No, it's not about "courage".. Many More People just like a Different Health Coverage

[Cha]

than yours.

Link to tweet

[mcar]

1. This!

[Cha]

7. Mahalo, mcar! BS is wrong.

[melman]

2. Krystal Ball

Now there is a quality journalist. And Bernie is 100% correct of course.



Thanks for this informative post!

[Kurt V.]

3. the time for shallow politics needs to end. its all about courage. piketty has a new book out in

2020 that addresses this. Can't wait! no offense to kamala whatsoever . its the system

[HerbChestnut]

4. If by "different" you mean inadequate, but with choices(!), then sure.

Where private insurance forces you to choose between actual coverage vs. deductibles, premiums, and copayments, Medicare for All would cover just about any reasonable healthcare service and likely cost less with no copayments or deductibles.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text

[Cha]

6. No.. don't try to put words in my mouth.

[area51]

8. +1

The doctors' group PNHP on a public option

PNHP Policy details on single-payer/Medicare for All.

PNHP M4A FAQs

[melman]

11. Yes

I think you got it. Since the OP won't say what they meant we can only assume it's that.

[frazzled]

27. I don't think you understand Medicare

It has copays and deductibles. As well as premiums.

Medicare Part A (hospitalization) has a deductible of $1,365, and then coinsurance payments thereafter (though not usually for the first 30 days).

For Part B (doctor visits and services) there is a deductible and then a copay of 20% of the Medicare amount charged. There is also a monthly premium of $144.30 (beginning this fall). Plus you will need to buy a prescription plan, with premiums and copays.

We have a private insurance plan through my spouse’s job (teacher in a college). The premium, deducted from his paycheck, is around $400 per month (the same , or less than it would cost us for Medicare Part B plus prescription plan, not to mention supplemental insurance.). Because we chose the an HMO plan, 100% of hospitalization is covered, and flat $40 copay for specialist visits. No deductibles at all.

Some people have good employer insurance, and don’t want to give it up. That needs to be understood. Some people are stuck with crappy insurance and would find a Medicare plan preferable. But don’t generalize, and do get the facts straight.

[HerbChestnut]

28. Medicare payments would see fundamental changes under Medicare for All

Text of the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text

[tymorial]

31. If that bill passes committee I'll eat my hat

I don't know who came up with Medicare for all but it's a stupid description for universal healthcare. The entire reason supplementary Healthcare exists is because Medicare on its own isn't sufficient. And yeah I know the plans are to overhaul the Medicare system but if you need an overhaul then why are we calling it medicare-for-all

[HerbChestnut]

34. It's called Medicare for All because Medicare is a familiar name

At it's core, M4A is a single-payer healthcare system. You could attach any name to it really, but Medicare is a known commodity in the U.S. Unfortunately, a large part of being a politician is marketing yourself and your policies to the public. It's the same reason Pete Buttigieg uses the term "Medicare for All Who Want It." Again, he's just using familiar terminology.

[radical noodle]

76. Perhaps he means REAL Medicare?

It is annoying AF to keep hearing Medicare for all, when it isn't Medicare at all.

[HerbChestnut]

97. Maybe to you.

But people are generally more comfortable with things they are already familiar with, especially when it involves massive changes.

[ehrnst]

102. You mean like "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?"

especially when it involves massive changes.

What do you believe the 'massive changes' will be?

[HerbChestnut]

104. Medicare for All is a national health insurance program.

People will (likely) no longer require private health insurance, and so they won't be paying premiums, deductibles, or copayments to a private company. Instead, they'll see an increase in taxes that will almost certainly be less than what they were paying for private insurance before. In return, everyone will receive comprehensive healthcare benefits. That's a massive change.

[ehrnst]

105. Again... Making promises that aren't kept can backfire to the point of destroying credibility

on the part of those who make them.

BTW - Medicare has premiums and deductibles, doesn't cover Rx or Dental or glasses.



https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_issue_brief_2017_may_schoen_medicare_cost_burden_ib_v2.pdf


So the "Medicare for All" that Sanders is promising isn't really "Medicare" at all. It's more like a platinum private plan that he claims will cost less. Promises of a politician don't mean more than that of actual health care analysts.

When it doesn't cover all those things, then the GOP can use it like they did "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" to undermine support for the ACA, and get support for opposing medicaid expansion in their state, and "repeal and replace."

[HerbChestnut]

110. I have been defending Medicare for All in multiple threads, including this one.

There are links to sources, including 3rd parties and the bill itself, that explain what M4A is and what it aims to accomplish. Medicare, as it currently exists, would see fundamental changes in payment structure, benefits, and cost. Read. The. Bill.

[ehrnst]

111. I. Read. The. Bill.

I don't think you have.

Read. The. Links. I. Provided.

[HerbChestnut]

112. Clearly you either didn't read it, or you're being intentionally misleading.

Medicare for All would look nothing like Medicare as it currently exists today. You cannot compare the two. The Medicare for All bill makes this perfectly clear.

[ehrnst]

113. If you read my posts, you would know that I don't think it looks AT ALL like Medicare does.

Which is one of my main problems with the terminology "Medicare for All," because that can be used against the credibility of those promoting it..... like "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" was....

Is that clearer?

Clearly you either didn't read it, or you're being intentionally misleading.

Projection?




Perhaps you'd be better informed if you learned more about the other health reform proposals on the table, placed side by side:

https://www.kff.org/interactive/compare-medicare-for-all-public-plan-proposals/

[radical noodle]

118. WTF

Why call it Medicare for all if it's nothing like Medicare? That's my first problem with it.

[HerbChestnut]

122. In this case, it's being used as a marketing term.

People are familiar with the word "Medicare" so "Medicare for All" sounds less imposing than something new.

[radical noodle]

123. So we're lying to people?

Getting them to believe it's going to be Medicare when it isn't anything like Medicare is marketing = lying to folks.

[HerbChestnut]

124. It's just the name of the bill, and the bill is publicly available for people to read.

Edit: I should also add that Medicare is a form of single-payer, albeit not as comprehensive as M4A.

[radical noodle]

125. Right after they read the Mueller report, right?

Not gonna happen. Somehow weaving people into real Medicare might be reasonably workable. M4A, not so much.

[ehrnst]

138. Well, truth in advertising would indicate otherwise.

And, judging from your posts about the bill, I think you skimmed the it, and didn't understand much of it.

Bills are written for the use of lawmakers and lawyers, not citizens. They require crossreferences to other laws or bills that are affected and have to use legalese and very specific policy terminology.

Unless you have a background in health policy, or read an explainer, you don't fully understand what's really in that bill. You are going on faith in a politician who is running for office.

I know that Senator Sanders doesn't consult the leading non-partisan, self-funded health policy analyst think tanks, in fact he's been hostile to one that crunched the numbers in his bill. Now it's gotten to the point where his supporter call any dissent from Sanders' dogma on M4A, no matter how independent and expert, "bunk." He even gives credibility to a conservative think tank that he mistakenly thought validated some of his numbers....

I should also add that Medicare is a form of single-payer, albeit not as comprehensive as M4A.

Why do you think that Medicare isn't a comprehensive as M4A?

[Cha]

132. Yeah, I don't like anything about it.

rad

[ehrnst]

139. Sort of like naming a bill that restricts marriage "The Defense of Marriage Act." (nt)

[Cha]

147. Yes.. Gas Lighting.

[LanternWaste]

126. I find it damned ironic you accuse others of not understanding the bill

You do realize that not accepting your own interpretation of what could potentially happen or not happen does not mean we've failed to read the bill, right?

Good jesus...

[ehrnst]

140. I've heard that kind of "If you don't agree with me lockstep, you are wrong,

no matter what the topic, no matter what the facts are" often from particular politicians and their supporters.

"You are with me 100% or you are the enemy - ignorant at best, corrupt at worst."

On the right and the left.

[Cha]

149. Thank you!

[radical noodle]

117. But obviously we're NOT familiar with it at all

since it isn't Medicare.

[ehrnst]

94. But when you create false expectations...

I can come back even harder.

Remember:

"If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage."

[namahage]

130. Rather like calling oneself a "Democratic Socialist"? n/t

[wasupaloopa]

52. another Bernie fairytale.

Just because Bernie writes something it does not mean there will be a law passed.

Bernie has introduced hundreds of bills. No laws yet.

[comradebillyboy]

72. Look at all the important legislation Bernie has passed.

What, you can't find any. I'm shocked.

[radical noodle]

119. LMAO!

[Cha]

145. Thank you.

[riverine]

5. At least Bernie admits he wants to take on the whole "health care" industry

and not just insurers (whose profits are a tiny part of the $3.5 trillion we pay each year.

Scary, isn't it?

[HerbChestnut]

9. Considering Medicare for All is a national health insurance program...

I'd say your fears are unfounded.

[George II]

12. When did "Medicare for All" become a national health insurance program?

[HerbChestnut]

14. That's literally what it is.

Text of the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text

[NYMinute]

15. That bill is propaganda - it won't even pass a committee. nt

[HerbChestnut]

17. LOL

k.

[ehrnst]

115. LOL

K.

[ehrnst]

116. Yes, there's that hurdle. (nt)

[George II]

22. It literally is a proposed "national health insurance program", it hasn't even been reviewed....

...in any Senate committees yet. It certainly isn't a program yet, and my money is on it never becoming so.

[HerbChestnut]

26. Well Republicans control the Senate

If you think ANY marquee Democratic legislation is getting through a Senate controlled by Mitch McConnell I've got some land in Greenland I'd like to sell you. Might even be beachfront property in 100 years!

[Demsrule86]

57. There are not enough Democrats in the House who support this bill right now.

[ehrnst]

114. A public option on the ACA didn't get through a Democratic House and Senate.

So there's that.

[riverine]

20. When will Bernie obtain the courage to price it in taxes paid?

Since we know our per capita health costs are $10,800 and about half the country pays Medicare payroll taxes that makes the premium cost over $21,000 per worker.

That is why no one will price it out on a per worker basis.

Right now Medicare tax is 1.45% of pay. (2.9% with the employer side)

[HerbChestnut]

23. Estimates costs of Medicare for All vs our current system:

Medicare for All: $3.2 trillion/year
Current System: $3.5 trillion/year

Sources: Too many to count.

[riverine]

25. I'll give you that.

That is still over $20,000 per worker.

Remember, only workers pay for Medicare. Even the employer match.

[HerbChestnut]

30. Medicare funding will change under Medicare for All

Granted there isn't a funding mechanism in the bill (I know, I know), proponents of M4A, including the Sanders campaign, have gone on record saying that funding will be progressive in nature (i.e. the wealthier pay more into the system). Such a system will save the majority of families thousands per year in healthcare costs.

[riverine]

37. Thanks for being honest.

Most MFA proponents say "MFA will cover everything and will be cheaper than we pay now!"

Which is flat out untrue.

Employers pay ZERO now since the match is part of the employee compensation package.

The cost is over $20,000 per worker.

[Demsrule86]

58. Right and little by little the pugs will make it suck every time they get in office...

I am not for MFA and I believe running on it will cost us the election.

[HerbChestnut]

95. Sure, and you could say that about any bill the Dems pass.

Look what the Republicans have done to the ACA, for example.

[ehrnst]

98. If SCOTUS in 2012 upheld that states could not be made to participate in medicaid expansion

What do you think this court - with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh - would rule when Red States sue to opt out of various aspects of M4A - which would be in effect expanding Medicaid/medicare to all?

If you think they won't do worse to M4A, you don't know your history.

[HerbChestnut]

99. Again, you could use that argument against any bill.

We'll fight that fight if/when we get there.

[ehrnst]

101. That's a false equivalency...

All bills can be opposed by the GOP, but that doesn't make all health care reform bills equally valid or invalid, and doesn't give an excuse for presenting a bill that hasn't actually been thoroughly thought out, and run by actual policy experts to crunch the numbers.

That's like saying, "Well it's my opinion and I'm entitled to my opinion" in response to someoene bringing up facts that refute an opinion. As though it's all just opinion, and therefore all opinions are equally valid.

Or the GOP promising that "defunding Planned Parenthood" will "eliminate abortions," and if we use the money that we give Planned Parenthood to pay for adoptions, then the foster homes will empty out." Even GOP politicians who know better have to say that they oppose funding Planned Parenthood, because it's now dogma, no matter how fallacious.

[Voltaire2]

143. remember only workers pay for employer health insurance, even the employer 'match'.

You can't have it both ways.

[wasupaloopa]

53. You could write a bill that saves more money. It will

not be passed as Bernie’s M4A won’t become the law.

Anything you say about it is not really fact. It is wishful thinking.

[ehrnst]

83. Not that simple. Anyone who tells you it is

is running for office or is selling something.

But do share a few of those sources, if there are so many.

[HerbChestnut]

96. Here's an article that includes a bunch.

FYI, the current version of Medicare for All is more comprehensive than what Bernie was running on in 2016, which is why the Sanders 2016 estimate is so low compared to other estimates.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost

[ehrnst]

100. Nope - that stat is not in there:

Your stats don't indicate what $ figures represent...

Maybe you didn't get to this part of the article:

Importantly, these totals represent the increased cost to the federal government, not the change of total national health expenditures. National health expenditures would likely change by no more than a few trillion dollars over decade. The direction of that change is unclear and would depending on the whether the increased cost of expanding coverage (by making health insurance more generous and offering it to more people) is larger or smaller than the amount saved from lower provider payments, drug payments, and administrative spending.

The totals also do not represent debt impact, which would depend not only on the cost to the federal government but also on any funds the government might choose to raise through premiums, taxes, or both. For example, Senator Sanders's campaign plan included roughly $11 trillion of tax increases, which could fund more than one-third of Medicare for All.

While any new revenue would in part be replacing current premiums, identifying pay-fors still remains a challenge. Enacting this type of Medicare for All would mean increasing federal spending by about 60 percent (excluding interest), and financing a $30 trillion program would require the equivalent of tripling payroll taxes or more than doubling all other taxes.

Supporters of Medicare for All should work to identify new revenue, premiums, and/or spending cuts to finance new federal costs or else scale back their proposal if they are unable to identify sufficient funding.

And an Urban Institute analysis found that the 2016 Sanders plan would cost more and disrupt health care delivery more than it stated if implemented in eight years, and Sanders' new plan promises to deliver it in TWO years....

[HerbChestnut]

103. It's a federally funded program, of course the cost would go to the federal government.

For perspective, our current healthcare system costs about $10,800 per capita, or $35 trillion over ten years. Most of those estimates are lower, which means Medicare for All would save the country money.

Arguments against the 2016 Sanders plan are bunk. There's a new bill out. Full text below.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text

(Edit: Something happened on the congress.gov site so the text of the bill is no longer available. There's other threads on DU where I've copied sections of it and posted them, so I'm not sure what's going on with the .gov site)

[ehrnst]

106. "Arguments against the 2016 Sanders plan are bunk."

Because there are "no possible drawbacks or faults" in the 2016 plan?

Because you say so?

Why should I believe you or a politician running for office over a non-partisan, independent health policy think tank? Any candidate that tells you science and expertise that don't support their campaign agenda are "bunk" needs a second look.



Countries smaller than ours use state/province level administration of their Universal Health Care, including Canada, because it's not feasible or efficient to do it at the federal level. Most use employer-provided administration to deliver UHC to those who are employed.

Germany has what's called a universal multi-payer health care system. It encompasses both statutory health insurance for people who earn less than a certain salary, as well as private health insurance for those who earn more and choose to purchase their own.

Employers and their employees pay for most of the health care system in Germany through premiums. All workers contribute about 7.5 percent of their salary into a public health insurance pool. Employers match that 7.5 percent contribution.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/germany-s-health-care-system-model-u-s-n1024491

The first thing to know about the Canadian health care system is that there is no Canadian health care system! That is to say, health care in Canada is primarily funded and administered by each province and territory. There are 13 in total in Canada. This ensures that regional concerns can be prioritized.

https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/canadian-health-care.php

Health care in Australia is delivered, operated and funded by the Australian Government and state and territory governments, as well as by the private sector and not-for-profit organisations. Governments fund the majority of spending (67%) through Medicare and other programs. Individuals contribute more than half of the non-government funding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia

You clearly don't know much about health care policy, but seem quite happy to lecture people on it.

Just as many who are RW are quite happy to lecture anyone that Planned Parenthood actually promotes abortion as a business model, and they promote early sexual activity - just by existing - so they are reason so many young women have unprotected sex and therefore have abortions. So there would be less sexual activity, and fewer pregnancies if we get rid of Planned Parenthood. And the money that taxpayers give to Planned Parenthood would be more than enough to cover the cost of adopting babies. Looks great on paper, but doesn't actually take into account the realities - both economic and behavioral - that health policy experts do.

[ehrnst]

108. I am more concerned about the courage to admit when you aren't an expert on something

so you go to and LISTEN to actual, non-partisan health policy experts instead of "yes sir" staffers and handpicked surrogates.

Or the courage to admit when they have something to learn, instead of accusing anyone who disagrees with them as being "corrupt."

That's the courage I'm interested in seeing.

[NYMinute]

18. He is in the "seize" everything in sight mode. nt

[George II]

40. The profit margin of the health care insurance industry is between 3-5%. That's a fraction...

...of the margins most businesses operate on, including the corner grocery store.

[Thekaspervote]

51. 3% is also the working margin for Medicare

[George II]

55. Correct. People like talking about how the insurance companies are raking in billions, but....

....they can never really document it.

Plus, we're told we have to back a plan that we're told is "modeled after the existing Medicare" and that private insurance companies will be banned, a plan that doesn't even pay 100% of medical costs and also relies on private insurance for full administration.

It's a bunch of buzz words in an attempt to gain favor from those who don't really research it.

[George II]

10. Perhaps some should review Harris' career as Attorney General of our largest state....

...before they question her lack of "courage". Or even some of her grilling of trump appointees and other witnesses in Senate Judiciary Committee hearings?

[Cha]

16. Exactly, George.. BS doesn't have to get

all insulting to Harris to sell his m4a.

[Eliot Rosewater]

29. I am a UHC person but for me it is all about timing, we have a traitor, a fascist in the WH and

senate GOP.

We must remove them, are 51% of the VOTERS willing to risk their existing coverage for what I think is the RIGHT thing to do?

I want to see polling on this before I commit , either way, I want to save the LIFE first, then fix the broken bones.

[melman]

35. Interesting turnaround

Very interesting.


But I'm sure most reading can remember all the Harris bashing after the first debate and which posters were doing it.

[roody]

38. She declined to prosecute Mnuchin and OneWest Bank.

She also received two campaign donations from him. Courage? Maybe.

[namahage]

43. She voted to confirm him? Really?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Kamala-Harris-mortgage-meltdown-record-under-13730708.php

Mnuchin was chief executive of OneWest from 2009 to August 2015, when it was sold to CIT Group...Harris voted against his confirmation.

Why the need to advance something so easily proven false?

[George II]

44. You may want to double check that. She voted against his confirmation. She voted to advance....

....his nomination to the floor of the Senate, the committee vote was 14-0.

[roody]

45. You are right. I shall edit.

[George II]

46. Thanks......

[NYMinute]

13. It is about ego and fuzzy math -- not about courage at all. nt

[saidsimplesimon]

19. "Not everyone is prepared to do that."

Never start a fight you can't win belongs in the same category.

I advocate for a National health care system with the power to negotiate with providers. It's not realistic in my life time to expect greedy corporate interests to share in their good economic fortune gained on the backs of the American worker.

[betsuni]

21. This made me see a vision of windmills and an old guy on a horse taking them on.

[Cha]

24. lol.. Definitely!

[betsuni]

88. This is insulting to people working in the health care industry.

They aren't an enemy.

[Cha]

91. Right.. it's insulting to

a lot of people.

[SMC22307]

32. Why in the world would she co-sponsor it if she wasn't comfortable?

And if she caved to pressure, maybe she's not as tough as many think she is.

[namahage]

33. It is easy to talk tough

When one knows they will never have to follow through.

This is all too frequently mistaken for “courage.”

[Cha]

42. Right, namahage.. tough talker.

[roody]

36. Yes, I totally prefer no vision, dental, or

audio insurance. That stuff is for the well-off.

[JoeOtterbein]

39. It's a shame we always settle for second best. The Repubs get a giant tax break and then...

...we can't even have a public option, let alone M4A.

We need universal healthcare. Lives are depending on it. Many of us have been waiting since Clinton and have little time left.

[ehrnst]

109. Well, you should tell that to Senator Sanders. He's promising a platinum plan

at bargain basement prices.

The Sanders bill, for example, would change Medicare to cover vision, dental, and prescription drugs, as well as long-term care services as nursing homes.

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/medicare-for-all-explained-single-payer-health-care-sanders-jayapal

[roody]

128. Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm label.

[ehrnst]

142. ....

From the consumer perspective, a sweeping overhaul poses a risk. Despite Medicare's popularity with its beneficiaries, the majority of Americans express satisfaction with their health care, and many are nervous about giving up private options. Also, many analysts are worried that a generous "Medicare-for-all" plan that promises everything would break the bank if it didn't include copayments from patients.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/04/11/711902886/as-sanders-calls-for-medicare-for-all-a-twist-on-that-plan-gains-traction

[Cha]

41. JUST IN: On top of Senator Sanders suggesting today that Kamala lacks "courage," one of his closest

Link to tweet

RoseAnne just can't help herself.. all she has are insults.

[betsuni]

63. Guaranteed they believe all the CTs about Harris.

[Cha]

70. Of course, with insults like these.

Mahalo, betsuni

[roody]

144. Only the facts are necessary to know that

Harris is not a progressive.

[betsuni]

146. In Opposite World.

[namahage]

69. No, she has good things to say sometimes.

“He’s a businessman, he has an international perspective — and his wife comes from a country where they have single payer,’’ said DeMoro, who also is an AFL-CIO national vice president and executive board member. “I think that Donald Trump is not about either party; he’s about something very different. He’s the one who can actually rise above this and do what’s right, and he knows as a businessman, it’s the most cost effective,’’ she said.
...
“He’s not like these progressive yo-yos who pop off while people are dying,’’ she said.

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2017/01/political-powerful-nurses-union-head-im-counting-on-trump-for-real-health-care-reform-108511

[Tiggeroshii]

47. Do we ahve the courage to implement a plan that the

healthcare industry doesn't like, or don't we? It is absolutely about courage.

[Cha]

49. No it isn't.. More People Prefer Biden's Plan..

Link to tweet

[Thekaspervote]

50. Indeed they do Cha... thx so much for posting!

[Cha]

56. Thank you, Thekaspervote!

[ehrnst]

107. Well, if a politician running for office says it's easy if we elect them...

Then it MUST be...

[Tiggeroshii]

135. Except he doesnt. He does however say we need to try. Instead

Of cop out with excuaes that it somehow not possible.

[ehrnst]

136. Yes, he does - he went from "I'll do it in 4 years" down to 2 years

because it's a campaign season. He's promising more than his rivals, whether or not it's actually doable.

And we already tried - the public OPTION didn't even pass with a Dem House, POTUS and Senate.

In 2012 SCOTUS ruled that states didn't have to participate in Medicaid expansion. How do you think a 2020 SCOTUS - with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh - will rule about states having to expand Medicaid to everyone?

[Voltaire2]

141. If they don't like it we must support their concerns.

After all, they have spent hundreds of millions over the years to express their deep concern over any change that might hinder their efforts to extract rent from the population. We would not want all that money to go to waste.

[Thekaspervote]

48. It is rubbish to call for M4A when we already have a law that can be strengthened and cover

97+% of Americans. We have to start somewhere, the ACA no doubt is the best way to proceed

I see so many here talking like Sanders is going make it all be free...oh sure!! Nothing is free.

And it’s even more rubbish for Sanders to say KamalaHarris isn’t courageous

[wasupaloopa]

54. King Bernie will ride in on his white horse and slay

all insurance companies, pharma companies and medical providers and replace all with free healthcare for all.

If you don’t believe in Bernie’s fantasy you are not courageous.

The truth is Bernie would not live long enough to see that happen.

[Thekaspervote]

60. Indeed

[emmaverybo]

79. This. NT

[comradebillyboy]

74. But it's not perfect...

[betsuni]

78. +1

[radical noodle]

120. Agree... we should improve the ACA

[Scurrilous]

61. K&R

[ooky]

62. Also, some of us just want to win before we take the next step.

MFA is a political loser when the question is posed about how people would feel about losing their present employer based insurance. They aren't comfortable with giving that up without an alternative they already have confidence in. MFA is not developed enough to be that alternative. Joe Biden's plan to include developing a public option is a bridge to achieving that. As more and more people opt for the public option, and like it, even more will gravitate to it on their own timetables. Its a step toward our ultimate objective for everyone to have affordable access to health care.

[Cha]

64. Exactly ooky! We have our Priorites and

Eyes on the Prize.

More People Prefer Biden's Plan.. therefore more people will Vote for that.

Link to tweet

[ooky]

65. This is a great ad I hope he keeps running it often.

Thanks for posting it again Cha.

[Maru Kitteh]

121. Also, some of us just want to win before the whole nation takes a dirt nap.

[Vegas Roller]

66. Coming up with bills that will never ever pass is not courage

It is called pandering to special interests

[myohmy2]

68. I think you're wrong...

...Bernie has the fortitude to replicate trump's ball-busting tactics and techniques...

...what other candidate has?

...imagine a Lefty trump, without all the hate, focused solely on the 99% kicking serious corporate ass...within months Bernie will have the wayward Dems in line and a good portion of the pukes...

...it'll take just as much legislative effort to patch this broken healthcare system as it would be to replace it...

...people will give up the garbage they have if you show them something better...

...I'm convinced...

[comradebillyboy]

75. Bernie's lack of accomplishmen as a legislator

speaks for itself. I have no faith at all in his ability to deliver on his promises. Show me where I am wrong.

[frazzled]

81. You said it!

Bernie IS the lefty Trump, in every way! Whether promising a to build wall that will never be built or promising to build a utopian national health insurance plan that will never materialize. It’ll be so great, you’ll never believe it! And both have their bogey men: immigrants who are taking our jobs and murdering or raping us or health insurers who are robbing and killing us. (I gave an example of a private employer-based insurance that saved my spouses life and paid every red cent of his high tech cancer treatment, but whatever: it’s eeeevil!). And both flip around facts and figures that are unsubstantiated.

Where you’re wrong is on the “without the hate” business: Bernie is filled with rancor: for the Democratic Party, which he has openly excoriated on hundreds of occasions; for the media, whom he claims is ignoring or mistreating him; for the mythical “healthcare system” that is destroying us. He’s always wagging his finger, and he’s furious when people don’t see how right he is. It is his anger that turns so many off.

Look, Bernie is so beholden to an ideology he has been clinging to for 50 years, he can’t see the fine points of reality. Example: he was so enamored with the VA system as a model for the perfect health care delivery system that when charged with overseeing it, he failed to see some deep flaws that were harming veterans in very real ways.

Look, I know I won’t convince you of anything, but I just want you to know that there are many out there who don’t want to see a president who is the left version of Trump, who clings to ideology over facts, who is not nuanced or flexible in thinking, and who relies on the politics of grievance. And it’s not because they don’t have “courage.” You need to know that.

[Cha]

82. Thank you.. well said!

[ehrnst]

92. What Democratic candidates...

....do you think are going to "kiss corporate ass?"

Good luck...

he's ready and willing to aggressively deal with uncontrolled corporate power...

....Well, so am I, but I'm not running for POTUS, am I? People expect to see some kind of a track record of this, especially from a career politician with decades on the Hill. Yelling and shaking one's finger is one thing, actually doing something about it is another thing entirely.


...in the meantime, check out Liz Warren...

https://elizabethwarren.com/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/is-elizabeth-warren-an-effective-senator/449349/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/03/trump-cfpb-elizabeth-warren-215997

[emmaverybo]

129. Beautifully said. NT

[ehrnst]

93. I think you're wrong...

Last edited Wed Aug 28, 2019, 10:16 AM - Edit history (1)

...Bernie has the fortitude to replicate trump's ball-busting tactics and techniques...

When has he shown this?

...what other candidate has?

Elizabeth Warren.

...imagine a Lefty trump, without all the hate, focused solely on the 99% kicking serious corporate ass...within months Bernie will have the wayward Dems in line and a good portion of the pukes...

"Lefty Trump" - you really want to go there? Really?

...it'll take just as much legislative effort to patch this broken healthcare system as it would be to replace it...

Actually, no. It will cost more, and take more legislative effort to upend the current baked in system. Anyone who tells you otherwise is running for office or selling something.

...people will give up the garbage they have if you show them something better...

Good luck showing them it's better... of course if you make all kinds of promises about it, I guess that counts, right? I remember all those 'repeal and replace" promises that the GOP made, too.

[myohmy2]

67. Bernie...

...said it best; they spend billions of dollars to control this shitty healthcare system...and not everyone is prepared to take them on...

...I'd say most are NOT prepared to take them on...no, just about all are NOT prepared to really take them on...

...do you know what we're going to get?...if Bernie isn't swept into a position of real power as President, we're just going to get more of the same...they've had decades to fix or replace this shitty healthcare system...and, more of the same...they get corporate contributions and we get, more of the same...

...if Bernie isn't elected President, does anyone truly believe anything will really change with this healthcare system?

…fat fucking chance; without Bernie, you'll get, more of the same...the past is prologue...but hey, maybe people want more of the same...

...I don't care...I've got Medicare For Geezers...

...it's better than shitty corporate insurance and much better than nothing...

[ehrnst]

86. "Better than nothing." You say that as if Bernie's plan is the only health care reform proposal

There are NINE other proposals:

https://www.kff.org/interactive/compare-medicare-for-all-public-plan-proposals/

[myohmy2]

89. how many more...

...1% corporate-controlled election cycles will we need before we see real universal healthcare?

...good luck...

[ehrnst]

90. Going to avoid....

Last edited Wed Aug 28, 2019, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)

...actually answering?

...No surprise...

.....It would be awkward, yes?



About Unions.... what do you make of this?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/former-bernie-sanders-staffer-alleges-retaliation-for-union-activities.html

[comradebillyboy]

71. One needn't be courageous to reject a fantasy...

[Cha]

73. One would be smart!

BS opened himself up for this.. implying Harris wasn't "courageous".. gratuitous insult, imo.

[WA-03 Democrat]

77. Thanks Cha for the post!

Go Joe Go!

[Cha]

80. You're Welcome, WA-03!

Thank you!

[ehrnst]

84. That's a passive way to call a female rival candidate "fearful."

Along with sending a female surrogate out to tweet it.

This is similar to when Nina Turner went out in front of a mostly white audience to slam other WOC falsely for "booing him for marching on Washington.

[betsuni]

85. +1

[Cha]

131. Yeah, it's been noticed.

Thanks, ehrnst

[guillaumeb]

127. The US health care system is profit oriented.

Providing actual health care is secondary.

Most other advanced countries have already understood this and responded appropriately to put health and people before profits.

Plus the health care industry contributes much money to the politicians.

[Bettie]

133. Here's my thing

I don't want an insurance company deciding what care I can get. I don't want to have to decide whether I can go to the doctor or if I have to wait until I've got more in savings for the bill that will come next.

I don't want people to die because they can't afford insulin or other medications.

I don't want a bunch of vultures profiting from denying care to people in order to make some other vultures exponentially richer every year.

I want a not-for-profit single payer system.

I know we'll never have it, since a whole lot of people apparently adore their insurance companies and love paying massive premiums for the dubious privilege of having sub-standard care.

Our system kills people. It is designed to do that.

[Cha]

134. KICK for Biden's Plan that's the most

Popular!

[Voltaire2]

137. yeah especially sick people who can't stop working because

their job is their families access to health care.

They love them their employer based health insurance.

[Humanist_Activist]

148. Why do posters here reject the realities of the working poor?

Seriously, we don't have choice when it comes to health insurance. Why is this myth still propagated?

Example, me, at my older full time job, I have health insurance, shitty insurance that is good for getting checkups, but that's about it. Do you think I chose this insurance? The problem is I've been there 10 years and have hit the earnings ceiling for my position, and there's little prospect for advancement.

So let's move on, but wait, that would mean losing my health insurance entirely for a least a part of the time, and trying to get insurance through the exchange or just do without for a few months. If I had a chronic health condition, I would be trapped at that job indefinitely.

I don't have a chronic health condition, so I decided to take a chance, and accepted a promotion at my part time job, which moved me to full time, and hence I qualify for benefits there. Have to wait to health insurance, something like a month, so at the moment, I'm working 2 full time jobs while trying not to have a nervous break down. The health insurance was only a secondary concern for me, its the fact that after my last merit raise at my older job(which was the maximum I could have gotten), I haven't had a raise in nearly 2 years. That's too long.