works against her -- pro-war, anti-poor, pro-corporate empowerment, anti-New Deal.
Keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. You'll get what you deserve in the end. A white hot steel bar, shoved up your back end! "I feel your pain", "You need to put food on your family", "Yes we can"! MORONS!