Dem super delegate, in room full of health insurance execs, laughs off prospect of single payer

[kristopher]

Democratic super delegate, in room full of health insurance execs, laughs off prospect of single payer.
Lee Fang; July 1 2017

<snip>

Gephardt, who serves as a Democratic “superdelegate” responsible for choosing the party’s presidential nominee, was asked about the possibility of single payer at the Centene Corporation annual investor day conference at The Pierre, a ritzy five-star hotel in New York City.

<snip>

“There is no way you could pass single payer in any intermediate future,” Gephardt declared. America, he added, has the “greatest health care system in the world, bar none.” And while single payer would provide universal coverage, there would be less quality and innovation without the “involvement of the private sector.”

The claim that single payer suppresses innovation is an old argument that does not stand up to scrutiny. Most medical innovation in the U.S. are already government funded, through universities receiving federal subsidies and grants, as well as through the National Institutes of Health. A single-payer insurance system, like Medicare, would simply negotiate for lower prices from providers, and would likely steer savings towards greater investments in research and development. Claims about lower quality care are also highly disputed, given that countries with single payer and tightly regulated universal health systems perform much higher than the U.S. in a range of health outcomes.

<snip>

In the past, the health insurance industry has deployed sophisticated propaganda efforts to divide single-payer proponents and weaken any political support for the idea. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton once considered such a system, but wondered, “Is there any force on the face of the earth that would counter the money the insurance industry would spend to defeat it?”

Gephardt, notably, became a corporate lobbyist after serving as a populist Democratic lawmaker from Missouri. His clients have included Peabody Coal and Goldman Sachs, among others. He also serves on the board of Centene, receiving annual compensation of around $315,965 in cash and stock awards.

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/01/dick-gephardt-single-payer-health-insurance-lobbyists/

[ck4829]

1. Does "quality" mean my healthcare is better just because someone poorer than me can't get it?

[IronLionZion]

3. Yes, rise up by stepping on the heads of others

The more you let/make others suffer, the better your quality



I'm still waiting for some Republican to explain what insurance companies have innovated for us.

[ck4829]

6. Oh, I know the answer they have in their heads but will not say

Republicans, and some others, relish the role of insurance companies to act as gatekeepers; excluding some people from access to healthcare... whether it's the sickly or those who can not find work.

[HopeAgain]

2. She you hear the term "establishment" used derisively,

It's in reference to people like this...

[Sienna86]

4. Why is he a superdelegate?

Who or what entity chooses him to be a superdelegate?

[markpkessinger]

24. From an article in the Guardian from April 2016 . . .

"There are three ways to become a superdelegate. The first is to be elected to public office as a Democratic governor, senator or congressman. The second is to become one of 438 members of the Democratic National Committee as a loyal party activist or powerbroker. The third and most difficult is to become a superdelegate for life by having served as president, vice-president, DNC chair or Democratic leader in either chamber of the US Congress." (See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/19/democratic-party-superdelegates-history-rules-changes ),

Gephardt was a Congressman for Missouri from 1977 to 2005. He served as House Majority Leader from 1989 to 1995 and Minority Leader from 1995 to 2003.

[Voltaire2]

5. No problem here. Nothing wrong. No need for

fundamental reform.

Gephardt and the rest of the old guard need to get out of the way.

[Dustlawyer]

7. We need to take advantage of our political awakening under the Trump era and not mess

this opportunity up! The biggest threat to single Payer, the fight against Climate Change, immigration, public education... is the money in our politics. Thanks to SCOTUS and the Donor Class we cannot have the things that would benefit the majority of Americans because they make sure the money goes and stays with TPTB!

We need new blood not beholden to wealthy Donors. This system has taken away our Representative Democracy to the point that our Representatives represent Donors and not We the People!

[rainy]

30. Well said and exactly to the point!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. Yet I am told here daily --

that I, as a Liberal, must accept this continued corporatization of the Democratic Party. Sorry, it's just not working for me.

[pirateshipdude]

10. Can you explain what the "corporatization of the Democratic Party" because I do not know

specifically what you are saying. So, I do not know that I agree.

[murielm99]

11. This is a rhetorical expression from the far left,

the purity wing of the party. I think they each have their own definition.

[Scruffy1]

19. The main reason I rarely post.

This kind of stuff has been normalized to the point being accepted by the majority of Part. You'll hear all about McGovern from 1972, who was certainly no leftist. He simply ran against an incumbant and was outspent 9 to 1. Also the whole media was in on it. because they wanted the end of the anti monopoly rules among other things. In reality the super delegates have always gone with the winner of the most votes, so I don't think it's had much effect. It has got to the point that anybody for universal healthcare is branded a "leftist" even though it's been a part of the platform sine 1948. Someday, the party has to come back to life with real programs rather than "We don't Suck as Much".

[markpkessinger]

25. Thank you for correcting that bit of historical misinformation!

Last edited Tue Jul 4, 2017, 07:33 AM - Edit history (1)

The historical revisionism around here of late is just sickening.

The popular wisdom is that superdelegates were instituted after the combination of McGovern's loss and the loss by Carter eight years later of his reelection bid 'proved' that the selection process as it then existed was flawed, and so, in 1982, the Hunt Commission came up with the idea of superdelegates, created to "prevent another McGovern."

But I think to really understand it, you need to go back to the disastrous 1968 convention. In 1968 and previous conventions, the process of selecting a nominee was totally undemocratic: party bosses dictated who the nominee would be. The result of this, in 1968, was that Hubert Humphrey -- who hadn't run in a single primary -- was selected over Eugene McCarthy, who had won more primaries than any of the other candidates. This caused a major rift in the party, and a significant number of Democrats called for reforms to make the process more democratic and responsive to the grassroots. To that end, the McGovern-Fraser Commission was set up to come up with the needed reforms. And as a result, McGovern won the nomination.

Throughout the '70s, party heavyweights were unhappy at the grassroots incursion on their kingmaking turf, and were eager to find a way to reassert control of the nominating process. And so, after Carter's loss in 1980, they simplistically and opportunistically blamed the reforms instituted by the McGovern-Fraser Commission for both the McGovern and Carter losses. And so they formed the Hunt Commission, which came up with a way to reserve the appearance of a democratic process while ensuring the established power structure within the party would be able to maintain control, leaving us with the same moribund platform and the same brilliant-but-for-some-reason-failing campaign strategy.

Also, I question whether ANY Democrat could have won in 1972, when Nixon was still at the height of his popular approval. Even if some of them disagreed with his handling of the war in Vietnam, most of the country still regarded LBJ as having been responsible for escalating it. So it's not like they had any particular reason to trust Democrats over Republicans on that score. Add to that the fact that millions of voters, from both parties, had found the chaos and violence of the previous decade to be profoundly unsettling, and so when a guy like Nixon came along with his promises of restoring "law and order," it should be no surprise that a lot of people fell for it.

[rainy]

31. Me neither!

[murielm99]

9. The Intercept? Seriously?

Why is this propaganda being used as a source on DU?

[joeybee12]

27. Posts like the OP should be automatically deleted when using the INtercept IMO

[Vinca]

12. And that is why I am opposed to "superdelegates."

[murielm99]

13. If we don't have super delegates,

we end up with candidates like McGovern, who get beaten in a landslide. We need our party leaders to be involved. We need closed primaries, and an end to caucuses. Anything else is an invitation to weaken our party from within.

The repiggies wish they had super delegates. They would not have been stuck with 45 as their nominee if they had had them. And don't kid yourself: he will destroy their party.

I find it naive in the extreme to think that we should do away with super delegates. These are people who have earned their leadership roles. And, as I have stated in another post, I find the source of this story extremely dubious.

[Vinca]

16. The whole idea of superdelegates is undemocratic. In the last election, for example, there were

cases when the superdelegates negated the elected delegates even before a vote was cast. If the party leaders are going to pick the candidate, we should be honest about it. Don't waste my time voting in a primary if it's not going to count. The people should have who they prefer whether they go on to lose in a landslide or not.

[murielm99]

18. If you want to refight the primary,

go ahead. My opinion is outside of the groupthink in this thread, so I might get a hide.

[Vinca]

28. I don't care about the last primary. I'm concerned about the next primary.

[NYResister]

23. The voters chose our candidate

Not the super delegates.

The candidate who was the nominee, was the one who was preferred, and chosen by the voters.

[delisen]

32. Agree in general but think caucuses should be eliminated as undemocratic

The superdelegates serve as a check and balance but I could see a need for some reform in that area also.

[George II]

14. Isn't the Intercept the work of Glenn Greenwald who has hated Democrats for years?

[murielm99]

17. Yes. That's his.

They leaked the Snowden stuff, too.

[Igel]

15. Apparently no true Democrat can disagree.

Sadly, the party gets to define itself--not exactly always in a clearly transparent and democratic manner, but in something that's passes for representation.

Is Gephardt still a super delegate? Those are defined by role, and his role may no longer be listed. He certainly was one. He was a party leader. Leaders don't just lead when they're following a particular sub population.

[OilemFirchen]

20. Not gonna give billionaire looneytarian Omidyar the click.

Is there anywhere in this "article" where Gephardt "laughs off (the) prospect of single payer" as opposed to stating the obvious “there is no way you could pass single payer in any intermediate future"?

TIA

[kacekwl]

29. You obviously agree with Gephardt

which in itself for a democratic is sad.

[OilemFirchen]

33. I'm not laughing it off.

Accordingly, I don't know if I agree with him or not.

[yurbud]

21. this is how Democrats could continue to lose

[benld74]

22. Gephardt like his lobbyist $$$ me thinks

[joeybee12]

26. Unrecced for source nt