What is Medicare for All?

Andrew Yang also lies about supporting Medicare for All, and Tim Black has started a campaign to get him to take the "Medicare for All" name off his campaign.  He tells him to give whatever he is supporting a different name, like "Andrew Care" and offers some other suggestions:

Why are we spending so much energy on something that has no chance of getting enacted, in any form, for years?

If healthcare is a major issue, we should be focusing on something that's doable now, like beefing up Obamacare.

Like I said - this is the road to defeat.

drummerboy said:

Why are we spending so much energy on something that has no chance of getting enacted, in any form, for years?

If healthcare is a major issue, we should be focusing on something that's doable now, like beefing up Obamacare.

Like I said - this is the road to defeat.

 Because if we don't try we will NEVER get what other countries take for granted.  The people in power are only willing to hand out crumbs.  We need to build a big movement and demand it.  The other options, such as beefing up Obamacare are terrible and will do nothing to stop the enormous price rises. They will leave millions without care or with such high deductibles, they might as well not have care.  

This is a huge crisis.  It is the number one issue for so many, myself included.  When I campaign for Sanders I meet so many volunteers who say they consider Medicare for All a life and death issue for them personally.  It will be a heavy lift to get passed, but Sanders is the only candidate who understands that and has built a movement specifically to take on the billionaires and the greed of the insurance companies.  He is the only candidate who is really serious about fighting for M4A, and he's no spring chicken, so the time to go for it is now. 

It is not the road to defeat, because so many really, really want Medicare for All (when they understand what it is).  That's why fake candidates like Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, and Kamala Harris keep calling their public option plans, "Medicare for All"  If Medicare for All were a clear road to defeat, you would see them change the plan names pronto. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

Why are we spending so much energy on something that has no chance of getting enacted, in any form, for years?

If healthcare is a major issue, we should be focusing on something that's doable now, like beefing up Obamacare.

Like I said - this is the road to defeat.

 Because if we don't try we will NEVER get what other countries take for granted.  The people in power are only willing to hand out crumbs.  We need to build a big movement and demand it.  The other options, such as beefing up Obamacare are terrible and will do nothing to stop the enormous price rises. They will leave millions without care or with such high deductibles, they might as well not have care.  

This. Change is doable if we try hard. 

Commit to it, not continue to say its not yet possible. We say that, we'll find us still saying it 100 years from now.

History has shown that people do get crumbs when they don't try. Example is women's suffrage, derided as impossible where leaders were jailed using various pretexts. Or the labor movement, derided as socialist and communist, where organizers were shot at by Pinkertons while police watched.

It can be done. It will be hard:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/opinion/warren-medicare-for-all.html

horse poop on both of you.

I'm talking about winning the general election. This is a losing issue. There's no need to bring up such a divisive and incredibly complicated issue as the focus of this presidential campaign. It's a huge mistake. People are not clamoring for this. And it's impossible to explain the financing in our sound bite culture.

I prefer both Bernie and Warren among all of the candidates, but they will sink on this issue.

In the best of all possible worlds, we win a bare majority in the Senate, keep the House and win the Presidency. The only health care legislation that has a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed is a shoring up and expansion of Obamacare - M4A is a non-starter - yet it's an issue that's not even getting discussed. Sounds kind of like a dishonest way of running a campaign.

drummerboy said:

horse poop on both of you.

I'm talking about winning the general election. This is a losing issue. There's no need to bring up such a divisive and incredibly complicated issue as the focus of this presidential campaign. It's a huge mistake. People are not clamoring for this. And it's impossible to explain the financing in our sound bite culture.

I prefer both Bernie and Warren among all of the candidates, but they will sink on this issue.

In the best of all possible worlds, we win a bare majority in the Senate, keep the House and win the Presidency. The only health care legislation that has a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed is a shoring up and expansion of Obamacare - M4A is a non-starter - yet it's an issue that's not even getting discussed. Sounds kind of like a dishonest way of running a campaign.

 They are not sinking.  They are soaring and leaving all the other turds in the dust. Even Platitude Pete pretends he is pushing Medicare for All because he knows that is what people want. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

horse poop on both of you.

I'm talking about winning the general election. This is a losing issue. There's no need to bring up such a divisive and incredibly complicated issue as the focus of this presidential campaign. It's a huge mistake. People are not clamoring for this. And it's impossible to explain the financing in our sound bite culture.

I prefer both Bernie and Warren among all of the candidates, but they will sink on this issue.

In the best of all possible worlds, we win a bare majority in the Senate, keep the House and win the Presidency. The only health care legislation that has a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed is a shoring up and expansion of Obamacare - M4A is a non-starter - yet it's an issue that's not even getting discussed. Sounds kind of like a dishonest way of running a campaign.

 They are not sinking.  They are soaring and leaving all the other turds in the dust. Even Platitude Pete pretends he is pushing Medicare for All because he knows that is what people want. 

You're living in a fairyland.

Part of the problem is that neither Bernie or Warren are selling it correctly. e.g. They should all be talking about the "existing health care tax", i.e. the premiums we pay for insurance.

But Dems have always sucked at messaging, so I'm not surprised at this.

drummerboy said:

You're living in a fairyland.

Part of the problem is that neither Bernie or Warren are selling it correctly. e.g. They should all be talking about the "existing health care tax", i.e. the premiums we pay for insurance.

But Dems have always sucked at messaging, so I'm not surprised at this

Bernie does a decent job of explaining it. Warren is now trying to hide the tax even more in a convoluted way that will make it even harder to pass, so I don't know that is going to work out.  

But, your claims that people don't want a progressive platform is false and makes you sound like Nancy Pelosi.  And I don't mean that as a compliment. 

The Humanist Report does a review of Warren's plan to pay for Medicare for All. Like others, he calls it a regressive tax and thinks it will make it easy for companies to game the system to avoid paying the head tax and that it will make it harder to implement.  

nan said:

Bernie does a decent job of explaining it. Warren is now trying to hide the tax even more in a convoluted way that will make it even harder to pass, so I don't know that is going to work out.  

But, your claims that people don't want a progressive platform is false and makes you sound like Nancy Pelosi.  And I don't mean that as a compliment. 

um, please show me where I made any "claims that people don't want a progressive platform" .

I am talking about one issue specifically, that doesn't have a chance in hell of getting passed any time in the next 4 years, and is one of the most divisive presidential campaign proposals by a major candidate in the last 50 years.

It makes no sense to focus so much attention on it - not in a critical election like this.

nan said:

The Humanist Report does a review of Warren's plan to pay for Medicare for All. Like others, he calls it a regressive tax and thinks it will make it easy for companies to game the system to avoid paying the head tax and that it will make it harder to implement.  

 do you, at all, understand the idiocy and destructive nature of criticisms like this?

drummerboy said:

um, please show me where I made any "claims that people don't want a progressive platform" .

I am talking about one issue specifically, that doesn't have a chance in hell of getting passed any time in the next 4 years, and is one of the most divisive presidential campaign proposals by a major candidate in the last 50 years.

It makes no sense to focus so much attention on it - not in a critical election like this.

 It's the most important issue to many if not the majority of voters.  I have said from Day 1 that it's my most important issue, even though I know Climate Change is more important, Intellectually.  I don't think there will be anyone else in my lifetime, besides Sanders who will be so focused on getting M4A passed.  You are correct that it will be quite difficult, but Sanders has a movement and he understands how change happens on a deep level.  He's the one guy who I trust to honestly try to push it through -- so I am not squandering this opportunity.  

I don't want to hear about this "critical election" because that's always the excuse.  If we don't implement major change we will have more and worse DJTs coming down the pike. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

um, please show me where I made any "claims that people don't want a progressive platform" .

I am talking about one issue specifically, that doesn't have a chance in hell of getting passed any time in the next 4 years, and is one of the most divisive presidential campaign proposals by a major candidate in the last 50 years.

It makes no sense to focus so much attention on it - not in a critical election like this.

 It's the most important issue to many if not the majority of voters.  I have said from Day 1 that it's my most important issue, even though I know Climate Change is more important, Intellectually.  I don't think there will be anyone else in my lifetime, besides Sanders who will be so focused on getting M4A passed.  You are correct that it will be quite difficult, but Sanders has a movement and he understands how change happens on a deep level.  He's the one guy who I trust to honestly try to push it through -- so I am not squandering this opportunity.  

I don't want to hear about this "critical election" because that's always the excuse.  If we don't implement major change we will have more and worse DJTs coming down the pike. 

Do you actually believe that if Bernie is elected that there is even 1 chance in 1000 that he can pass M4A?

Because that's delusional. He's gonna have enough trouble just trying to roll back the tax cut and to raise taxes on the wealthy.

And those are the easy ones.

This is my point. M4A is a dead issue for the short term. It should be talked about as the eventual solution, but it really can't distract from achievable goals. Because if you waste your legislative energy on M4A, and it fails, as it will, then you have little capital left over to use to actually try and fix Obamacare, which is the only other alternative to try and get more people covered and improve coverage. So at the end of the day, you've ended up accomplishing nothing in the way of improving health care.

It's a very short sighted approach.

drummerboy said:

 do you, at all, understand the idiocy and destructive nature of criticisms like this?

No, I don't.  Please explain. 

 Do you, at all, understand that Warren basically put her foot in her mouth big time with this thing?  Once again, she let people prodding her to get under her skin and her response is likely to backfire. This is starting to look like a pattern. 

She went to the end of the earth so she could say she is not raising middle-class taxes, except she is doing that under a different category.  She will get rightfully called out for this.  

Also, interesting that she calls for a decrease in the military to fund this thing since she has not shown an interest in that before.  She voted to give Trump a bigger military budget than he asked for.  

Here is another critique from David Brooks and Ana Kasparian:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

 do you, at all, understand the idiocy and destructive nature of criticisms like this?

No, I don't.  Please explain. 

 Do you, at all, understand that Warren basically put her foot in her mouth big time with this thing?  Once again, she let people prodding her to get under her skin and her response is likely to backfire. This is starting to look like a pattern. 

She went to the end of the earth so she could say she is not raising middle-class taxes, except she is doing that under a different category.  She will get rightfully called out for this.  

Also, interesting that she calls for a decrease in the military to fund this thing since she has not shown an interest in that before.  She voted to give Trump a bigger military budget than he asked for.  

It's idiocy and self destructive because it's an argument about something that will never happen in the near future. And all the criticism does is unnecessarily knock down a potential nominee (which of course, is the whole point of the criticism. It really has nothing to do with the actual proposal.)

If you actually cared about winning this election, her proposal should be looked at constructively, not destructively. Criticisms from the left like the ones you've posted are just as bad as the criticism coming from people like Biden and Buttigieg. If, on the other hand, all you care about is electing Bernie, then you can criticize away.

Warren is the only candidate who has attempted to create a framework for paying for M4A. She should be praised for the effort.  And before you tell me Bernie has a plan, explain this, from Oct 29:

Bernie Sanders doesn't plan on releasing a detailed plan of how to finance his single-payer Medicare for All plan, he told CNBC's John Harwood on Tuesday.

"You're asking me to come up with an exact detailed plan of how every American — how much you're going to pay more in taxes, how much I'm going to pay," he said. "I don't think I have to do that right now."

I'm not criticizing Bernie for this position, and maybe Warren should have taken the same tack. I don't know. But I think that it's possible that by proposing her plan, Warren might have put to rest the endless questions about "taxing the middle class", which would be a good thing. We'll have to see.

drummerboy said:

If you actually cared about winning this election, her proposal should be looked at constructively, not destructively. Criticisms from the left like the ones you've posted are just as bad as the criticism coming from people like Biden and Buttigieg. If, on the other hand, all you care about is electing Bernie, then you can criticize away.

Exactly.  The goal is supposed to be M4A, not B(ernie)4A. 

drummerboy said:

It's idiocy and self destructive because it's an argument about something that will never happen in the near future. And all the criticism does is unnecessarily knock down a potential nominee (which of course, is the whole point of the criticism. It really has nothing to do with the actual proposal.)

If you actually cared about winning this election, her proposal should be looked at constructively, not destructively. Criticisms from the left like the ones you've posted are just as bad as the criticism coming from people like Biden and Buttigieg. If, on the other hand, all you care about is electing Bernie, then you can criticize away.

Warren is the only candidate who has attempted to create a framework for paying for M4A. She should be praised for the effort.  And before you tell me Bernie has a plan, explain this, from Oct 29:

Bernie Sanders doesn't plan on releasing a detailed plan of how to finance his single-payer Medicare for All plan, he told CNBC's John Harwood on Tuesday.

"You're asking me to come up with an exact detailed plan of how every American — how much you're going to pay more in taxes, how much I'm going to pay," he said. "I don't think I have to do that right now."

I'm not criticizing Bernie for this position, and maybe Warren should have taken the same tack. I don't know. But I think that it's possible that by proposing her plan, Warren might have put to rest the endless questions about "taxing the middle class", which would be a good thing. We'll have to see.

 It's a primary and you should expect candidates to point out their differences.  Warren is doing that by trying to make her Medicare for All plan appear to not raise middle-class taxes.  She is doing this to try to get votes and specifically trying to get people who are choosing between her plan and Bernie's to pick hers.  It's a blatant voter grab proposal. Also, likely to be pointless in the long run, because Warren will no doubt cave on Medicare for All.  She does not show much passion for going after the healthcare companies now, and she's not even elected yet.   

So, we have to look at the details and show how she is basically pulling some crap here to try to present an advantage.  Her plan is a regressive head tax and Bernies is a progressive payroll tax.  He's telling you loud and clear how he is going to pay for Medicare for All and yet, for some reason, you are using a quote of him saying the's not going to give exact details on how much drummerboy is going to pay and saying he is not telling people how he is going to pay for it.  I don't know why there is confusion, and there is even an ABC video of him comparing his plan to Warren's but I think ABC pulled it--because it plays something different when I try to watch. Maybe he did too good of a job demonstrating how his plan is better. 

nan said:

The Humanist Report does a review of Warren's plan to pay for Medicare for All. Like others, he calls it a regressive tax and thinks it will make it easy for companies to game the system to avoid paying the head tax and that it will make it harder to implement.  

 OK, I posted this Humanist Report critique of Warren's M4A funding plan the other day, and drummerboy got angry because he does not think anyone should criticize Warren's plan because Medicare for All is never going to happen and we should just shut up and support Warren and give her a gold star because she tried to come up with a framework for paying for Medicare for All and at, at the same time we will ignore the fact that Bernie was the one who wrote the damn bill in the first place and already had a framework for paying for it.  And none of this matters because we all know Nan is just trying to support Bernie, while drummerboy who talked openly about getting a Warren bumper sticker is just a neutral voter who has not made up his mind and basically just wants Any Functioning Adult.\

OK, so there is that.  And then, I thought this was interesting.  The squeaky, rat-voiced, Republican twit, Ben Shapiro attacked Warren's plan.  And Mike Figueroa of the Humanist Report had to put aside his criticism of Warren's plan for a moment and defend it and Medicare for All in general against an idiotic temper tantrum. Doing so he provides some useful facts about funding Medicare for All in general. 

nan said:

So, we have to look at the details and show how she is basically pulling some crap here to try to present an advantage.  Her plan is a regressive head tax and Bernies is a progressive payroll tax.  He's telling you loud and clear how he is going to pay for Medicare for All and yet, for some reason, you are using a quote of him saying the's not going to give exact details on how much drummerboy is going to pay and saying he is not telling people how he is going to pay for it.  I don't know why there is confusion, and there is even an ABC video of him comparing his plan to Warren's but I think ABC pulled it--because it plays something different when I try to watch. Maybe he did too good of a job demonstrating how his plan is better. 

Let us know when Bernie's campaign presents these details, which so far seem to be in earlier statements from before Bernie said he hasn't given details, and in videos which have been "pulled". 

In other words, the Bernie version of this: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/paying-for-m4a

Absent that, it doesn't seem useful to have a back-and-forth about comparisons.

nohero said:

nan said:

So, we have to look at the details and show how she is basically pulling some crap here to try to present an advantage.  Her plan is a regressive head tax and Bernies is a progressive payroll tax.  He's telling you loud and clear how he is going to pay for Medicare for All and yet, for some reason, you are using a quote of him saying the's not going to give exact details on how much drummerboy is going to pay and saying he is not telling people how he is going to pay for it.  I don't know why there is confusion, and there is even an ABC video of him comparing his plan to Warren's but I think ABC pulled it--because it plays something different when I try to watch. Maybe he did too good of a job demonstrating how his plan is better. 

Let us know when Bernie's campaign presents these details, which so far seem to be in earlier statements from before Bernie said he hasn't given details, and in videos which have been "pulled". 

In other words, the Bernie version of this: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/paying-for-m4a

Absent that, it doesn't seem useful to have a back-and-forth about comparisons.

 Well, I'll go further and say regardless if Bernie has a counterpart, it's still not useful to compare. Bernie's plan will never end up being the final legislation that is eventually voted on, nor will Warren's.

It's more than enough that they're both committed to M4 at some time. Their financing details are markers that establish a base for negotiations, and as I've said many times already, spending so much energy trying to knock down Warren's plan is destructive for everyone.

And I'll say it again, it's only Bernie's supporters who are attacking Warren in such detail. So many of them do not care about beating Trump - they care only about Bernie.

nohero said:

Let us know when Bernie's campaign presents these details, which so far seem to be in earlier statements from before Bernie said he hasn't given details, and in videos which have been "pulled". 

In other words, the Bernie version of this: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/paying-for-m4a

Absent that, it doesn't seem useful to have a back-and-forth about comparisons.

 She wants a regressive head tax and he wants a progressive payroll tax.  That is all you need to know.  On the other stuff, she looks even worse--she depends on a reduction in the military budget and major immigration reform--things that make it even HARDER to pass M4A.  Her "details" make you realize that she has no intention of fighting for Medicare for All.  She just wants to say she is giving everyone healthcare without raising middle-class taxes.  I fell for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  I'm not doing this song and dance again.  

drummerboy said:

 Well, I'll go further and say regardless if Bernie has a counterpart, it's still not useful to compare. Bernie's plan will never end up being the final legislation that is eventually voted on, nor will Warren's.

It's more than enough that they're both committed to M4 at some time. Their financing details are markers that establish a base for negotiations, and as I've said many times already, spending so much energy trying to knock down Warren's plan is destructive for everyone.

And I'll say it again, it's only Bernie's supporters who are attacking Warren in such detail. So many of them do not care about beating Trump - they care only about Bernie.

 They care about electing someone who will ACTUALLY fight for Medicare for All.  They actually really, really, really, really, care about Medicare for All.  Warren supporters like yourself are questioning why she is even running on that. You do not expect her to actually take on the insurance companies and send them packing.  You just want to get rid of Trump and have a couple of new benefits and a woman president.  You are not losing your house because of medical debt or working three jobs or homeless and working at Walmart.  

Last time I campaigned for Bernie, homeless people came up and helped us out because they had heard about his new policy guaranteeing housing.  Sanders supporters care about his policies and his consistent record says to them that he is the most trustworthy candidate to follow through on their behalf.  Warren does not inspire that kind of confidence and she does not have the movement behind her to support that kind of change. 

nan,

The problem is that you and other Bernie supporters actually believe M4A can be passed in the foreseeable future.

Not even Bernie believes that, I'm sure. It's utterly delusional.

And as I said, and which you've ignored, focusing on M4A as a solution for healthcare will end up with nothing being done to improve our healthcare system. 

I'm not satisfied with that probable outcome. But I guess you're prepared to leave our healthcare system in limbo for the next few years, with a demolished Obamacare as our only system.

Going back to a much earlier question on this thread, Nan, have you considered the possibility at all that Sanders could be elected president, try and pass m4a, and fail?  Or is that literally impossible in your view? This is a question I have for Warren as well. Really, for all candidates on their big policy initiatives.

drummerboy said:

nan,

The problem is that you and other Bernie supporters actually believe M4A can be passed in the foreseeable future.

Not even Bernie believes that, I'm sure. It's utterly delusional.

And as I said, and which you've ignored, focusing on M4A as a solution for healthcare will end up with nothing being done to improve our healthcare system. 

I'm not satisfied with that probable outcome. But I guess you're prepared to leave our healthcare system in limbo for the next few years, with a demolished Obamacare as our only system.

drummerboy,

The problem with you is that you are fine with accepting crumbs and prefer to roll over before you even try.  I have said from the beginning that M4A would be difficult to pass.  So, what are the choices?  There is 1) Give up and accept the lousy system where we pay the most for healthcare with poor results, or 2) Vote for a person who is not beholden to corporate interests and has a plan to fight for Medicare for All.  The choices are that stark; there is no middle ground.  It is too late for the public option.

You seem to think that now is not the time to fight for healthcare, but if not now when?  This is Sanders's last shot at the presidency and there is no one coming down the pike with his skills or focus anytime soon.  I'm not letting this opportunity pass without a huge effort. 

PVW said:

Going back to a much earlier question on this thread, Nan, have you considered the possibility at all that Sanders could be elected president, try and pass m4a, and fail?  Or is that literally impossible in your view? This is a question I have for Warren as well. Really, for all candidates on their big policy initiatives.

 Of course, he could try and pass it and fail.  It's going to be a very heavy lift.  The powerful healthcare lobby will do anything to keep their profit, including kill him.  The issue is voting for the person who is most likely to get it passed, and that person is Sanders.  There is no other candidate who will even try to get it passed as written.  Only two candidates are even still proposing Medicare for All--the rest are just using the name.  So if you want Medicare for All, you have to vote for Sanders or Warren, and Sanders is much more dedicated to Medicare for All than Warren.

Sanders has a movement behind him that will rally to the cause.  That's the only way it is getting passed.  You can't just pick some charismatic leader and think they will convince people who are paid to be not convinced to vote for Medicare for All. We will need a huge push from the American people demanding change. As candidates from Our Revolution and Justice Democrats get more of a foothold, the odds will improve. But, directly targeting anti-Medicare for All voters in Congress will also help. 

nan said:

PVW said:

Going back to a much earlier question on this thread, Nan, have you considered the possibility at all that Sanders could be elected president, try and pass m4a, and fail?  Or is that literally impossible in your view? This is a question I have for Warren as well. Really, for all candidates on their big policy initiatives.

 Of course, he could try and pass it and fail.  It's going to be a very heavy lift.  The powerful healthcare lobby will do anything to keep their profit, including kill him.  The issue is voting for the person who is most likely to get it passed, and that person is Sanders.  There is no other candidate who will even try to get it passed as written.  Only two candidates are even still proposing Medicare for All--the rest are just using the name.  So if you want Medicare for All, you have to vote for Sanders or Warren, and Sanders is much more dedicated to Medicare for All than Warren.

Sanders has a movement behind him that will rally to the cause.  That's the only way it is getting passed.  You can't just pick some charismatic leader and think they will convince people who are paid to be not convinced to vote for Medicare for All. We will need a huge push from the American people demanding change. As candidates from Our Revolution and Justice Democrats get more of a foothold, the odds will improve. But, directly targeting anti-Medicare for All voters in Congress will also help. 

 So same answer, you haven't. You're free to evaluate candidates as you like, of course, but I find myself trying to imagine how they may react when their various policy efforts fall short.

PVW said:

 So same answer, you haven't. You're free to evaluate candidates as you like, of course, but I find myself trying to imagine how they may react when their various policy efforts fall short.

 But, I said I have.  I've said this over and over.  Medicare for All will be a HUGE lift.  It's not going to be easy and the healthcare lobby will fight with everything include assassination.  

For you, the only "sensible" choice seems to be giving up.  I'm more of a fighter.  

nan said:

PVW said:

 So same answer, you haven't. You're free to evaluate candidates as you like, of course, but I find myself trying to imagine how they may react when their various policy efforts fall short.

 But, I said I have.  I've said this over and over.  Medicare for All will be a HUGE lift.  It's not going to be easy and the healthcare lobby will fight with everything include assassination.  

For you, the only "sensible" choice seems to be giving up.  I'm more of a fighter.  

 I asked you what would happen if the lift failed. You say it'll be a huge lift... then go on to explain how to pass it.