What is Medicare for All?

nan said:

 Neither.   Sydney Embers

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-new-york-times-has-it-in-for-bernie-sanders/

and

https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/07/12/sydney-embers-secret-sources/

 So you dismissed an article written by qualified people because Sydney Ember exists?

ridski said:

 So you dismissed an article written by qualified people because Sydney Ember exists?

 No, I subscribe to the New York Times.  I am angry with them because they are clearly trying to stop Bernie. They hired this person to smear him and she writes one horrible piece after another.  The other day, she said he, unlike every other candidate, walked around the Iowa State Fair and talked to no one.  She tried to make it seem like he hates people and acts like a weirdo.  In fact, he talked to lots of people and had what might have been the biggest crowd there.  Even in the face of strong evidence, she will just pound on him. 

drummerboy won't even acknowledge this is happening.  He tries to gaslight me, perhaps intentionally.

nan said: 

drummerboy won't even acknowledge this is happening.  He tries to gaslight me, perhaps intentionally.

 Wrong.  What's he's saying and what has been pointed out on numerous occasions is that she was working for the Times in a different capacity before being assigned to cover Bernie.  Therefore, it's clear that she wasn't hired to smear Bernie.

Steve said:

 Wrong.  What's he's saying and what has been pointed out on numerous occasions is that she was working for the Times in a different capacity before being assigned to cover Bernie.  Therefore, it's clear that she wasn't hired to smear Bernie.

 Ok, she was promoted to smear Bernie. She was selected to move to a new position where her chief role would be to write negative articles about Sanders.  Are these better?  Then fine, but it's still the same meaning as what I was saying which is that the Times found someone to cover Bernie with negative reviews.

nan said:

 The fact that you can't see the nose on your face is quite disconcerting.  

The idiom is “You can’t see past the nose on your face.” It implies the person is too focused on details to see the big picture.

To me, the operative word is “past.” You can overlook your nose altogether if you choose, but you can’t see past it unless you take note of it first.

It’s fitting that you altered the idiom, because you often don’t see the nose on your face. Details (hired vs. assigned, Embers vs. Ember) often don’t matter to you. Many are minor, but when you fix your eyes on a big picture, you could’ve had a rhinectomy, for all you care.

How anybody who has trouble getting little things right hopes to get big things right (let alone persuade others), I don’t know. It makes discussions harder to have, and it encourages the spread of inaccurate, misleading videos.

It’s quite disconcerting.

DaveSchmidt said:

...

How anybody who has trouble getting little things right hopes to get big things right (let alone persuade others), I don’t know. It makes discussions harder to have, and it encourages the spread of inaccurate, misleading videos.

 bingo-lingo!

DaveSchmidt said:

The idiom is “You can’t see past the nose on your face.” It implies the person is too focused on details to see the big picture.

To me, the operative word is “past.” You can overlook your nose altogether if you choose, but you can’t see past it unless you take note of it first.

It’s fitting that you altered the idiom, because you often don’t see the nose on your face. Details (hired vs. assigned, Embers vs. Ember) often don’t matter to you. Many are minor, but when you fix your eyes on a big picture, you could’ve had a rhinectomy, for all you care.

How anybody who has trouble getting little things right hopes to get big things right (let alone persuade others), I don’t know. It makes discussions harder to have, and it encourages the spread of inaccurate, misleading videos.

It’s quite disconcerting.

Seriously, you are using my bad spelling to let drummerboy off the hook for gaslighting.  That's as lame as it gets.

drummerboy said:

 bingo-lingo!

 Yeah, no.   You can't win an argument by saying you have better spelling. 

nan said:

ridski said:

 So you dismissed an article written by qualified people because Sydney Ember exists?

 No, I subscribe to the New York Times.  I am angry with them because they are clearly trying to stop Bernie. They hired this person to smear him and she writes one horrible piece after another.  The other day, she said he, unlike every other candidate, walked around the Iowa State Fair and talked to no one.  She tried to make it seem like he hates people and acts like a weirdo.  In fact, he talked to lots of people and had what might have been the biggest crowd there.  Even in the face of strong evidence, she will just pound on him. 

drummerboy won't even acknowledge this is happening.  He tries to gaslight me, perhaps intentionally.

 A valiant effort by Mr. Ridski to use logic runs into the ultimate "defense" - missing the point.

nan said:

DaveSchmidt said:

The idiom is “You can’t see past the nose on your face.” It implies the person is too focused on details to see the big picture.

To me, the operative word is “past.” You can overlook your nose altogether if you choose, but you can’t see past it unless you take note of it first.

It’s fitting that you altered the idiom, because you often don’t see the nose on your face. Details (hired vs. assigned, Embers vs. Ember) often don’t matter to you. Many are minor, but when you fix your eyes on a big picture, you could’ve had a rhinectomy, for all you care.

How anybody who has trouble getting little things right hopes to get big things right (let alone persuade others), I don’t know. It makes discussions harder to have, and it encourages the spread of inaccurate, misleading videos.

It’s quite disconcerting.

Seriously, you are using my bad spelling to let drummerboy off the hook for gaslighting.  That's as lame as it gets.

 How the hell can I gaslight you when I'm telling the truth and you're not?

drummerboy said:

 How the hell can I gaslight you when I'm telling the truth and you're not?

 Because you are not.  This is just more pile on.  You are embarrassing yourself. 

 The efficiency of US health care rates below Azerbaijan's:

These Are the Economies With the Most (and Least) Efficient Health Care

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-19/u-s-near-bottom-of-health-index-hong-kong-and-singapore-at-top

nohero said:

 A valiant effort by Mr. Ridski to use logic runs into the ultimate "defense" - missing the point.

Please explain the logic you think I am missing, since, based on my answer I was not agreeing to Ridski's presumption. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

 How the hell can I gaslight you when I'm telling the truth and you're not?

 Because you are not.  This is just more pile on.  You are embarrassing yourself. 

Yeah? Let's take a poll as to who is embarrassing themselves.

It ain't me babe.

drummerboy said:

Yeah? Let's take a poll as to who is embarrassing themselves.

It ain't me babe.

 Yes, well, as a Sanders' supporter, I am outnumbered here, but that does not make me the wrong one.  How much longer are you going to hijack this thread with petty stupidity?  If you don't think Sydney Ember is trying to smear Sanders, then where is the evidence?  You have never produced a single piece and yet you gloat like the victor of some historic battle because Dave_Schmidt picked on my spelling.

Seriously, can we go back to talking about Medicare for All now?  I just posted something about the efficiency of worldwide healthcare. 

nan said:

nohero said:

 A valiant effort by Mr. Ridski to use logic runs into the ultimate "defense" - missing the point.

Please explain the logic you think I am missing, since, based on my answer I was not agreeing to Ridski's presumption. 

My pleasure.  This was the dialogue on the preceding page:

ridski said:

nan said:

The New York Times hired an unqualified reporter just to smear Sanders, so they are not the go-to-guys on evaluating healthcare, even when presenting it as "objective" experts.

 Which one was the unqualified reporter, Austin, or Aaron?

Ms. Nan was criticizing the article about healthcare by those two.  So this was the follow-on from that: 

ridski said:

nan said:

 Neither.   Sydney Embers

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-new-york-times-has-it-in-for-bernie-sanders/

and

https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/07/12/sydney-embers-secret-sources/

 So you dismissed an article written by qualified people because Sydney Ember exists?

 And Ms. Nan replied by either genuinely or pretending to be missing the point, commenting on the same Sydney Ember instead of addressing the point about the reporters who actually wrote the article:

nan said:

ridski said:

 So you dismissed an article written by qualified people because Sydney Ember exists?

 No, I subscribe to the New York Times.  I am angry with them because they are clearly trying to stop Bernie. They hired this person to smear him and she writes one horrible piece after another.  The other day, she said he, unlike every other candidate, walked around the Iowa State Fair and talked to no one.  She tried to make it seem like he hates people and acts like a weirdo.  In fact, he talked to lots of people and had what might have been the biggest crowd there.  Even in the face of strong evidence, she will just pound on him. 

Hence my "ultimate defense" comment.  That being said, I cannot be certain that missing the point about my comment was genuine, either. 

nan said:

You have never produced a single piece and yet you gloat like the victor of some historic battle because Dave_Schmidt picked on my spelling.

Rest assured, if it were only a misspelled name here and there, I wouldn’t pick on it. It’s a continuing pattern of errors and, more to the point, your unwillingness to accept how it undercuts your (and your videos’) arguments and credibility. If nothing else, that’s just bad strategy.

But have no fear. One thing I’ll never pick on is the nose on your face.

Because as we all know you can pick your nose and you can pick your friends, but you can't pick your friends' noses.

First rule of Troll Club.

There is no such thing as Troll Club.

nan said:

Seriously, can we go back to talking about Medicare for All now?  I just posted something about the efficiency of worldwide healthcare. 

 Sure -- how's this:

Policy wise, I don't think most on this board actually disagree with you. I don't at least. If we were making a health care system from scratch, single payer is clearly the way to go. 

But we're not starting from scratch. My view is that to go from where we are now to single payer is politically very difficult, bordering on impossible, and I'd rather go for a route that offers much of the benefits of single payer with a much higher chance of success rather than lose everything betting on an extreme long shot.

But maybe I'm being too pessimistic! You cite other countries that are single payer. How did they get their systems? Did any of them go from an employer-based, private-dominated system to single payer? If so, how did they accomplish it -- was there some inspirational politician that led the way, or some broad-based social movement, or some other key player or players? If not, and the path we would have to take is unique, what gives you confidence we can pull it off?

So far you've made a big point about all the rallies Sanders holds and how strongly he believes in single payer. Here's your chance to be substantive and explain how that translates to turning "eliminate private insurance" into a position that wins majority support.

PVW said:

 Sure -- how's this:

Policy wise, I don't think most on this board actually disagree with you. I don't at least. If we were making a health care system from scratch, single payer is clearly the way to go. 

But we're not starting from scratch. My view is that to go from where we are now to single payer is politically very difficult, bordering on impossible, and I'd rather go for a route that offers much of the benefits of single payer with a much higher chance of success rather than lose everything betting on an extreme long shot.

But maybe I'm being too pessimistic! You cite other countries that are single payer. How did they get their systems? Did any of them go from an employer-based, private-dominated system to single payer? If so, how did they accomplish it -- was there some inspirational politician that led the way, or some broad-based social movement, or some other key player or players? If not, and the path we would have to take is unique, what gives you confidence we can pull it off?

So far you've made a big point about all the rallies Sanders holds and how strongly he believes in single payer. Here's your chance to be substantive and explain how that translates to turning "eliminate private insurance" into a position that wins majority support.

 The problem is there is no other system that gives the benefits of single-payer. The public option functions as a trojan horse, to make M4A seem like a failure. I don't think the argument about starting over holds because we are expanding something that is already in place. I don't think it will be a big deal to separate healthcare from employment. I think that is a made up argument. People do not have confidence in staying employed as they used to. I think they would rather have the safety net. 

Did you see the article I posted above? The system is broken beyond repair. We need M4A, and Sanders is the best chance we have to lead us to it. It will be a huge fight, because the insurance companies are not letting go of that cash cow. So, it is politically a heavy lift, but so was getting women the vote and getting a 40 hour work week, and many things no one thought possible. If you don't try you get nothing.

DaveSchmidt said:

Rest assured, if it were only a misspelled name here and there, I wouldn’t pick on it. It’s a continuing pattern of errors and, more to the point, your unwillingness to accept how it undercuts your (and your videos’) arguments and credibility. If nothing else, that’s just bad strategy.

But have no fear. One thing I’ll never pick on is the nose on your face.

 I was told bluntly that no one watches the videos I post. Now, I'm told that my bad spelling (Ember vs Embers) undercuts my video's credibility. I don't agree that I have a "pattern" of errors outside of spelling, and I think you all spend too much time attacking me personally instead of talking about the topic. I don't care that you all seem to hate me, but I can't stand having to spend 10 + posts talking about my supposed "problems,"  My problem is that I want to discuss ideas and news, not talk about me. Can we please get back to that because I don't want to write 5 pages responding to nohero's annoying post unless I have too. I'm on vacation. 

nan said:

 My problem is that I want to discuss ideas and news, not talk about me. Can we please get back to that because I don't want to write 5 pages responding to nohero's annoying post unless I have too. I'm on vacation. 

I was commenting on Ms. Nan's dismissal of the NY Times article on health care plans by talking about a reporter who wasn't even on the article.  In other words, the substance of the posts.  Sorry if that's "annoying".

nan said:

 I was told bluntly that no one watches the videos I post. Now, I'm told that my bad spelling (Ember vs Embers) undercuts my video's credibility. I don't agree that I have a "pattern" of errors outside of spelling, and I think you all spend too much time attacking me personally instead of talking about the topic. I don't care that you all seem to hate me, but I can't stand having to spend 10 + posts talking about my supposed "problems,"  My problem is that I want to discuss ideas and news, not talk about me. Can we please get back to that because I don't want to write 5 pages responding to nohero's annoying post unless I have too. I'm on vacation. 

I meant that the videos contain their own pattern of errors as well, which likewise undermines them, and which I’ve documented when I’ve watched them. (I’ve noted a number of your errors, too, along the way. When you asked about one of them before — the fake screen shot of a poll — you replied that you didn’t recall it, so there’s no point in my digging them back up now, especially if you’re only going to attribute the effort to hatred.)

We talk about it because ideas and news are best discussed with as much precision and accuracy as possible.

nohero said:

I was commenting on Ms. Nan's dismissal of the NY Times article on health care plans by talking about a reporter who wasn't even on the article.  In other words, the substance of the posts.  Sorry if that's "annoying".

 So, you are pissed because I did not respond to a posted article the way you think I should have?  Yes, I don't trust the NYTs to be fair about M4A. I'm very skeptical, based on their extremely unprofessional treatment of M4A's leading proponant. And this is the kind of argument you and others make all the time. I usually write 3 pages saying why I hate whatever crap reference you post. But, for some reason, I did not do what no other poster is required to do and now I am told I have a "pattern,"  I'm flattered you and others are so upset that the great and wonderful I did not spend enough time pondering your favorite NYTs article. Please repost link and I will write a huge response that will probably get zero replies, or a one word reply from drummerboy. But, Ok, anything to make you all happy. Might not get to it today though since I'm on vacation and it's my birthday. 

nan said:

My problem is that I want to discuss ideas and news, not talk about me.

PVW teed up an opportunity for you to explain how rallies and Sanders’s commitment turn "eliminate private insurance" into a position that wins majority support. Your reply began by saying you think it’s a nonissue. OK, but: The question isn’t about you. (You’re welcome!) Lots of Americans do think it’s an issue. PVW’s question remains: How do you win their majority support?

(You’ve explained before that the rallies and Sanders’s commitment will pressure members of Congress to swing in favor of M4A. I think PVW may have been looking for something more substantive than that hope.)

And thanks for the reference to the 40-hour workweek and women’s right to vote. It reminded me that those movements took nearly a century of efforts — the workweek incrementally and suffrage even though it didn’t require any structural changes.

DaveSchmidt said:

PVW teed up an opportunity for you to explain how rallies and Sanders’s commitment turn "eliminate private insurance" into a position that wins majority support. Your reply began by saying you think it’s a nonissue. OK, but: The question isn’t about you. (You’re welcome!) Lots of Americans do think it’s an issue. PVW’s question remains: How do you win their majority support?

(You’ve explained before that the rallies and Sanders’s commitment will pressure members of Congress to swing in favor of M4A. I think PVW may have been looking for something more substantive than that hope.)

And thanks for the reference to the 40-hour workweek and women’s right to vote. It reminded me that those movements took nearly a century of efforts — the workweek incrementally and suffrage even though it didn’t require any structural changes.

 I think you win their majority support by fully informing them about Medicare for All. I really feel the big problem with getting people board with Medicare for All is misinformation.   The insurance lobby spends enormous bucks spreading lies and misinformation. The mainstream news, including the New York Times, manufactures consent against it. As the polls that I have shown indicate that when people understand that their benefits will increase and they will pay less and keep their doctors/hospitals, they want Medicare for All. How could they not?  Seriously, if you take away the insurance talking points about reduced care, waiting lines, not being able to see the doctor they want, etc.  there is no way people will not want M4A over what they currently have.  It's just so much better.  It sells itself. 

So, the Americans who think it is an issue need to be checked for why it's an issue because most of them will be fine with it if well-informed.  Also, some of the people reported to have an issue, such as unions, really don't.  Unions have lost out on pay raises in favor of holding down healthcare costs.  I don't believe they would not jump at the chance to just negotiate for pay increases.  Again, it's the misinformation. That's what Sanders is fighting and he knows that and is doing what he can to get the word out.  

You mention that important changes took a long time.  So?   As I've said over and over, you can just do as the establishment media has trained you to think and just say, "Oh, it's going to be too hard to pass.  It's pie in the sky. Let's wake up and be reasonable and don't ask for anything cause something bad might happen."  So, just agree with them and roll over and give up.  Or you can say,  "This is what other countries have and we should too and we need to stop putting up with the corporate-run politicians who tell us single-payer will never happen and just start demanding it."  If it takes a long-time or we have to riot in the streets, it's worth it because no other solution will be acceptable.  

We need to get mad and demand they give us what would be the best solution for US, not the best solution for THEM.   All the other solutions besides Medicare for All will not address the escalating costs and ensure that everyone is covered.  They will continue to link healthcare with employment which is a terrible model in a world where employment trends more like a gigs than jobs.  They will create multiple networks which work against each other. Basically, end-stage capitalism is killing us and the mainstream media is trying to brainwash us into "sensible" compliance.  We have one politician, who has the background in civil disobedience and the real grassroots fundraising and he's no spring chicken, so let's not let this opportunity pass.  This would not be the time to sit around and agree that we are not yet ready for Medicare for All.  The people who support the public option or improving Obamacare, or keeping private insurance are never going to take on the insurance companies. They work for them.

nan said:

 I think you win their majority support by fully informing them about Medicare for All. I really feel the big problem with getting people board with Medicare for All is misinformation.   The insurance lobby spends enormous bucks spreading lies and misinformation. The mainstream news, including the New York Times, manufactures consent against it. As the polls that I have shown indicate that when people understand that their benefits will increase and they will pay less and keep their doctors/hospitals, they want Medicare for All. How could they not?  Seriously, if you take away the insurance talking points about reduced care, waiting lines, not being able to see the doctor they want, etc.  there is no way people will not want M4A over what they currently have.  It's just so much better.  It sells itself. 

...

So, it's just a matter of informing people and having political leaders who believe in in hard enough? I'd find this line of reasoning more convincing if you could point to some actual instances of this happening. Again, since you're fond of citing other countries that are single payer, perhaps highlighting how one of them managed the transition would boost your case. After all, entrenched interests and misinformation are a feature of all societies, not just ours. How did other countries do it, and what lessons can we draw from that?

BTW, you made a factually inaccurate claim here:

As the polls that I have shown indicate that when people understand that their benefits will increase and they will pay less and keep their  doctors/hospitals, they want Medicare for All.

You have not shared a single poll that shows this, if "Medicare for All" is defined as "eliminate private insurance."

Medicare for All would raise my taxes. The argument in favor is that I would still come out ahead, because the tax increase would be less than the premium under my employer-based insurance plan.

In the interest of being more fully informed, I have a question: What assurance do I have that my employer’s contribution toward my current premium would be redirected into my salary, and not just line my employer’s pockets?

DaveSchmidt said:

Medicare for All would raise my taxes. The argument in favor is that I would still come out ahead, because the tax increase would be less than the premium under my employer-based insurance plan.

In the interest of being more fully informed, I have a question: What assurance do I have that my employer’s contribution toward my current premium would be redirected into my salary, and not just line my employer’s pockets?

 None and I would not expect it to be redirected, although it might.  It would be the amount that you pay that would disappear.  For most people that is significant.  I guess if you are a rare person that gets health care paid 100% by the employer and you have no deductibles or co-pay than this plan would not be the best for you.  How many people is that?  Probably not significant.  For union employees who have that (also rare), it would give them more bargaining power to take out the insurance piece.