Home | About | Donate

With Power to Knee-Cap Bold Demand, Incoming Democratic Tax Committee Chair Says Medicare for All 'Not Realistic'


You just need to vote for the right “D,” and vote out of office those who are part of the old guard…that is, assuming that you aren’t a brainless Republican who will never vote for what is in his/her own best interests.


With military experience?? Why is that good? They can collaterally-damage-exterminate the whores in Congress?


What are you gonna do ? Vote Green ? Don’t vote at all ? If we can all support progressive Democrats at every turn, then things will change for the better in two-to -three election cycles. The duopoly will not change without a fight. Rome wasn’t built in a day.


I wanna know where you ran to, especially if it’s a lot better…saner…greener…


The docs I’ve talked to support us, want this universal health care.


A rage fest is fine, if AFTERWARDS you go out and work on the primaries to get rid of all corpo-dems.




Some “Democrats” make the claim that they are in favor of Medicare for All, but not now, down the road at some unspecified time in the future. They spend an inordinate time on Common Dreams trying to convince you of the folly of pursuing Medicare for All now.

My question is where does this passion come from? Where does this “delay Medicare for All” passion and effort come from? I think we all know where it comes from. I only ask you to ignore the obvious bullshit.


If Obama (Barack the Betrayer) had not worked with Max Baucus to quash any discussion of single payer health care we would be a decade closer to our goals right now. That is why we must ignore the “nay sayers”. The nay sayers have a job. That job is to stop Medicare for All in its tracks. They are being paid for their efforts, make no mistake about that.


There’s no bill (a signal bill really). HR 676 hasn’t even been through a committee yet. It uses words like “modest” to describe taxes, which isn’t actual funding. We have numbers from outside analysis —6% payroll tax increase for those making $53,000 and up says one, a 3.3% plus employer side payroll tax says another—but they aren’t based on a piece of legislation that’s received any real consideration or amendments. HR 676 imagines a 15-year transition period. Is that implementation schedule going to be quick enough for folks here? I certainly don’t get that vibe.

I know I’m a neoliberal shill sellout but all I’m saying is this is the time to look at those issues and get them sorted. Medicare and Social Security did not happen in a day either.


Committees aren’t the only way to do things, either. You’ll notice that the Nation piece I linked to talked about public hearings, but also called for a vote within the year.

Remember the tax bill the GOP passed? The one the didn’t really have any hearings? That bill wasn’t much of an election issue. It’s not very popular, many people seeing it as a give away to the welathy, and that may have swayed some independents, but I think you’ll recall that passing it was a mess. There were handwritten notes in the margin that people couldn’t even read. No one really knew what it said.

It passed.

Power, KC. They had the power and they used it.

Sure, write a nice bill, great. It won’t matter how pretty it is, the debate in the media will be the same. You seem to be arguing for continued timidity, as if that is ever rewarded.

And your example about Medicare? It was about shifting political problems more than anything else, and we should ALL know already that the real problem with single-payer is that there has not been any political will to do it, not that it’s too hard to do. Yes, taxes will increase. Yes, it can be hard to get people on board with that. That’s a purely POLITICAL problem, not a funding problem.

The time for action is now. Certainly on climate change it’s now, since really it was 40 years ago, and that’s a much more difficult issue than figuring out how to pay for something (which, again, is political).

The time for action on the minimum wage is NOW. We don’t need a closed-door committee hearing, we need the political will to do it.

Pelosi is a good vote counter, but I don’t think she has the WILL to do anything about the three issues I raised, and that is a gift to the GOP.


The decent people who this creepy R look-alike named Richard Neal represents will begin a talent search to replace him now or else refrain from considering themselves residents of Happy Valley.

Two years is plenty of time to replace Ds who represent corporations and capital instead of people.


The healthcare and insurance industry has spent a lot of money purchasing politicians to guarantee that we the people will never receive decent and affordable health care in America. Get used to it.


Am I saying committee hearings have to be closed-door? Of course not. I think an important part of the “propaganda” is having open hearings where papers can cover dynamics of the/a bill. Maybe a 15 year transition period isn’t desirable, after all, right? Maybe it should be shorter and can be? HR 676 might be wrong on that score, but we just don’t know.

And, passing a bad bill of this magnitude for propaganda purposes is dumb, and won’t happen anyway. The GOP tax bill was an issue, especially in my state where certain tax provisions were met with hostility throughout the state. The GOP lost extremely close elections in historically conservative, but expensive-for-housing districts, partly based on anger over the mortgage interest deduction roll-back. It split their base, and I heard this reflected myself in the audience from our local right wing radio talker (and family members).

Newly elected Democrats in those districts, quite rationally, are going to want to know whether the bill they are voting on includes a 6% employee-side payroll tax increase, or a 9 % one split between employers and employees. And, progressives should want answers too. It’s policy and politics. No bill is going to pass via magic, a final bill is a long way from happening.


Neal’s district is Democrat +12. Extrapolating national polling, the vast majority of his constituency supports MFA.

But you hold your nose and stick with ‘it is what it is,’ mrsann. What a perfect encapsulation of your complacency.


…Then go ahead, vote for R’s, and watch the whole country turn into Mississippistan…or vote for Greens and watch the R’s win, because the Green votes aren’t D votes…follow the logic here, and the money…


…Let’s examine the 32 (smaller) countries that basically have MediCare for all and see how they do it. I’m tired of the circular firing squad on this issue. Of course it’s possible and we’d save a bundle of money by excluding the money shuffling health insurance Co’s out of the picture, unless that’s who you are trying to still subsidize?


Not so much important to blindly vote “D” but it is important to oust the RepubliDems along with the Republicans.


We know a lot about how they do it—all differently. HR 676 envisions way more comprehensive coverage than that of the Canadian system, for example. In Canada, the system doesn’t cover dental or vision. Do we want a more comprehensive system, but more expensive system with a larger payroll tax, or a less expensive but less comprehensive system? Do we want small copays or zero copays (HR 676)? Do we want a payroll tax, like HR 676 envisions, so, like Social Security, everyone has buy-in, or some kind of VAT like many other systems have to finance the program?

Not all these decisions need be made now, nor should they, but looking at options, like was done for Medicaid, would be extremely useful. It could help get some facts on the ground and give us a practical idea of what legislation needs to look like to get caucus buy-in. Frankly, I welcome that.


Wishing something were true doesn’t make it so.
Extrapolation, and living on the West Coast, should have us leaving the U.S. and linking up with Canada. ( It would raise issues though, since who would pay your debts? )
Letting you sodbusters, coal-rollers and clodkickers to fight it out in the 20th Century, over 20th Century issues. Like; should non-whites vote? Should marijuana be considered medicine?
Fortunately for you we’re more caring, patriotic and egalitarian than that. Just sayin’.