Barack Obama: You need to vote because our democracy depends on it

Philip

I personally don't care about "Medicare for all", as a specific goal. Universal access to quality health care, on the other hand, I think is important and should be a top priority for democrats. 


I think the ACA has made something along the lines of Medicare for All more likely by showing both the political and implementation limits of the public-private hybrid approach to coverage, but if we get to 2020 and Dems get a shot at passing something that secures the gains made under the ACA and also makes substantial further progress  toward universal access, we should support it even if it doesn't end up being "medicare for all."


Even under the label of "medicare for all," after all, there's substantial ambiguity as to what exactly that means, as explored for example in this Vox article.



drummerboy

I think "Medicare for all" can simply be seen as a marketing package for single-payer. Despite Paul's protestations that they're not the same, of course they are, at least in effect.

A lot more people will understand (and therefore more likely support) MFA than they will the term single payer. Single-payer can be demagogued as socialism, Medicare can't.


However, for supporters to be arguing about the two terms is kinda dumb and counter-productive, so maybe you should stop.


DaveSchmidt

Thanks, PVW. That’s an informative article.

Speaking of Vox: LOST, here’s an article that predates the Post link by about a year, if it helps:

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/11/16119292/medicare-for-all-medicaid-health-care-expansion


paulsurovell
DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:

Historical context -- before Obama Care was adopted, the Dems were one vote short of moving toward Medicare for All through a bill that would have lowered the eligibility age to 55. Joe Lieberman killed it.
A caveat: Under that proposal, people ages 55 to 64 would have had to purchase the Medicare coverage if they wanted it.

 The no-profit formula seems fair:

2)
Annual premium
(A)
Combined per capita average for all Medicare benefits
The Secretary shall estimate the average, annual per capita amount for benefits and administrative expenses that will be payable under parts A, B, and D (including, as applicable, under part C) in the year for all individuals enrolled under this section.
(B)
Annual premium
The annual premium under this subsection for months in a year is equal to the average, annual per capita amount estimated under subparagraph (A) for the year.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s1742/text

By the way, the Medicare at 55 Act was re-introduced in 2017.


tjohn

Can we please stop calling opposition to Trump "the Resistance".  While I am fully aware that Trump and his followers would be perfectly pleased to have a country where non-whites had curtailed civil rights and the 1st Amendment in tatters, we are not there yet.  Calling what is going on today "the Resistance" trivializes the death of thousands who died fighting the Nazis in occupied Europe.  


nohero
drummerboy said:
I think "Medicare for all" can simply be seen as a marketing package for single-payer. Despite Paul's protestations that they're not the same, of course they are, at least in effect.

A lot more people will understand (and therefore more likely support) MFA than they will the term single payer. Single-payer can be demagogued as socialism, Medicare can't.


However, for supporters to be arguing about the two terms is kinda dumb and counter-productive, so maybe you should stop.

 Exactly.  "Medicare for All" is a shorthand term, which as you point out is a way to overcome the knee-jerk "Socialism!" cry of the opponents to reform of health coverage in America.  Unfortunately, some opportunists have turned it from a shield (against opponents of reform) into a sword to attack those they want to label as "not progressive enough".  

It is going to take more than a slogan to move towards a model more like single payer.  In fact, even Medicare as it stands now isn't merely single payer.  My personal experience with it is through my mother, who has a medicare supplement insurance plan (which she pays for) to meet costs not covered by Medicare.  There are also all those retirees, with their retiree health benefits (such as, for example, public school teachers), which supplement the Federal government Medicare benefit.  

So real reform is more than just putting everyone on Medicare as it works today, and telling yourself "Mission Accomplished".


nohero
paulsurovell said:

@nohero doesn't like the phrase, because it was Bernie's slogan, which is why he won't embrace it. "Single payer" is not the same as "Medicare for All" -- in form or in substance.

 Nope.  Don't keep insulting other posters by "reinterpreting" what they write, and then accusing them of writing things they didn't write.  That's tiresome.

I don't like it when the phrase is used to attack other progressives for no good reason.  Please see my post prior to this one.

I will agree that "single payer" isn't the same as just putting everybody on Medicare as it operates today.  More has to be done to make it truly "single payer".  And before everybody gets on "single payer", lots of work will have to be done to deal with the fact that many employees, especially union employees with good benefits, want to be assured that they will be as safely covered as they are under their current benefits.  That's the reality of health care, which even Trump eventually realized is "hard".


Mike
nan said:
This is the part of the speech that dropped my jaw open:















So Democrats aren’t just running on good old ideas like a higher minimum wage, they’re running on good new ideas like medicare for all, giving workers seats on corporate boards, reversing the most egregious corporate tax cuts to make sure college students graduate.
Suddenly he is for medicare for all?  When did he think that was a good thing?  Maybe while he was running the first time and then forgotten.  What workers are getting seats on corporate boards?  And does "higher minimum wage" mean "living wage." And what did he do for college students?  



















 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 

cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

 I felt the need to emphasize Cramer’s message.


Mike
paulsurovell said:


nohero said:



nan said:
This is the part of the speech that dropped my jaw open:

So Democrats aren’t just running on good old ideas like a higher minimum wage, they’re running on good new ideas like medicare for all, giving workers seats on corporate boards, reversing the most egregious corporate tax cuts to make sure college students graduate.
Suddenly he is for medicare for all?  When did he think that was a good thing?  
From 2009: "First, at several town halls this year, Obama has been asked by single-payer supporters why he doesn't propose a single-payer system. Obama's consistent answer has been that if he were designing a health care system 'from scratch,' he would go with a single payer system. So that certainly indicates philosophical support for the idea, even if Obama has also consistently concluded that single-payer is not politically feasible."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-has-praised-single-payer-plans-past/
Never rely on Jimmy Dore.
What's important is that Obama is now behind Medicare for All, one of Bernie's top priorities, an idea that makes sense on so many levels. But adopting Medicare for All will require The Resistance to resist the health insurance industry and put people over profit.

 As Mr Obama showed us, that’s a pretty tall order.  You’re not only talking about the President.   


Mike
paulsurovell said:


BG9 said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:



nan said:
This is the part of the speech that dropped my jaw open:

So Democrats aren’t just running on good old ideas like a higher minimum wage, they’re running on good new ideas like medicare for all, giving workers seats on corporate boards, reversing the most egregious corporate tax cuts to make sure college students graduate.
Suddenly he is for medicare for all?  When did he think that was a good thing?  
From 2009: "First, at several town halls this year, Obama has been asked by single-payer supporters why he doesn't propose a single-payer system. Obama's consistent answer has been that if he were designing a health care system 'from scratch,' he would go with a single payer system. So that certainly indicates philosophical support for the idea, even if Obama has also consistently concluded that single-payer is not politically feasible."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-has-praised-single-payer-plans-past/
Never rely on Jimmy Dore.
What's important is that Obama is now behind Medicare for All, one of Bernie's top priorities, an idea that makes sense on so many levels. But adopting Medicare for All will require The Resistance to resist the health insurance industry and put people over profit.


Now? Obama now following one Bernie's top priority? A put down on Obama? Typical Bernie cult put down.
As shown, right above you comment, in 2009 he said that be best. But Obama was also realistic in knowing it would not pass congress.
So, in 2017 Bernie came out in favor of Medicare for all. Did he do so before then?
 Can you provide an earlier citation where Obama advocated "Medicare for All?"

That you had to ask this question speaks volumes about your attention to the healthcare issue.  


paulsurovell
nohero said:


paulsurovell said:

@nohero doesn't like the phrase, because it was Bernie's slogan, which is why he won't embrace it. "Single payer" is not the same as "Medicare for All" -- in form or in substance.
 Nope.  Don't keep insulting other posters by "reinterpreting" what they write, and then accusing them of writing things they didn't write.  That's tiresome.
I don't like it when the phrase is used to attack other progressives for no good reason.  Please see my post prior to this one.
I will agree that "single payer" isn't the same as just putting everybody on Medicare as it operates today.  More has to be done to make it truly "single payer".  And before everybody gets on "single payer", lots of work will have to be done to deal with the fact that many employees, especially union employees with good benefits, want to be assured that they will be as safely covered as they are under their current benefits.  That's the reality of health care, which even Trump eventually realized is "hard".

 Like I said, you don't like "Medicare for All" and it's because it was one of the major differences between Bernie and Hillary. You'll never get over that.


Dennis
paulsurovell said:


nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

@nohero doesn't like the phrase, because it was Bernie's slogan, which is why he won't embrace it. "Single payer" is not the same as "Medicare for All" -- in form or in substance.
 Nope.  Don't keep insulting other posters by "reinterpreting" what they write, and then accusing them of writing things they didn't write.  That's tiresome.
I don't like it when the phrase is used to attack other progressives for no good reason.  Please see my post prior to this one.
I will agree that "single payer" isn't the same as just putting everybody on Medicare as it operates today.  More has to be done to make it truly "single payer".  And before everybody gets on "single payer", lots of work will have to be done to deal with the fact that many employees, especially union employees with good benefits, want to be assured that they will be as safely covered as they are under their current benefits.  That's the reality of health care, which even Trump eventually realized is "hard".
 Like I said, you don't like "Medicare for All" and it's because it was one of the major differences between Bernie and Hillary. You'll never get over that.

 Nope. What we don't like is half-baked sermons from Berniebots, using the phrase as a litmus test for progressiveness. Many don't like Medicare for all because it is not progressive enough.


paulsurovell
Dennis_Seelbach said:


paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

@nohero doesn't like the phrase, because it was Bernie's slogan, which is why he won't embrace it. "Single payer" is not the same as "Medicare for All" -- in form or in substance.
 Nope.  Don't keep insulting other posters by "reinterpreting" what they write, and then accusing them of writing things they didn't write.  That's tiresome.
I don't like it when the phrase is used to attack other progressives for no good reason.  Please see my post prior to this one.
I will agree that "single payer" isn't the same as just putting everybody on Medicare as it operates today.  More has to be done to make it truly "single payer".  And before everybody gets on "single payer", lots of work will have to be done to deal with the fact that many employees, especially union employees with good benefits, want to be assured that they will be as safely covered as they are under their current benefits.  That's the reality of health care, which even Trump eventually realized is "hard".
 Like I said, you don't like "Medicare for All" and it's because it was one of the major differences between Bernie and Hillary. You'll never get over that.
 Nope. What we don't like is half-baked sermons from Berniebots, using the phrase as a litmus test for progressiveness. Many don't like Medicare for all because it is not progressive enough.

 What proposal do you support that is "more progressive" than Medicare for All?


paulsurovell
tjohn said:


paulsurovell said:

 Like I said, you don't like "Medicare for All" and it's because it was one of the major differences between Bernie and Hillary. You'll never get over that.
 The death of irony - a Bernie supporter telling somebody else that they will never get over something.

 Ironic that you would wait to make this comment until after probably hundreds of posts by @nohero / @South_Mountaineer blaming Bernie and his supporters for Hillary's loss.


Dennis
paulsurovell said:


Dennis_Seelbach said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

@nohero doesn't like the phrase, because it was Bernie's slogan, which is why he won't embrace it. "Single payer" is not the same as "Medicare for All" -- in form or in substance.
 Nope.  Don't keep insulting other posters by "reinterpreting" what they write, and then accusing them of writing things they didn't write.  That's tiresome.
I don't like it when the phrase is used to attack other progressives for no good reason.  Please see my post prior to this one.
I will agree that "single payer" isn't the same as just putting everybody on Medicare as it operates today.  More has to be done to make it truly "single payer".  And before everybody gets on "single payer", lots of work will have to be done to deal with the fact that many employees, especially union employees with good benefits, want to be assured that they will be as safely covered as they are under their current benefits.  That's the reality of health care, which even Trump eventually realized is "hard".
 Like I said, you don't like "Medicare for All" and it's because it was one of the major differences between Bernie and Hillary. You'll never get over that.
 Nope. What we don't like is half-baked sermons from Berniebots, using the phrase as a litmus test for progressiveness. Many don't like Medicare for all because it is not progressive enough.
 What proposal do you support that is "more progressive" than Medicare for All?

 How about "FREE" (tax funded care with no individual costs) instead of a system that provides minimum level care at a small cost, and then needs to have substantial supplemental investments to receive a worthwhile level of care? Is that more progressive enough for you?


ml1
Red_Barchetta said:


 I felt the need to emphasize Cramer’s message.

dude, please. 

Some of us are reading this on phones. 


drummerboy
Red_Barchetta said:


nan said:
This is the part of the speech that dropped my jaw open:
















So Democrats aren’t just running on good old ideas like a higher minimum wage, they’re running on good new ideas like medicare for all, giving workers seats on corporate boards, reversing the most egregious corporate tax cuts to make sure college students graduate.
Suddenly he is for medicare for all?  When did he think that was a good thing?  Maybe while he was running the first time and then forgotten.  What workers are getting seats on corporate boards?  And does "higher minimum wage" mean "living wage." And what did he do for college students?  




















 
cramer said:
Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 

(repeat that a gazillion times - db)
  I felt the need to emphasize Cramer’s message.

Exactly.

One of the most popular and influential politicians of our lifetimes comes out for single payer, and he's getting criticized for timing? And by the very people who want single-payer more than anything?


WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?


Does progress towards your goal make you -------? (I had a lot of choices for that word, but I decided on tact.)



drummerboy
tjohn said:
Can we please stop calling opposition to Trump "the Resistance".  While I am fully aware that Trump and his followers would be perfectly pleased to have a country where non-whites had curtailed civil rights and the 1st Amendment in tatters, we are not there yet.  Calling what is going on today "the Resistance" trivializes the death of thousands who died fighting the Nazis in occupied Europe.  

If my memory serves, the only person using the phrase "the Resistance" is Paul, and he's not using it in a flattering way.


Granted, my memory may be selective.


DaveSchmidt
paulsurovell said:


tjohn said:

The death of irony - a Bernie supporter telling somebody else that they will never get over something.
Ironic that you would wait to make this comment until after probably hundreds of posts by @nohero / @South_Mountaineer blaming Bernie and his supporters for Hillary's loss.

Did I miss where nohero and South_Mountaineer both used the word “lodestar”?


LOST

I just watched a video of Trump for about the third time where he uses the term "The Resistance".

Many of the groups working against Trump and the Republicans call themselves "The Resistance".

And as long as we are discussing words and phrases I support "Socialized Medicine".


nohero

President Obama explains it all for you.


Reginald
ml1 said:
Obama's terrible policies on civil liberties and whistle blowers are coming back to bite him. Right wingers are saying he has no moral standing to criticize Trump's authoritarianism. Unfortunately, to an extent they are correct. 

 No they are not correct. Your trump logic is false. trump has attacked Obama since the birth certificate. 


paulsurovell
Dennis_Seelbach said:


 What proposal do you support that is "more progressive" than Medicare for All?
 How about "FREE" (tax funded care with no individual costs) instead of a system that provides minimum level care at a small cost, and then needs to have substantial supplemental investments to receive a worthwhile level of care? Is that more progressive enough for you?

I don't think you're accurately describing Medicare (hospital costs - Part A - are free) but I'm all for your idea. You're saying Part B (non-hospital costs) should be free as well?

What organizations and individuals have advocated this? Is there legislation?


Dennis
paulsurovell said:


Dennis_Seelbach said:

 What proposal do you support that is "more progressive" than Medicare for All?
 How about "FREE" (tax funded care with no individual costs) instead of a system that provides minimum level care at a small cost, and then needs to have substantial supplemental investments to receive a worthwhile level of care? Is that more progressive enough for you?

I don't think you're accurately describing Medicare (hospital costs - Part A - are free) but I'm all for your idea. You're saying Part B (non-hospital costs) should be free as well?
What organizations and individuals have advocated this? Is there legislation?

 As a Medicare subscriber (I would guess you are too), I know damn well that I am 100% accurate. Part A (hospital) is free. Part B (docs +) costs a relatively small amount, but has significant restrictions, co-pays and deductibles, which can be seriously expensive. To cover those, you need supplemental insurance which is even more money out of pocket. Not to mention drug costs (part D), which also have to be covered separately, with additional costs. Bottom line is that comprehensive coverage, via Medicare, is impossibly complicated and quite expensive.


I do advocate all these costs being covered through universal payroll taxes. I don't waste my time keeping track of who else might be in agreement, since most of the loudmouths on these forums don't have a clue. I also suspect that my vision is not remotely achievable, so I grudgingly support MFA as a small step in the right direction. I would also support bringing back the full ACA, fixing the parts we have learned need fixing, but only with the addition of a robust public option, which would provide competition to the insurance companies, and force their hand in pricing.


ml1
Baldwin said:


ml1 said:
Obama's terrible policies on civil liberties and whistle blowers are coming back to bite him. Right wingers are saying he has no moral standing to criticize Trump's authoritarianism. Unfortunately, to an extent they are correct. 
 No they are not correct. Your trump logic is false. trump has attacked Obama since the birth certificate. 

was not talking about Trump.


paulsurovell
Dennis_Seelbach said:


paulsurovell said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 What proposal do you support that is "more progressive" than Medicare for All?
 How about "FREE" (tax funded care with no individual costs) instead of a system that provides minimum level care at a small cost, and then needs to have substantial supplemental investments to receive a worthwhile level of care? Is that more progressive enough for you?

I don't think you're accurately describing Medicare (hospital costs - Part A - are free) but I'm all for your idea. You're saying Part B (non-hospital costs) should be free as well?
What organizations and individuals have advocated this? Is there legislation?
 As a Medicare subscriber (I would guess you are too), I know damn well that I am 100% accurate. Part A (hospital) is free. Part B (docs +) costs a relatively small amount, but has significant restrictions, co-pays and deductibles, which can be seriously expensive. To cover those, you need supplemental insurance which is even more money out of pocket. Not to mention drug costs (part D), which also have to be covered separately, with additional costs. Bottom line is that comprehensive coverage, via Medicare, is impossibly complicated and quite expensive.


I do advocate all these costs being covered through universal payroll taxes. I don't waste my time keeping track of who else might be in agreement, since most of the loudmouths on these forums don't have a clue. I also suspect that my vision is not remotely achievable, so I grudgingly support MFA as a small step in the right direction. I would also support bringing back the full ACA, fixing the parts we have learned need fixing, but only with the addition of a robust public option, which would provide competition to the insurance companies, and force their hand in pricing.

I generally agree with this. You didn't mention that Part B premiums are tied to income. For very low income they are free (I think) for high income they can be close to $400 per month.

However, Medicare for All would lower rates because the pool of beneficiaries would extend to the whole population, including demographic groups whose medical needs are far less than Medicare recipients, on average.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.