What is Medicare for All?
nohero said:
I don't think what I post affects what you'd claim about what I think. In this case, I was just commenting on the silliness of watching a couple of self-promoters chit-chat instead of simply relying on a clear, substantive writing on the topic.
Sounds like you did not watch the video. It's a family doctor talking about how difficult it is for her to work because of our current system and how much Medicare for All would improve that. As a Warren supporter, this is the kind of persuasive argument you should be cheering for. Why would you dismiss it when you supposedly support what she wants? Is it that your hatred of Sanders is so great, that you can't even agree when your candidate does?
nan said:
Sounds like you did not watch the video. It's a family doctor talking about how difficult it is for her to work because of our current system and how much Medicare for All would improve that. As a Warren supporter, this is the kind of persuasive argument you should be cheering for. Why would you dismiss it when you supposedly support what she wants? Is it that your hatred of Sanders is so great, that you can't even agree when your candidate does?
So the official "Sanders Surrogate" is now just a plain old family doctor sharing a personal experience. I watched for a bit, and it resembled one of those informercials for real estate investment schemes.
I know Ms. Nan is trying her best, but Paul is way better at that schtick.
nohero said:
nan said:
Sounds like you did not watch the video. It's a family doctor talking about how difficult it is for her to work because of our current system and how much Medicare for All would improve that. As a Warren supporter, this is the kind of persuasive argument you should be cheering for. Why would you dismiss it when you supposedly support what she wants? Is it that your hatred of Sanders is so great, that you can't even agree when your candidate does?
So the official "Sanders Surrogate" is now just a plain old family doctor sharing a personal experience. I watched for a bit, and it resembled one of those informercials for real estate investment schemes.
I know Ms. Nan is trying her best, but Paul is way better at that schtick.
I think nan has a point about your hostitlity towards Sanders coloring your positions. How exactly do you want a campaign spokesperson to talk about a signature issue. I didn't watch the whole thing, but it was pretty un-offensive if you ask me.
(Unlike many of nan's videos, of which many are just claptrap)
drummerboy said:
I think nan has a point about your hostitlity towards Sanders coloring your positions. How exactly do you want a campaign spokesperson to talk about a signature issue. I didn't watch the whole thing, but it was pretty un-offensive if you ask me.
(Unlike many of nan's videos, of which many are just claptrap)
I disagree. I have a low opinion of some of the Sanders boosters. By an large, my criticisms are about the Sanders criticisms and attacks against others. For crying out loud, the Sanders side is bringing up the whole Warren/Native American kerfuffle again - and doing so while completely ignoring all the debunking which happened since the GOP started with that back in 2012.
And why watch a chit-chat video to learn what the counter-arguments are? Why can't they be set out in a written, direct way?
My comment was about the fact that the description of her keeps changing: first "the woman being interviewed is a Sanders Surrogate, which means she is authorized by the campaign to present information truthfully" to "a family doctor talking about how difficult it is for her to work because of our current system". It wasn't an "interview" as if the video was some kind of news outlet; it's an informercial.
nohero said:
I disagree. I have a low opinion of some of the Sanders boosters. By an large, my criticisms are about the Sanders criticisms and attacks against others. For crying out loud, the Sanders side is bringing up the whole Warren/Native American kerfuffle again - and doing so while completely ignoring all the debunking which happened since the GOP started with that back in 2012.
And why watch a chit-chat video to learn what the counter-arguments are? Why can't they be set out in a written, direct way?
My comment was about the fact that the description of her keeps changing: first "the woman being interviewed is a Sanders Surrogate, which means she is authorized by the campaign to present information truthfully" to "a family doctor talking about how difficult it is for her to work because of our current system". It wasn't an "interview" as if the video was some kind of news outlet; it's an informercial.
Again, I don't think you watched the video. It's a family doctor and she tells how she became a Sanders' surrogate and why Medicare for All is so important. There is nothing wrong with it and it gives some good information, that Warren supporters should also approve of since Warren is supposedly also for Medicare for All. This should be an area of common ground, but for you, that can't be.
You just hate Bernie and I can see the crazy deranged steam coming out of your ears by all the off-topic babble in that post. Pull yourself together, man.
nan said:
You just hate Bernie and I can see the crazy deranged steam coming out of your ears by all the off-topic babble in that post. Pull yourself together, man.
I know Ms. Nan is trying, but Paul is still better at that schtick.
It'll be interesting to see how health care shakes out with the next president. Regardless of who the nominee is, I think health care will be a priority, though the scope and final goals will be different of if it's Biden vs if it's Warren. Regardless, they'll face the same dynamics:
- If Democrats take the Senate (challenging) and hold the House (more likely), they won't have a fillibuster-proof majority. Will they abolish the filibuster? And any Democratic senate will have a fair number of moderate to outright conservative Democrats, eg Manchin. How will that go?
- If Democrats don't take the Senate, how far will the administration go in pushing executive orders and regulatory authority? How aggressive will SCOTUS be in enforcing the "only Republicans are allowed to abuse executive authority" rule?
Elizabeth Warren is not doing well explaining Medicare for All and it sounds like she might not really support it. Dodgy.
This made me think of my own medical bills over the years.
Bernie Sanders: ‘What Was Your Most Absurd Medical Bill?’ Here Is The Response
I read that union workers who have healthcare benefits contracted by their unions are resistant to M4A. They feel the private plans they fought for are better than any governmental replacement. Also, when you fight for something you don't want to give it up.
But they gave up other benefits such as higher salaries to get their healthcare plans.
And now we see that corporate healthcare plans used as an economic weapon against strikers. We have GM dropping healthcare for those on strike. Something that would not happen with M4A.
Corporate healthcare plans also tend to tie employees to their corporations.
Any union fighting m4a is being very shortsighted. They should be fighting for what m4a would cover, rather than assuming it will be worse
BG9 said:
I read that union workers who have healthcare benefits contracted by their unions are resistant to M4A. They feel the private plans they fought for are better than any governmental replacement. Also, when you fight for something you don't want to give it up.
But they gave up other benefits such as higher salaries to get their healthcare plans.
And now we see that corporate healthcare plans used as an economic weapon against strikers. We have GM dropping healthcare for those on strike. Something that would not happen with M4A.
Corporate healthcare plans also tend to tie employees to their corporations.
Unions would rather fight for wages alone than wages AND healthcare. Why would they want to have to negotiate for both? They end up losing more in the long run. I think this is a right-wing talking point more than reality.
nan said:
I think this is a right-wing talking point more than reality.
It’s a union talking point, for reasons that we (and Joe “For a Socialist, You’ve Got a Lot More Confidence” Biden) have already discussed.
DaveSchmidt said:
It’s a union talking point, for reasons that we (and Joe “For a Socialist, You’ve Got a Lot More Confidence” Biden) have already discussed.
One of the reasons I say Joe is a Republican. And as I said before, it's not a good idea for unions to get healthcare through employment because it can be used as a bargaining chip. As now:
UAW blasts GM for using worker health insurance as 'leverage'
https://www.foxbusiness.com/industrials/gm-uaw-health-insurance-strike
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
I think this is a right-wing talking point more than reality.
It’s a union talking point, for reasons that we (and Joe “For a Socialist, You’ve Got a Lot More Confidence” Biden) have already discussed.
Just because some unions have embraced it doesn't mean it's not a right-wing talking point.
It clearly is.
It's not that anyone loves their health insurance - they're just trepidatious that the replacement might not be as good.
In which case, unions should be working with Dems to make sure that M4A meets their needs, not trying to talk down M4A.
Unions have spent decades and decades making wage and other concessions in order to protect their health coverage. You can make the argument that Medicare for All will be better for union workers in the decades and decades to come, and you can make the argument that their wage givebacks are just among the prices to pay for a system that’s better for Americans over all. But the unions have arguments, too, and they will need to be addressed — not just waved away as right-wing hooey.
DaveSchmidt said:
Unions have spent decades and decades making wage and other concessions in order to protect their health coverage. You can make the argument that Medicare for All will be better for union workers in the decades and decades to come, and you can make the argument that their wage givebacks are just among the prices to pay for a system that’s better for Americans over all. But the unions have arguments, too, and they will need to be addressed — not just waved away as right-wing hooey.
I guess I've heard too many union workers complain that they got crappy raises because of healthcare OR that their raise was negated by the rise in healthcare and in fact although they got a raise, they actually got a cut.
But, sure, unions hate M4A and want to keep healthcare. Who says that? Oh, Republicans and Democrats who sound like Republicans. Coincidence? I think not.
nan said:
I guess I've heard too many union workers complain that they got crappy raises because of healthcare OR that their raise was negated by the rise in healthcare and in fact although they got a raise, they actually got a cut.
What do all those union workers say when you go back and ask them about Medicare for All?
DaveSchmidt said:
Unions have spent decades and decades making wage and other concessions in order to protect their health coverage. You can make the argument that Medicare for All will be better for union workers in the decades and decades to come, and you can make the argument that their wage givebacks are just among the prices to pay for a system that’s better for Americans over all. But the unions have arguments, too, and they will need to be addressed — not just waved away as right-wing hooey.
As I said, I think what unions should be doing is working with the Dems to make sure M4A meets their needs, instead of just assuming it won't.
I can't imagine that anyone in the union thinks that spending "decades and decades making wage and other concessions in order to protect their health coverage" was a good thing. They should be the ones most in support of M4A. The fact that they're not is suspicious, to say the least.
A few years ago, any kind of popular support for health insurance companies would have been seen as absurd - they were undoubtedly one of the most hated institutions we had - so it's certainly a convenient turn of events that all of a sudden people love their health insurance.
drummerboy said:
I can't imagine that anyone in the union thinks that spending "decades and decades making wage and other concessions in order to protect their health coverage" was a good thing. They should be the ones most in support of M4A. The fact that they're not is suspicious, to say the least.
The point is they’re not getting those concessions back under M4A, and they’re also not getting the same health coverage that those concessions got them (at least, that’s the worry).
In other words, they’re concerned they’re losing twice. That’s suspicious?
My point is that they they are not thinking ahead in order to do what is ultimately best for their membership - and that would be, again , to be involved with the Dem candidates to make sure that M4A is what they need.
The fact that this is not their focus is what is suspicious to me. They are not doing what, to me, ultimately makes the most sense.
“They’re not seeing it the way I, a nonunion guy, see it, so rather than accept the possibility that there are rational arguments on both sides, including a reluctance to surrender one of the fruits of decades of fighting in hopes of prospective gains in future decades of fighting, I’m suspicious.”
OK.
Because, really, with health care off the table, just watch how easy it is for organized labor to get companies and governments to make up for it with higher wages and fully funded pensions.
DaveSchmidt said:
“They’re not seeing it the way I, a nonunion guy, see it, so rather than accept the possibility that there are rational arguments on both sides, including a reluctance to surrender one of the fruits of decades of fighting in hopes of prospective gains in future decades of fighting, I’m suspicious.”
OK.
what rational argument? this is not a complex problem. You can either think short-term and assume M4A is going to be worse for you and fight it - screwing the rest of the country and the long term needs of your members - or take the long term, obvious view where M4A (i.e. single payer) is the clear solution for health care and pour your efforts into making sure M4A meets your needs.
cut and dried to me and I find the union's position baffling - and can't help but think they are being influenced by insurance companies.
DaveSchmidt said:
Because, really, with health care off the table, just watch how easy it is for organized labor to get companies and governments to make up for it with higher wages and fully funded pensions.
neither here nor there. removing health care will simply make negotiations easier - not better, but that's due to our notoriously anti-union climate.
“Unions would be giving up what they believe is hard-won health coverage, but in exchange they’ll get negotiations that are easier. Not better. Easier. That they don’t fall over themselves running to support that trade-off is baffling.”
OK.
DaveSchmidt said:
“Unions would be giving up what they believe is hard-won health coverage, but in exchange they’ll get negotiations that are easier. Not better. Easier. That they don’t fall over themselves running to support that trade-off is baffling.”
OK.
you miss the point. The union's goal is not to fix their negotiations. It's to provide the best health care for their members, and they are failing to do that.
They believe their current coverage is better than what M4A would provide. If that’s such an obviously wrong position, and you can guarantee them that M4A will be better, then make that argument and convince them.
Wait. That approach won’t work, because they’re in the pockets of insurance companies. That’s too bad. It would’ve been nice to see it tried for a while longer.
DaveSchmidt said:
They believe their current coverage is better than what M4A would provide. If that’s such an obviously wrong position, and you can guarantee them that M4A will be better, then make that argument and convince them.
Wait. That approach won’t work, because they’re in the pockets of insurance companies. That’s too bad. It would’ve been nice to see it tried for a while longer.
I'm not sure why I bothered with all of the previous posts. We have returned to square one.
So I suggest you go to the top of this conversation, and re-read my posts, and continue looping through them until you understand my main point.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
I don't think what I post affects what you'd claim about what I think. In this case, I was just commenting on the silliness of watching a couple of self-promoters chit-chat instead of simply relying on a clear, substantive writing on the topic.