When Elizabeth Warren ducked and dodged on Medicare for All

[JoeOtterbein]

(The article was written by this DU poster's daughter)

[link:https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/14/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-sanders-044457|

"No," she told a TV host when asked if she backed single-payer in her 2012 Senate campaign.

By HOLLY OTTERBEIN 10/14/2019 07:48 AM EDT

Seven years before Elizabeth Warren said “I’m with Bernie on Medicare for All," she was campaigning for the Senate and didn’t want to talk about single-payer health care.

Running a tough race against Republican incumbent Scott Brown, the first-time candidate repeatedly distanced herself from the idea. In one interview, she was grilled by New England Cable News host Jim Braude: He wanted to know if she’d support single-payer if she were “the tsarina” — in other words, if politics weren’t an obstacle.

“I think right now what we have to do — I’m serious about this — I think you’ve got to stay with what’s possible,” Warren said, nodding to the recently passed Affordable Care Act. “And I think what we’re doing — and look at the dust-up around this — we really need to consolidate our gains around what we’ve got on the table.”

Warren, a front-runner in the 2020 presidential primary, is known today as one of the most vocal champions for Medicare for All in the Democratic Party. But during her first Senate campaign in 2012, she and her aides were pressed on single-payer and dodged the question again and again, according to an analysis of newspaper reports, TV, and interviews with health care reform activists at the time.

snip

more at link...

[TidalWave46]

1. Clicked the link and it says page cannot be found.

From what has been brought here maybe they are cleaning up the blatant flaw in thought process by the author. Hard to say without reading the whole article.

[BlueMTexpat]

8. Same here. eom

[JoeOtterbein]

21. Sorry! Link repaired!

Thanks for the heads up!

[TidalWave46]

22. I surveyed nearly 20 people and organizations and they appreciate it. NT

[OnDoutside]

2. I said the same thing about Kamala Harris as I'm going to say

about Elizabeth....she needs to back away from, or "evolve" on MFA. In light of Bernie's health problems, ironically, she has the space to do that, and my advice is that she start doing so asap. There's lots of scope by fixing the ACA, and adding a public option, while going after prescription drug costs.

[Bettie]

12. So, since 2012, how has the ACA

evolved in a positive direction?

It hasn't. It has, however, been chipped away at and may end up being destroyed entirely if that lawsuit wending it's way through the courts goes the way the right wing wants it to (which is likely, given the current SCOTUS). If/when that happens, a whole lot of people will be left with nothing to fall back on. No health care at all.

Better to move forward boldly rather than meekly asking for maybe a teensy bit of progress (if the Republicans don't mind, please) while accepting less than even the status quo.

I get that some people, for whatever reason, adore for-profit, care-rationing insurance companies, possibly because it makes them feel good to see that they get shunted to the front of the line and can actually access care.

I believe that we need to ensure that every person in this country has health CARE, not some version of insurance that may or may not cover anything.

I also believe that our nation can do it and can afford it. Hell, we can afford more military spending than the next nine or so nations combined, we can afford to take care of human beings.

[OnDoutside]

26. You've obviously missed the entire 2012-16 Republican blocking everything ACA related, and trying to

take it down ? I'm genuinely shocked that anyone on DU could pose the question "So, since 2012, how has the ACA evolved in a positive direction?".

Anyone standing on a policy of "We're going to take your private healthcare away", will be signing their Electoral defeat warrant. In what will be a referendum on Trump, that's akin to handing him a lifeline.

There are lots of things you can do to help people get affordable healthcare, if you can afford it, and free healthcare if you cannot.

1. Fix the exchanges

2. Restore the tax penalty for not having insurance (to get more young people to sign up)

3. Lower Prescription drug costs.

4. Introduce a Public Option (maybe base it on a copy of Medicare). Affordable for most, free for those at a basic income level or below. If it's good enough, lots of people will want to move from Private Healthcare to it.

That would effectively cover 99% of people. There is no need for Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot.

[Bettie]

28. No one will be taking anything away

What would you lose if you saw the same doctors, got the same level of care, but paid your premium though taxes in a non-profit system rather than to a for-profit gatekeeper? Do you enjoy having an entire department at the insurance company looking for ways to deny care?

Also: I asked how the ACA has been enhanced since 2012, not how it has been damaged. It is very likely that the entire law will be struck down sometime in 2020 by the SCOTUS.

This article explains this case quite well:

[link:https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/explaining-texas-v-u-s-a-guide-to-the-5th-circuit-appeal-in-the-case-challenging-the-aca/|

[OnDoutside]

31. You tell that to everyone currently happy with their private

healthcare, plus all the private healthcare companies will be gunning for the Democrats, corrupt Trump or not. This is the most consequential election not just in the history of America, but the world. I'm not debating the rights or wrongs of everyone having MFA, defeating Trump is too important to fall at the altar of ideology. How could the ACA be improved since 2012 when Republicans have blocked every effort to improve it ? Surely you understand that ?

[Bettie]

32. Right...so, just accept that

many people will die with no care, but people who can afford it will get top notch care because they can be part of the for-profit system. Sounds marvelous. So forward looking.

Of course, the ACA will very likely be disappearing, but that won't matter, because some people get profit-driven policies through their workplaces. The rest? Well, they might be able to find a free clinic somewhere.

I get it.

A lot of people love looking down on those who can't afford half of their meager paycheck in insurance premiums for policies that will cost them thousands up front, then deductibles that will bankrupt them long before the insurance pays a single dime.

That's IF the company hasn't found an excuse to drop them from coverage. Need some medication? Well, maybe, IF the drug is in the formulary for your particular company and IF your doctor codes it in a way that your particular company will accept...the copay will be high but hey, that copay is buying a new ski lodge in Aspen or a new yacht for a CEO, so buck up!

Status Quo! Such an inspiring battle cry!

[OnDoutside]

34. If Trump wins, they certainly WILL die. And a lot more besides. Providing

a Public option, where healthcare is provided for those who cannot afford to buy their own, as I stated above, will work. The ACA will survive until the next election. Republicans ran a mile when Trump tried to resurrect its destruction, they know it would kill them in 2020.

[blm]

3. So, evolving over 6yrs towards a universal healthcare system is not a favorable

Route for a lawmaker in DC?

[BlueMTexpat]

10. It's OK for anyone

who is not named Elizabeth Warren.

[TidalWave46]

11. That is the flaw in thought process that I was referring to in my post.

But the full article is incorrectly linked so it's hard to determine if they addressed that further.

Edit to add: By flaw in thought process I am talking about the author of the piece in the op, not you. I just reread my post and see how that could be easily confused.

[LanternWaste]

4. Why did "this DU poster's daughter" paraphrase a substantive reponse as a dodge?

Is that her own narrative or did her editors demand she be disingenuous?

[JoeOtterbein]

23. Because I added that. Not Politico, or my daughter. It'a a disclaimer to show DUers that I'm

100% biased on the fact Holly is the best political writer in the world!

[OilemFirchen]

5. I really admired that Elizabeth Warren.

The current candidate has been sadly disappointing.

[BlueMississippi]

6. MFA is political suicide nt

[delisen]

7. 2012 is long ago in health care debate and

implementation of the ACA.

[loyalsister]

14. Actually it was pre-ACA

It didn't go into effect until 2014. We have seen a lot of flaws and chip aways since.

[KPN]

9. Ducked and dodged? What a crock. Read her 2012 quote: it was direct and perfectly

clear. So what's the point of this article? Obviously, to attack Elizabeth Warren for a position she took 8 years ago when running against incumbent Scott Brown for the Senate seat she now holds., But it goes far beyond that to characterize her as "ducking and dodging". Warren doesn't duck and dodge -- this article is pure bullshit.

Why didn't thew author interview Warren to ask her about the difference in her 2011/12 and 2019 positions on Medicare for All? Probably because she would have gotten a direct and clear answer that would have undermined her biased "ducked and dodged" narrative.

[TidalWave46]

13. Actual link to the article.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/14/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-sanders-044457

The author is on a twitter rant on this one. At least seven tweets pushing the same narrative. Even though the article shows a major lapse in judgement by the author. Guess who else she keeps mentioning in these tweets in a positive light? Sanders. Hmmmm.

I thought it might just be horrible writing but after looking at her twitter feed it's clear that it's just agenda driven.

[JoeOtterbein]

24. Thanks! I repaired the original!

[emmaverybo]

15. Asked at a debate about paying for M4All, she said "that's a Right Wing talking point." No, it's

an important question she should answer—about all her policy proposals, because that, extensive
and expensive plans, is what she is running on, just as Bernie runs on bringing on a political and
economic revolution, Biden on his job-specific qualifications and beating Trump. They all have a campaign theme.

Explaining the plans and promoting them is not enough. It is only natural to ask how will we pay for these? We will pay one way or another. A wealth tax may or may not pass. Nevertheless, any accounting student could show that Warren’s proposed wealth tax will not cover the costs.

[Cha]

35. "..a right wing talking point.."?

oh dear.. so no one can ask lest they be deemed.. wait for it.. a winger!

[GeorgeGist]

16. Politico has withdrawn article...

so nothing to see.

[Celerity]

17. no, it is there still, the Op has a bad link

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/14/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-sanders-044457

[TidalWave46]

18. I thought they might have withdrawn it for good reason.

It's very flawed. But I found the original link and put it in post 13.

[crazytown]

19. It's here

The OP URL was obsolete / mangled

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/14/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-sanders-044457

[DrFunkenstein]

20. Warren Will Fight For M4A, But Will Accept A Transition If Not Possible

Which is exactly what I'd want her to do.

Warren has a vast agenda - anyone even paying the slightest attention knows that - and would not want to jeopardize the entire thing just to shove one part of it down people's throats.

Most candidates won't even fight for M4A. They just go straight to a buy-in option. Warren wants to strongly make the case to the American people. If she does and the overwhelming majority are still strongly opposed, then she will go to Plan B.

Having a Plan B is not a "flip-flop" from ideological purity. It is an important part of leadership.

[Hoyt]

25. She might just get beat in the general election because of mandatory MFA, even if 50% don't want it.

I'm not against it, but she's kind of taken her stance on MFA, and will have a tough time transitioning leading up to November 2020.

I'd be fine with it, but there are folks even here who are quite concerned.

[OnDoutside]

27. She needs to start mentioning that it's what she aspires to do, over the long term. She would make a

great President, but this is an unnecessary stick she is handing Republicans to beat her with. I sincerely hopes she changes course soon.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. I could live with that.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[highplainsdem]

29. Mediaite's Tommy Christopher did an article on that interview with Braude over two weeks ago:

And btw, the video with this Mediaite article is much better quality than the one the Politico article links to.


https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/elizabeth-warren-was-busted-for-saying-she-didnt-support-single-payer-during-senate-campaign-video/

Elizabeth Warren Was Busted for Saying She Didn’t Support Single Payer During Senate Campaign (VIDEO)


Massachusetts Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is signaling a pivot away from Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All,” but it wouldn’t be the first time she distanced herself from single payer during an election campaign.

After months of being “with Bernie on Medicare for All,” Warren has shown signs of supporting… something that isn’t that. After the last debate, Warren said she supports “a lot of plans,” and more recently referred to Medicare for All as a “framework,” and said “We’ve got a lot of work to do on it.”

Where that pivot will take her is anyone’s guess, but this wouldn’t be the first time Warren made this kind of move. During her 2012 Senate campaign, Warren was interviewed by New England Cable News’ Jim Braude, and sounded more like John Delaney than Elizabeth Warren.

“I know you’re not going to Congress, you will, to maintain the status quo,” Braude said, and asked Warren “Would this healthcare, with the Affordable Care Act be better, according to Elizabeth Warren, if there were more public involvement, the public option that didn’t quite make it, single payer health care, that sort of thing?”

Warren evaded the question by changing the subject, telling him that “I actually think there is going to be a fight in Congress, I think that’s been made perfectly clear, but I think what it’s really going to be over is whether or not the benefits that are in the act as it’s designed right now are ones were going to be able to hang on to.”

-snip-