Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

Regardless of the virtues of Medicare For All, speaking just politically (as in winning elections) I think Medicare For All (MFA) is a losing proposal.

Even with the Democratic party it does not have majority support once you look closer. From recent Monmouth University Poll:

On the issue of health care, 58% of party voters say it is very important to them that the Democrats nominate someone who supports “Medicare for All.” Another 23% say it is somewhat important, 10% say it is not important, and 9% are unsure. However, it is not clear that Medicare for All means the same thing to all voters. When asked specifically about what type of health insurance system they prefer, 53% of Democratic voters say they want a system that offers an opt in to Medicare while retaining the private insurance market. Just 22% say they want to move to a system where Medicare for All replaces private insurance. Another 7% prefer to keep insurance private for people under 65 but regulate the costs and 11% want to leave the system basically as it is now.

Those who prefer a public option are divided into two camps that include 18% who would like to move to a universal public insurance system eventually and 33% who say that there should always be the choice of private coverage. In other words, only 4-in-10 Democrats want to get rid of the private insurance market when the 22% who want Medicare for All now are combined with the 18% who would like to move to a universal public system at some point in the future.

“We asked the public option question in our Iowa poll earlier this month and got a lot of flak from Medicare for All advocates who claim that polls show widespread support for their idea. It seems from these results, though, the term has a wide range of meanings among Democratic voters. Many conflate the public-only program name with a public option. There is a lot more nuance in public opinion on this issue that could become problematic for proponents as voters become more familiar with what Medicare for All actually entails,” said Murray.

The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from August 16 to 20, 2019 with 800 adults in the United States. Results in this release are based on 298 registered voters who identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, which has a +/- 5.7 percentage point sampling margin of error. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.

And this is before the highly effective Republican and insurance industry fear-mongering has begun! And this doesn't count Republicans!

It's just common sense: If you force people to accept something that you think will be (and may well be) good for them, there are going to people who resist, especially when it comes to health care. However, if you give them a choice (public option) then there's no reason to resist.

Or to use the phraseology of my man, Pete Buttigieg, who proposes Medicare For All Who Want It, you are not forcing the people who don't want (and want to keep their current coverage, warts and all) to succumb. Requiring people to accept MFA only loses you votes.

With Medicare For All Who Want It, you get the support of everybody who wants to be covered by a MFA system, without raising the fear and resistance of people who are not too sure about that just yet, and who's fear is certain to be stoked by the Republican. And its a really easy issue to stoke fear about! So if people aren't ready to give up the private/company/union health care, they can still vote for the Democrat without hesitation!

Why force people (which they will see as the government taking something away) when there's a fine option to let them choose? That's just bad politics, which plays right into Trumps hands.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Regardless of the virtues of Medicare For All, speaking just politically (as in winning elections) I think Medicare For All (MFA) is a losing proposal. ....

---

Medicare for All who want it is another divide-and-conquer strategy.... It ignores much of how private insurers make deals w/hospitals to reimburse only so much and also over charge to make up losses... how it denies care... et cetera... And, does one give up one's voice, one's preference, to choose what may 'win' - based on polls that may be skewed, devised to prove or drive home a particular point?

Article has good interview snippets w/both Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...bernie-sanders
Activist Ady Barkan's "Heartfelt" and "Moving" Conversation With Bernie Sanders on the Fight for Medicare for All

Everyone should have health care.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by M/M:

Medicare for All who want it is another divide-and-conquer strategy.... .. And, does one give up one's voice, one's preference, to choose what may 'win' - based on polls that may be skewed, devised to prove or drive home a particular point?.....
Everyone should have health care.

---

well, even though I wouldn't explain it that way - even if it was a divide & conquer strategy - well, that's often a solid strategy! Wishing the polls were skewed doesn't help. There's very little evidence that they are, and well respected pollsters who back them. So if the goal is to get everyone health care, dividing the opposition and taking victories one at a time seems like a cunning plan (tm). Those supporting it have explained in detail why it makes sense to them. Most of the MA proponents explain why it'd be a good thing, which may be true but isn't the point; not if its proponents can't put it into place.

What was it Reagan said? The nine scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" ?

There are millions of democrats who have good private health insurance who will not, under any circumstance, give it up for some promised government program.

There are even more who will simply not trust a government program- period.

And...as I've said before- "medicare for all" will be a nightmare. The government- which can shift views and values every 2 years- will decide what is- and what isn't covered. Just a few things that might change between governments: Womens health. Contraception. Abortion. Addiction treatment. How about HIV treatment? Or HIV prevention "(PREP/Truvada) ? Hormones or reassignment surgery for transgenders? How about genetic diseases that tend to target minorities?

And what would this do to the healthcare system- where coverages may be tied up in court for years... and where hospitals and doctors have to worry if the services they provide today will be covered tomorrow?

And...what will it do to drug development- when the government not the free market decides if a drug makes it market? What does this mean for the myriad of drugs that when first put out were, at best, marginally better then existing drugs... but doctors started to realize that they were were far more effective for another condition than existing drugs?


Now the caveat- most of us are smart enough to know that despite promises- "medicare for all" will never pass congress. the ACA was a thinly won victory- that we've been fighting over ever since. But just the (false) promise of "medicare for all" will turn off a huge portion of democrats. I for one would never vote for anyone backing such a flawed plan.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

...And...what will it do to drug development- when the government not the free market decides if a drug makes it market? What does this mean for the myriad of drugs that when first put out were, at best, marginally better then existing drugs... but doctors started to realize that they were were far more effective for another condition than existing drugs?...

---

rats, thought this was played out..
but really? you think government/CDC would do worse that big Pharma as for developing new medical treatment?
I also can't quite interpret your posited history of 'myriad of drugs'.. are you suggesting that for-profit pharma has put out a bunch of drugs that were considered of marginal use at best but instead turned out to be really great for other things? I suspect this happens but if it's typical, and if it's something that is more likely to happen when drugs are developed for-profit rather than by pure-research institutions, I'd like to hear the evidence.
I'll pit horror stories of for-profit drug development vs. disfunctional government/academic research institutions any time.

(ok, don't take me up on it.. I don't have a pack-rat memory enough to collect stories like that. It's just a plausible assertion for interweb debate...)

Thanks for your comments, everybody, but you are getting into the weeds and morality of health care policy.

My point is that we need to win this election, to save the planet, besides improving health care. Regardless of profits, morality, advantages/disadvantages of MFA, when polled properly and subjected to Republican fear-mongering, we're going to lose votes in the general election vs a Medicare for All Who Want It plan.

I'm a big supporter of Pete Buttigieg, but I also think Elizabeth Warren if great, too, but I fear her support for MFA may well cost us the (general) election!

Please put aside what you think is "right" or "best" and start thinking about the strongest position to take to win this election, while advancing the ball.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

...for-profit pharma has put out a bunch of drugs that were considered of marginal use at best but instead turned out to be really great for other things?

---

I believe that Sildenafil citrate fits that description. It was developed to help control high blood pressure.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

I believe that Sildenafil citrate fits that description. It was developed to help control high blood pressure.

---

oh I know it happens. My quibble was to whether that was particularly common, and even more as to whether that's a feature peculiar to profit-making pharma vs. other researchers. I think it's quibbleable.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Thanks for your comments, everybody, but you are getting into the weeds and morality of health care policy.

My point is that we need to win this election, to save the planet, besides improving health care. Regardless of profits, morality, advantages/disadvantages of MFA, when polled properly and subjected to Republican fear-mongering, we're going to lose votes in the general election vs a Medicare for All Who Want It plan.

I'm a big supporter of Pete Buttigieg, but I also think Elizabeth Warren if great, too, but I fear her support for MFA may well cost us the (general) election!

Please put aside what you think is "right" or "best" and start thinking about the strongest position to take to win this election, while advancing the ball.

---

If your concerns are genuinely as stated, that the primary objective needs to be winning this election, and your issue with MFA is that the polls indicate it would be a deal breaker for the Democrats in the general, then why are you supporting Buttigieg? He barely, if at all, polls ahead of Trump.

I find it difficult to believe that your issues with Sanders, Warren and Medicare for All, are merely rooted in your deep concern that we must win the Oval. Bernie, who wrote the damn bill, polls second behind Biden in a match up between him and Trump. On the other hand, Buttigeig frequently polls behind Trump, or at best barely beating him with less than the margin of error difference.

Are we to believe that the most important agenda item in your opinion is winning the general election while you simultaneously attempt to direct us toward Buttigieg?

If the vital agenda is winning, regardless of what comes with the package, then by all accounts you should be supporting Biden. Currently via the most recent Real Clear Politics poll, Biden beats Trump by +12.2 points, Bernie beats Trump by +8.6, Warren by +5.4 and your man Buttigieg barely squeaks by with a 2 point lead. Close enough to give it to Trump with no questions asked.....

Looks to me like your backing a losing horse in a race that you suggest is so important to win that we should “put aside what we think is 'right' or 'best' and start thinking about the strongest position to take to win this election, while advancing the ball.”

All of the polls, past and present, coupled with candidate's policies, indicate that both elements of your established criteria, winning and advancing the ball, are best achieved with the highest probability of success by supporting Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden is a stronger win but doesn't advance the ball.

Buttigieg on the other hand does neither. He is the centrist DNC darling who will do nothing to significantly change the paradigm and, as polls suggest, has an extremely small chance of beating Trump.

How do you reconcile supporting a candidate who has the least observable ability to fit your stated primary objective, winning the general election?

Secondly, how do you reconcile supporting a candidate who, by his record of accomplishments after 8 years as South Bend's Mayor, has done little to 'advance the ball' in his own town regarding poverty, racial discrimination, unemployment and class divide, to name just a few major issues of national social importance?

With all due respect, considering you started this thread imploring us to put aside what might be right or best for those less privileged than ourselves, I think it's a fair request to ask that you weigh in with some explanation of your seemingly self-defeating approach to the upcoming elections.

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/sites/[email protected]
Elizabeth Warren's choice:
'Medicare for All' purity or a path to beating Donald Trump?

Jill Lawrence, USA TODAYPublished 4:00 a.m. ET Sept. 23, 2019

Warren is not as all or nothing as her health care rhetoric suggests. But her support for phasing out private insurance is scaring people off.

Elizabeth Warren is increasingly less of a long shot to win the Democratic presidential nomination, as a new Iowa poll shows. She now has a window to either expand her appeal to millions of voters who are uncertain about her candidacy, or make sure they write her off.

It all comes down to health care.

The Massachusetts senator portrays herself as the candidate of dreaming big and fighting hard. That is working well when it comes to her signature promise of fixing what she calls a rigged economic system that favors rich people and corporations at the expense of much of the rest of America.

Financial struggles and insecurity are problems that know no party, after all. And polls show 6 in 10 believe that wealthy people aren't paying their fair share. The same large majority favors raising their income taxes or (as Warren has proposed) imposing a wealth tax. An even larger 69% say corporations aren't paying enough.

Warren's support for "Medicare for All" and the phaseout of almost all private insurance, however, is working much less well. In fact, it’s scaring people off.

People want choices on health care

Seven in 10 like the idea
of giving everyone a choice
between private insurance
or a public, government-run
option...
Even a majority of
Democrats favor that
approach over
Medicare for All.

Warren won predictable applause at the last Democratic debate when she declared, “I've actually never met anybody who likes their health insurance company.” They like their doctors, nurses and pharmacists, she said, and they’d be able to keep them — the only difference would be the bill would go to the government, not an insurance company.

That tremendously oversimplifies an intensely personal, complicated issue.

A few months ago, a friend told me over dinner that he liked his health insurance and would oppose any plan or candidate that forced him to give it up. That came as an utter shock, but then I considered the sources of our respective plans. He has excellent insurance through a top university. I have expensive, skimpy insurance in an industry that has fallen on hard times.

There are lots of people with marginal insurance or no coverage at all. But there are also lots of people like my friend. That has become increasingly clear as unions, a core Democratic constituency, defend the private health insurance plans they have negotiated, sometimes giving up higher wages in exchange.

Polling reflects this reluctance to throw out the existing patchwork of private insurance and public plans like Medicare and Medicaid. Most people prefer to build on the current system, the premise of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), rather than move to Medicare-only. Seven in 10 like the idea of giving everyone a choice between private insurance or a public, government-run option (like Medicare, for instance). Even a majority of Democrats favor that approach over Medicare for All.

Medicare for All as 'goal' to fight for

Former Vice President Joe Biden, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who all oppose eliminating private insurance companies, make arguments tailored to those numbers. Buttigieg at the debate framed Sen. Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All plan as “my way or the highway” versus trust and choice, as in Buttigieg's proposal for Medicare for all who want it: “I trust the American people to make the right choice for them.”

Warren's health plan is headlined “Health care is a basic human right” and says that while we must defend the ACA from damage, “it’s time for the next step.” That step is Medicare for All, "a goal worth fighting for." There are no specifics about costs, transitions, structure or timing. There are, however, details on other ways Warren is trying to improve health care.

She has introduced bills to make drugs more affordable, expand mental health coverage and help communities fight the opioid epidemic. She has several proposals to ensure that rural areas have the health care facilities and workforce they need. And while she co-sponsored Sanders' Medicare for All bill, she has also co-sponsored a State Public Option Act to let states sell Medicaid plans to anyone, regardless of income.

When you've lost Mia Farrow ...

So Warren is not as all-or-nothing as her rhetoric suggests. She has plenty to talk about besides taking away private insurance. If she wanted to, she could sound more like New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, also a Medicare for All backer. “There is an urgency right now in this nation. Everybody feels it," he said at the Sept. 12 debate. "And as a person who has an ideal, I know we cannot sacrifice progress on the altar of purity.”

This may be a matter of trying to keep the focus on the highest, most aspirational goal, much as Republicans did when they ran on killing the ACA while Obama was in the White House with a veto pen. The difference is that their rallying cry mobilized the GOP base. Warren’s runs the risk of alienating even many liberal Democrats. Mia Farrow is hardly an average American or a swing voter, but she spoke for many when she tweeted after the last debate, “Love @ewarren but if people like their pvt healthcare, taking it away is too extreme.”

If that's what Farrow says, imagine what President Donald Trump would say.

Warren's Medicare for All emphasis may be part of why she is surging (apparently at the expense of Sanders) in Iowa, which kicks off the nominating season Feb. 3. But as the Democrats' 2020 standard bearer, a prospect not out of the question, she’d be saddled with a position making it much harder to achieve the overarching goal of more than half the country: beating Trump.

Jill Lawrence is the commentary editor of USA TODAY and author of "The Art of the Political Deal: How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock." Follow her on Twitter: @JillDLawrence

^^^ well, first- as to the Iowa poll mentioned... the reporting I saw on it also showed that only something like 18% of the voters that chose her in the poll were actually committed to her- the rest could swing elsewhere...

And...as to healthcare- this is one of the things that concerns me most about Warren. For a person with a plan for absolutely everything... she has no health care plan. She's supported Sanders plan... though has hedged here and there it seems...

And...as I've said before- I will never support nationalized healthcare in our country- our government is too chaotic to be trusted with it. Women's issues- especially reproductive issues, LGBTQ issues, other minority issues, addiction issues- will all swing with the political tides- which can change ever 2 years in this country. That is *NOT* a workable solution for either the health care industry or its patients (ie: us).

The Hill: Poll: Voters back Medicare expansion, keeping private insurance

The majority of voters in a new poll supports a health care plan that would expand a public option but maintain the private insurance industry.

Sixty-seven percent of registered voters support allowing people under 65 to have an option to buy health care coverage through a Medicare program, while keeping private insurance options available, according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll released Sunday.

Less than half of registered voters, 41 percent, support a single-payer Medicare for All system that would eliminate the private health insurance industry, according to the survey

That proposals are more popular among Democratic voters. But even among Democrats, keeping a private insurance option is more widely supported, pollsters found.

The survey found 78 percent of Democratic primary voters said they support allowing people under 65 to have the option to buy health care coverage through a Medicare program.

A smaller percentage of Democratic voters, 63 percent, said they support a single-payer health care system that would eliminate private health insurance

The results come as Democrats in the presidential primary debate different health care proposals. Progressive candidates such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) support a Medicare for All system that would entirely rid the private health care industry.

Others White House hopefuls, including Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and South Bend., Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D), have proposals that would expand Medicare for more Americans but keep private options open for those who want it.

Former Vice President Joe Biden does not support a Medicare for All plan, and has instead proposed expanding on the Affordable Care Act, which he said he aided in creating during his time in the Obama administration.

The new poll surveyed 900 registered voters, including 506 who said they would vote in a Democratic caucus or primary. The poll was conducted between Sept. 13 and 16. It has a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points for the full sample and 4.4 percentage points for questioning involving only Democratic voters.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RicoBoccia:

I believe this is wrong. M4A initially got positive reactions when Bernie Sanders first explained it NOT because people think they can keep their private insurance ....

---

Note that no-one wants to keep their private insurance. They want to go to the providers they use, and have the experience be close enough - no new paperwork/processes/restrictions, etc. Of course no-one would mind if they had a few changes for the better.

But I haven't heard any proposals to shut all hospitals and clinics, replacing them with, what, rooms in the Social Security offices?? Any change would be very slow, and I suspect all the existing institutions would attempt to keep their businesses in place and their clients in place. It'll be nice to get to those details but we're a long way from that.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RicoBoccia:

I believe this is wrong. M4A initially got positive reactions when Bernie Sanders first explained it NOT because people think they can keep their private insurance but because (1) it would cover EVERYONE and eliminate (2) the possibility of going bankrupt because you got sick and (3) the need to decide between healthcare and groceries. Then bogus politicians like E. Warren, Mayo Pete, and others tried to steal the phrase and twist it into something palatable to Big Insurance and Big Pharma (to name just two of their donor bases). As far as paying for the real M4A, Bernie has explained in detail how it would be paid for. If you're ignorant of that, it's not because "no one has said anything about how to pay for it" but because you haven't been paying attention.

---

Why is it that is always the Bernie Sanders supporters that seek to denigrate the other candidates and their supporters?

Elizabeth Warren also supports MFA and has even made a good faith effort to explain how it could be paid for, yet her supporters are always respectful of the the other candidates and supporters.

As for "Bernie has explained in detail how it would be paid for" this is not true. He has put for some "options" but these are far short of a detailed plan, such as Elizabeth Warren has put forth.

From NPR:
"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.

Please stop ginning up the fear and reiterating what appears to me to be a disingenuous objection to MFA – “it's going to cost us votes..... and possibly the election”.

If winning the Oval is your primary goal you would be pushing for Biden or Sanders. In head to head polling with Trump they both poll higher than any other Dem candidate. Buttigieg on the other hand barely beats Trump, if at all, in head to head polls. Bottom line, Mayor Pete, if the nominee, would likely cost us the election.

Your commentary about MFA is simply inconsistent with your choice of candidate. So let's get to your real issues with Medicare for All.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Your commentary about MFA is simply inconsistent with your choice of candidate. So let's get to your real issues with Medicare for All.

You're fortunate enough to have health insurance that has provided you with acceptable health care and you don't want anything to upset your apple cart. Fair enough. Now let's try addressing those concerns.
>snip<
In my opinion, it's time to get rid of our profit driven health industry and replace it with a non-profit system dedicated to health care.

---

Well- I kinda feel this is a “pot meet kettle” situation… berating someone for supporting someone who would protect something that apparently they have worked hard to obtain, while supporting someone who will give them something they were apparently never obtain themselves?

And… for the record- Kaiser is a non-profit.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RicoBoccia:

I believe this is wrong. M4A initially got positive reactions when Bernie Sanders first explained it NOT because people think they can keep their private insurance but because (1) it would cover EVERYONE and eliminate (2) the possibility of going bankrupt because you got sick and (3) the need to decide between healthcare and groceries. Then bogus politicians like E. Warren, Mayo Pete, and others tried to steal the phrase and twist it into something palatable to Big Insurance and Big Pharma (to name just two of their donor bases). As far as paying for the real M4A, Bernie has explained in detail how it would be paid for. If you're ignorant of that, it's not because "no one has said anything about how to pay for it" but because you haven't been paying attention.

---

Hmm. Bernie has taken more $ from the insurance and pharmacy industries (according to open secrets- then Warren or Buttigieg ( true- one can argue it’s a smaller % of his total but… ) . And of course- Bernie admits it WILL cause a tax increase on the middle class. Warren is still in denial on that… and both of their plans, are by pretty much all analysis, shall we say… optimistic. Low 20 to mid 30 TRILLION dollars over 10. years.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

Note that no-one wants to keep their private insurance.

---

I’d strongly disagree with this. I’ve decided to go back east to see family for the holidays, and have been looking into seeing old friends. I’ve been talking to friends in WI, MI, OH, PA, MD, NC.. A lot of friends in unions. A lot just with good jobs for their region. They are pretty much all very leery of loosing the good health insurance they have fought for (and in many cases… built their life around- taking manufacturing or construction jobs in their region because they made a choice for themselves and/or their families to take jobs with good enough prospects and good benefits.

For the record here- I don’t have health insurance. And I don’t believe it is the governments place to provide it to me. I *would* like the government to continue was was started under the ACA, and continue to reform the industry and level the playing field. And continue to increase availability for the most vulnerable in our society. For the rest of us- I just want a level playing field/

And- I don’t have a candidate support. I likely will not bother voting this year for President - the D candidate will be decided before the CA primary. And there’s probably not much point in voting for President in CA…

The big caveats here.. I don’t see Warren or Sanders being able to win the democratic nomination (another caveat- if they buried their pride and desire for power and one dropped out and became VP *before* the primaries then yes.. ). Even if one of them one I see a .0003% chance of MFA and all the needed taxes passing congress. My big fear of course, is that again, we’ll have a split ticket- one of the more centrist Dems (Biden Buttigieg, Bloomberg,…Clinton?) vs Warren or Sanders… against…. Trump? …or will it be Pence? Or Romney? Or…???

And final thought… our nation needs to reel in spending and the debt- not increase it. The two issues the federal gov’t needs to spend on is climate change, and their portion of our crumbling infrastructure. In terms of healthcare - and so many other societal issues their focus should be in reeling in the abuses and leveling the playing field for all. Provide aid for those that truly need it- but focus on providing a world where all have opportunities… and let people make their own ^#%) decisions for better o worse. I don’t need a nanny. And I will live with the choices I have made in my life.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Why is it that is always the Bernie Sanders supporters that seek to denigrate the other candidates and their supporters?

---

Well... Bernie is the exemplification of "the angry white male" . And alarmingly - both polls and the last election show a lot of his supporters will vote for Trump if they can't vote for him. People that just want to burn the system down.

Just look at one of the nuanced maps of our country (one that shows shades of blue, red, and purple). Irony, I've come to have respect for those on the right that make the case our country was formed as a Republic and *not* as a Democracy. It seems many on the far left believe the same but can't or won't articulate that. (Go back to my posts from years ago on "where on the political spectrum are you?" and my comments about if things are viewed as a circle the far left and right are much closer together then those in the middle of the spectrums

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Your commentary about MFA is simply inconsistent with your choice of candidate. So let's get to your real issues with Medicare for All.

---

It's true that Sanders is polling marginally better the Buttigieg in head to head polls with trump and the moment.

However, I believe this is because people are still getting to know Pete, where as Bernie is well known from his 2016 campaign (where he only had to share the field with one other candidate, rather than then current 10-20). Speaking of his 2016 campaign, Bernie got 49.59% of the vote, but his current Real Clear Politics average in Iowa is only 15.8%. He has lost a lot of support!

Meanwhile, Pete's Iowa Real Clear Politics average is 17.5% Iowa is where Pete has been campaigning the most and is currently surging since he established his field offices there.

Specifically regarding MFA, it has only been subjected to friendly fire from other Democratic candidates. Republicans have been keeping their powder dry in the hopes of Sanders (or Warren) is nominated so they can let lose their highly effective fear monger machine. And there is no more vulnerable target to create fear about than people's health care. Their attacks needn't be factually accurate, or only accurate in anecdotal cases to have a very large effect.

As the polling below shows, there is much broader support for a public option rather than mandatory MFA.

Medicare For All is too much, too fast. It will encounter substantial resistance and we will lose votes with that platform.

Here's more info from The Kaiser Family Foundation (Oct 15, 2019):

---

Yet, it is unclear how much staying power this support [for MFA] has once people become aware of the details of any plan or hear arguments on either side. Current KFF polling finds that Americans know little about how the leading Medicare-for-all proposals would reshape the way all Americans get and pay for health care (Figure 9),

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...1_19-10-57.png

and public support for Medicare-for-all shifts significantly when people hear arguments about potential tax increases or delays in medical tests and treatment (Figure 10). [Please ignore the first 2 questions below, they introduce unnecessary issues - Barry]


https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...1_19-12-22.png

KFF polling also shows many people falsely assume they would be able to keep their current health insurance under a single-payer plan (Figure 11),


https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...1_19-13-07.png


suggesting another potential area for decreased support especially since most supporters (67 percent) of such a proposal think they would be able to keep their current health insurance coverage (Figure 12).



https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...1_19-14-13.png


Medicare-for-all, an issue which really gained traction during Bernie Sanders’ run during the 2016 presidential primary, does seem to be on the minds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents at the beginning of the 2020 primary season. But KFF polling finds more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer voting for a candidate who wants to build on the ACA in order to expand coverage and reduce costs rather than replace the ACA with a national Medicare-for-all plan (Figure 13).


https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...1_19-15-02.png


Recently, we have found broad support for proposals that expand the role of public programs like Medicare and Medicaid as well as a government-administered public option (Figure 14).

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...1_19-16-30.png

And while partisans are divided on a Medicare-for-all national health plan, there is robust support among Democrats, and even support among Republicans, for an expansion of the Medicare program through a Medicare buy-in or a Medicaid buy-in proposal (Figure 15).

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...1_19-17-53.png

So while the general idea of a national health plan (whether accomplished through an expansion of Medicare or some other way) may enjoy fairly broad support in the abstract, it remains unclear how this issue will play out in the 2020 election and beyond.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

It's true that Sanders is polling marginally better the Buttigieg in head to head polls with trump and the moment.

However, I believe this is because people are still getting to know Pete, where are Bernie is well known from his 2016 campaign ....

---

I largely agree with you- I hadn't paid much attention to Pete but I increasingly see him as one of the most solid candidates. Sadly I'm not quite sure if older, especially midwest, southern, and black dems will be willing to support a gay man. Same for the many moderate (and even, maybe especially, hardcore republicans who are appalled by trump). But well see... for many evangelicals etc Jesus would not approve of either Pete or Trump... and Pete, on most issues, is more in line with Jesus then Trump so... "god Knows" I guess....

I'll add... for as much praise Warren got for her line a couple weeks ago (in Iowa?) when someone said they believed marriage should be between "a man and a woman" and she responded "fine....just marry one woman then".... the thing no one is really talking about is she lost a hell of a lot of votes by following up with "if you can find one".

Barry- you mentioned in another thread about Sanders supporters be derisive of others. Warren with this one off the cuff remark showed her disrespect to millions of Americans. We may not agree with their views but... It feels like we are moving into a dangerous world where we have to sides that believe they- and only they, are right. Everyone else be damned.

I think this election is going to tell us a lot about whether this country can survive...or not....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

I likely will not bother voting this year for President - the D candidate will be decided before the CA primary. And there’s probably not much point in voting for President in CA…

---

THIS IS NOT TRUE! The California primary has been moved up to Super Tuesday, March 3! The race will be wide open then. Your vote will count!

:vote1:

Regarding concerns about Pete being gay... those concerns start to fade away once people get to know him and see how wholesome he is. That's what's happening in Iowa!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

"No-one wants to keep their private insurance"

I’d strongly disagree with this. ... I’ve been talking to friends (who) are pretty much all very leery of loosing the good health insurance they have fought for....

---

you ignored the second part - people want to keep their current level of services. They don't give a damn about the insurance company, they care about their doctor and other medical facilities they use. True, they aren't given a believable promise that it won't change (thanks, Obama!) but that should be the goal. There's no reason that a union can't offer supplemental care so their level of coverage doesn't change. Yes, there's no guarantees. But there are also examples of privately funded medical care, that people thought they were entitled to, disappearing as circumstances change.

Quote:

---

For the record here- I don’t have health insurance. And I don’t believe it is the governments place to provide it to me.

---

fine, but even if you're willing to die quietly in the street, our society's not really offering that as a choice. Not that some people don't manage to do it anyway, but it's not a deliberate design feature. I think in a civilized society we should expect to have the government provide the minimum essentials of life. It's kind of bogus to rely on individual's sense of charity; it in effect "punishes" (sorry, I hate that term in political/economic arguments, but I'll adopt it for once) those who are ethical and humane. We all benefit from our cultural resources, and it's fair to pay to uphold what laughingly passes as our civilization as well. I wish it extended to basic foodstuffs and lodging, but that's the next fight. But seriously, people step in for a dog hit in the street or a bird that falls from its nest. You really think our society can let people sit in their room, or on a cardboard box in an alley, nursing a burst appendix with nothing but a bummed bottle of whiskey?

SPC, all these figures come from Kaiser Family Foundation. Were you able to find figures that came from a less-invested source?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

SPC, all these figures come from Kaiser Family Foundation. Were you able to find figures that came from a less-invested source?

---

"The Kaiser Family Foundation is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries." From here


From Media Bias/Fact Check:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...2_20-29-27.png

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...logo152x23.gif

Democrats Increasingly Vocal in Calling ‘Medicare for All’ a Political Liability
Party leaders are describing the health care proposal that appeals to the party’s left as a risky bet that could neutralize one of the Democrats’ prime issues in 2020.

By Lisa Lerer and Katie Glueck
Nov. 26, 2019

Prominent Democratic leaders are sounding increasingly vocal alarms to try to halt political momentum for “Medicare for all,” opting to risk alienating liberals and deepening the divide in the party rather than enter an election year with a sweeping health care proposal that many see as a liability for candidates up and down the ballot.

From Michigan to Georgia, North Dakota to Texas, Democratic elected officials, strategists and pollsters are warning that the party’s commitment to the Obama-era Affordable Care Act — widely seen as critical to electoral gains in 2018 and 2019 — could slip away as a political advantage in 2020 if Republicans seize on Medicare for all and try to paint Democrats as socialists on health care.

“When you say Medicare for all, it’s a risk. It makes people feel afraid,” said Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island, who headed a successful national effort as chairwoman of the Democratic Governors Association, to win governor’s mansions in Kentucky and Louisiana this month. “We won in Kentucky and Louisiana, barely, in part, because we won on health care. I don’t think we can afford to lose on health care.”

While Democrats won the House in 2018 by decrying Republican efforts to undercut popular provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the Democratic presidential primary race has turned in large part on whether to replace that law with a more expansive, single-payer system, financed by higher taxes and linked to an end to private health insurance.

The two liberal candidates pushing Medicare for all, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have highly energized supporters who want this form of universal health care, and collectively garner about 40 percent of the vote in most polls. More moderate leaders in the race, like Joseph R. Biden Jr., the former vice president, and Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., support adding a public health care option to the current law. While the primary race is fluid and unpredictable, Medicare for all has steadily driven much of the Democratic discussion of health care.

A determination to shift those conversations is now spurring top Democratic officials to speak out more forcefully against Medicare for all, playing to the anxieties of Democrats who fear their party could once more lose crucial Electoral College battlegrounds like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to Mr. Trump if they push for a nationwide overhaul of health care coverage and benefits.

Warnings are being issued at all levels of the Democratic Party, from union members who fear losing hard-won benefits, to candidates running in swing districts, all the way up to former President Barack Obama, who offered a pointed warning about the risks of overreach at a gathering of donors in Washington, D.C., this month. People close to the former president said his remarks were rooted in his experience passing the health care law, which prompted his concerns about how willing voters would be to embrace an even more sweeping change.

Continues here

Its been a loser for a lonnnng time - and Elizabeth and the grumpyy old man are finally beginning to feel it.
POLITICO: Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...bs-poll-074054

chickenshit mainstream corporate Democrats of course are terrified of the proposition, and won't get behind it....too bad....a unified stance could help win the Presidential election and MANY other elections.....

getting the real word out on how well it works in so many countries would help to loosen the hold of the propoganda that childish Americans have been sold on: that it's so expensive.....Democrats have run such weak elections by going Republican lightweight, while not bringing a strong message, that they have lost so many winnable elections, in duding 2016

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by luke32:

Its been a loser for a lonnnng time - and Elizabeth and the grumpyy old man are finally beginning to feel it.
POLITICO: Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...bs-poll-074054

---

Logistically and strategically speaking, America as a whole, particularly when considering the electoral college, because, whether we like it or not the electoral college makes the Midwest And Southern states a juggernaut, Whereas the States that have larger populations are at a distinct disadvantage when electing a President of the United States.

One example is that an individual person's vote who lives in Wyoming has 3 times the weight as an individual person's vote in California. That's a 3 to 1 ratio!

Also, larger populated states as far as per person representation is concerned; are not necessarily represented evenly either, because compared to the Midwest and Southern states, who in combination with battleground states are a combined voting strength not to be take lightly.

That combined voting strength is something that has to be considered seriously when in such close and contentious political competition for national representation as is in this round of the upcoming 2020 elections.

Remember, Hillary Clinton had 3 million more popular votes but lost the general election because of the electoral college.

This time around, for the presidential election, the stakes are too high to vote my conscience rather than strategically voting.

I remember that I have stated in previous posts over the years that I would not vote strategically because I live in California and it doesn't matter. However, this time the 2020 election is a beast of its own , so I am reevaluating my purist idioms when it comes to voting.

That being said, emotionally, I totally agree with what's in the quote-box below regarding embedded establishment wing of the Democratic Party.
Strategically speaking, being a healthcare for all purist could very well be a losing battle to strictly hold when the stakes are so high and there is still so much division about it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by markwjam:

chickenshit mainstream corporate Democrats of course are terrified of the proposition, and won't get behind it....too bad....a unified stance could help win the Presidential election and MANY other elections.....

---

Yes, I think there does have to be radical change. I don't think the voting population in this country as a whole is ready to vote for it in 2020.

Considering the presidential election and the electoral college, the divisiveness regarding healthcare and the attitudes of those who still have some that already pay so much who are afraid they are not going to get their money's worth with higher taxes, knowing that Congress probably isn't going to give it enough money to work etc. I seriously have my doubts that healthcare for all is going to be a winning scheme in 2020. In fact, it may be a detriment

The voting population in 2024 might be more willing to vote in that direction because of the younger people who will become of age to vote, but maybe not even then because the global warming issue is going to take precedent.

The huge thing to consider for 2020 is whether or not the country is going to be so gerrymandered where the population in this country as a whole could even have equal representation.
I will be more likely than not be voting strategically.

I almost wish the California primary were going to be held later rather than sooner.

I know my preface has been kind of long-winded, but I don't know any other way for it to make sense what I'm going to elude to next.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_fYq5NPG8Y

I saw an interesting take tonight on the PBS news hour on the Shields and Brooks segment titled:
"Shields and Brooks on impeachment public opinion, shifting 2020 Democratic race" on the healthcare for all issue that is quite concerning to me as a fan of healthcare for all.
It is a hard slap in the face of reality which hurts and saddens me, but it is today's reality.

The whole segment is about 11 minutes and 4 seconds long, but this topic sort of starts at 5 minutes 20 seconds into the clip.
Very good historic reference given by the one with glasses, (I don't remember which one he is to name him).

See transcript here.

My opinion is that a lot can happen between now and the general election. California is having an early primary.
It'll be interesting to see what actually happens with the Democratic presidential race in 2020 even in California.

I think it is very possible that democracy itself is at stake, (not directly related to healthcare for all though)...
...Therefore, for me this time around strategic voting is more important than my purist values.:balance:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

...Yes, I think there does have to be radical change. I don't think the voting population in this country as a whole is ready to vote for it in 2020. ... I will be more likely than not be voting strategically.

---

OK, so please elaborate, what's your strategy?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

Strategically speaking, being a healthcare for all purist could very well be a losing battle to strictly hold when the stakes are so high and there is still so much division about it.


Yes, I think there does have to be radical change. I don't think the voting population in this country as a whole is ready to vote for it in 2020.

---

this touches on an idea that crosses my mind once in a while. It's this thought that there are a bunch of people out there voting against their own interests who are preventing good things from happening.

I mean, I believe it too. They don't, apparently, and they're sure I'm as wrong as I know that they are. But once in a while it gives me pause.

Strategically speaking I could answer the question in 2 paragraphs.
Instead, I will elaborate some using reasoning instead of by just saying a couple of what's, who's and why's within a couple of simple, minimal and bleak paragraphs with a simplified statement or two that would surely sound like it came right out of the "establishment wing" of the DNC.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

OK, so please elaborate, what's your strategy?

---

Number 1 priority is to vote so as to not have Trump, or any Republican for that matter, be the next president of the United States.

My favorite candidate who is running this year so far is Bernie Sanders; the next in line is Elizabeth Warren.
There is no 3rd as of yet and there may not be.

This time around, as for the Primary Election, I very well may not be voting for my 'favorite' or even 2nd 'favorite' candidate.

However, that being said, the the aforementioned "radical change" that some Democratic candidates represent being of focus as topic:

Consider the facts; whereas, many voters that are in the swing states, i.e. battleground states, Southern states and the Midwest don't want an experimental situation which, IMHO, Bernie Sanders at this point in time, is exactly that, experimental.

As far as the country as a whole is concerned Bernie Sanders being the president at this point in time is more like an experiment because as I previously mentioned, the country isn't ready for much of any of what Bernie Sanders represents yet and would virtually take up arms to resist him.

To further elaborate; I, in the recent past, switched the who I would vote for from Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren because Warren had a "health care" plan that she was able to elaborate specifics on, whereas Bernie Sanders hasn't been as specific as Elizabeth Warren.

Bernie's lack of specificity is one of several signs of weakness which I think for a hard-core election like what's coming up in 2020 would become a serious problem. Another one of Bernie Sanders' weaknesses is his health which is the main reason I was leaning towards voting for Elizabeth Warren.

Because I want to stay more on topic, I'm making the effort to stay within the range of healthcare so I'm not going to elaborate on all the gory details of Bernie Sanders', Elizabeth Warren's or anybody else's weaknesses much beyond the healthcare for all aspect.

One of the things that I have taken notice of at this point in time, is the survivalist like tendencies of groups of people in this country which has become increasingly more divisive instead of a coming together and solving problems.
The divisiveness is one of the major problems where misunderstandings get amplified.:hitfan:

I think at this point in time, most people of voting age who actually vote think that what Bernie Sanders is saying about "socialism" is a one-way ticket to the hell of a totalitarian communism like in the peak of the Cold War, such as, the People's Republic of China, the USSR and Cuba, etc.... ...They believe that they will get taxed out of house & home and more!

Anyway, back to the healthcare for all.
The fact that America is at or near the very bottom of the barrel considering overall healthcare and even actual healthiness when compared with 10 other developed countries... ...Note the 2 below links:

Link with some data:
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pre...-people-higher

Link with allot more data and more links on the page with even more data to go to if you are into that:
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...es/#item-start

Bernie Sanders mentions time and time again, (note the above 2 links and that, which are also mentioned above).

I think that people of voting age in this country, (who actually do get out and vote), as a whole, frequently choose to use a blind-eye to 'look that way', and conceal from themselves seeing of the painful truth rather than have to deal with or do something about such an extremely difficult topic; such as, what the difference is between an autocratic communism brand of so-called socialism, whereas, the autocrat or Oligarch government who were labeled as "communist" that are infamous and are historically, so well known to use their military force to subdue the citizenry... ...and, the very different from of so-called 'socialism', such as the form of democratic socialism that Bernie Sanders' represents and how much it aligns with with what Theodore Roosevelt and America did in the 1900s, The New Deal do have in common.

Also note the paragraph just below the 2nd image on the the below link's first web page:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a6708086.html

There are lots of things I can elaborate on that frightens people, allot of which are fear-based misunderstandings.

There are allot of unknowns of how to address healthcare 'system' as it is today. The topic of healthcare in America is rife with fear and misunderstanding etc..
It is no wonder that working people who pay taxes and have healthcare do not want to rock-the-boat!

I will stay on healthcare topic here, (mostly anyway)..

The monetary cost for reasonably good Healthcare for All as it would look like when using the current system as a price-guide may not be accurate enough for practical use to estimate what the cost of a completely different, not for profit, system would actually cost, nor does it address exactly where the money is going to ultimately come from.

the current and growing healthcare demand as the baby-boomer generation ages is already getting very high.

Anyway, for example, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have stated that the "government" will pay a lot more for Medicare for their Healthcare for All plan than it has ever spent on Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

Couple that expenditure, which is ultimately an added tax that will be levied onto someone; then imagine the anxiety that is felt when they lose a job and lose all of the medical benefits they were accustomed to having, or ending up, for whatever reason, with diminished medical benefits from a job they have, or their health care premiums go skyrocketing diminishing the value of the health care benefits they do have.

To many, the thought of "loosing" the healthcare they do have and being steered or 'forced' into a one-size-fits-all 'government system', to them, is like adding insult to injury.
On top of that, when what they are hearing most loudly in the well funded corporate owned media is that there will be higher taxes to pay for a bare-bones, welfare-recipient like, low-quality kind of so-called healthcare coverage in place of what they have for healthcare now.

back to more directly answering question: to "elaborate" [my] strategy?...:hmmm::thinking:Big Smile
...1- I will vote for whichever Democrat I think has the best chance to win in the general election against Trump when it's time to vote in the primaries here in California.

Of course, to further elaborate my answers to the questions:

Like I alluded to in my previous post, it's not just healthcare for all, ( which, itself isn't even at stake because it doesn't currently exist), rather, it's the Democratic and constitutional parts of our 'constitutional democratic republic' that could very well be at stake in 2020.

A voter deciding to vote for a candidate that absolutely refuses to budge from an all or nothing stance to force-in "Medicare for All" is like a gamble against a stacked deck of cards in an all or nothing poker game.

Yes, unfortunately the deck is most certainly stacked against the the way that "Medicare for All" is being presented and how it is currently perceived in America as a whole!

The next question I suppose I'm going to be asked is: Who am I going to vote for in the primary?…
…Guess what?… …I have not made up my mind yet.:wink2::vote1:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

...
I think at this point in time, most people of voting age who actually vote think that what Bernie Sanders is saying about "socialism" is a one-way ticket to the hell of a totalitarian communism like in the peak of the Cold War, such as, the People's Republic of China, the USSR and Cuba, etc.... ...They believe that they will get taxed out of house & home and more!

---

I think 'people of voting age who actually vote' is code for old people. Not to quibble too much, you are sort of right, but there are plenty of voters who don't remember the USSR, or think of Mao when they think of the PRC -- they think of a capitalist-looking empire for one, and a kleptocracy for the other, not any form of socialist paradise. At best, those with some political awareness think of Venezuela as the scary socialist boogeyman. But we'll find out soon whether or not socialism is on the average considered a good thing

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

OK, so please elaborate, what's your strategy?

---

The electoral college was put in place by the founding peeps for states rights, remember the name of our nation? Why should we go for pop election and ditch the state's who have the most land? The land is more important than people, why should not our people with most land have more electoral power than us? That was part of the original plan.

So Medicare for All is the answer, but what flavor are we talking about here?
Food for thought --------------

Medicare-for-All Is Not Medicare

https://www.propublica.org/article/m...-actually-mean

no comments really... an article:

CommonDreams: Insurance Industry Is Clearly 'Terrified,' Says Sanders, As Lawmakers Admit Lobbyists Helped Them Write Attacks on Medicare for All

I think it would be more to the point, more neutral at least, to have this thread titled

"Is Medicare for All a Losing General Election Position?"

The media, and centrist Democrat talking heads are all over the title you're using, a form of promotion for continuing the most expensive and least effective medical system in the world. And for continuing profit as the measure of U.S. medical care via private insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The arguments supporting the 'losing position for the general election' argument do not strike me as objective. They do not explain how medicare for all could work, only why it won't.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cynthia Poten:

...The arguments supporting the 'losing position for the general election' argument do not strike me as objective. They do not explain how medicare for all could work, only why it won't.

---

It's not about whether MFA will work or not, or how good it will be. It's about that enough people will resist voting for a candidate supporting MFA that will force them to change their insurance, regardless if it will work and will cost less, because they are uncomfortable with the idea... And the Republicans, and the health care industry, will make them downright scared about MFA, that we will loose the election.

There's a simple answer: A Public Option which provides universal coverage which is the most important thing. People should have a choice to choose, even if you think it is a bad choice.

I don't fully understand your comment. I agree with Cynthia's thoughts...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

It's not about whether MFA will work or not, or how good it will be. ...

---

Not surprised and very pissed off. I won't vote for any one who does not want Medicare for All. Just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by M/M:

no comments really... an article:

CommonDreams: Insurance Industry Is Clearly 'Terrified,' Says Sanders, As Lawmakers Admit Lobbyists Helped Them Write Attacks on Medicare for All

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Meinvelt:

I don't fully understand your comment. I agree with Cynthia's thoughts...

---

I don't disagree with Cynthia, I just think her point is irrelevant. I think so does Barry. If I understand his point, it's all about perception, not about fact.

I tend to agree with the line of thought that elections aren't really about policy and facts. Most voters vote for someone they're comfortable, and against someone who they fear or distrust. Actually, all voters do that, it's just that some of us (I hope I'm one but you never can tell...) are better at analyzing our attitudes vis a' vis actual data, and hopefully changing our ideas if they're unjustifiable.

Clearly, Trump voters were not at all swayed by objective reality. Devout religious people went all in for a foul-mouthed lying lecher; fiscal conservatives went for a kleptocrat, workers needing a job went for someone who's famous for the phrase "you're fired!". His appeal is emotional and aimed at fearful people who are worried about losing what they have.

Obama was the opposite; he represented progress and progressive ideals even though he was in bed with the financial status quo and great-powers politics. And Hillary Clinton represented every woman in authority you'd had since kindergarten, making it easy for those who she wanted to represent to instead find a reason to resent her.

And you think people care that when you do the spreadsheets, the bottom line is better even though they and their companies pay more in taxes? That they trust "gummint insurance" even though they hate the DMV? I'm with Barry, it's a loser issue politically. Look at the fight, starting with Bill Clinton, that it took to get any re-thinking of the health care system. This one won't be easy, people are easy to scare, and no-one will gain votes overall by being a purist about it.

In the end, though, it's the right thing to do and it may happen -- but it won't be a winning issue in any election.

I still don't get why this issue is so complicated for everyone. Years ago I cited an old Harper's article about a solution that would serve everyone. Catrostrophic Medicare for everyone. And low income gets gov coverage too. We need to pay for our own healthcare, if we can, otherwise there is no competition and we have less incentive to take care of ourselves. And health providers need to compete. A well regulated market creates the most innovation and efficiency. Think lazer eye surgery. The price has come down, quality has gone up, never covered by insurance. Prescription drugs? Insurance scam promulgated by government. We need to take care of ourselves, ie eat rite, get out of the car, love each other. And if there's a chance to live through extreme measures, sure let the government help. Of course such a solution which honors merican values and trumps universally provided health care right is not part of the question.

Additional articles:

Democratic Naysayers Are Wrong on Medicare for All
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...g-medicare-all

Republicans (and Even Some Democrats) Trying to Scare You Away From Medicare for All Are Peddling Rubbish https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...l-are-peddling

Medicare for All: Medicine for a For-Profit System Addicted to Itself
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ddicted-itself

We can be doing so MUCH more in terms of preventative medicine; cleaning environment from glyphosate, pesticides and other toxins; cleaning up water nationwide.... et cetera.

Link to how medicare and welfare for all is done in Sweden.

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/12...social_welfare

It's interesting how this thread has split in two. One group wants to discuss our screwed up healthcare system and how we might fix it. The other group wants to play Unpaid Political Operative and make guesses about what voters may or may not respond to. To those in the second group: You're not helping. Please go do something else.

(I was going to say stick to watching MSNBC, but that's also a bad idea. It's a channel that pretends to be liberal, but it's very sure not to say anything not approved by its corporate bosses, the Comcast Corporation, a $100+ billion company. These days its "campaign coverage" amounts to the same kind of horse race punditry, the difference being, I suppose, that it's undertaken by actual, paid political operatives.)

Now if you believe that M4A is simply too radical, I would encourage you to read M. L. King's Letter From Birmingham Jail of 1963. It's from a different time and in a different context, but there is a parallel. Particularly in this part:

For years now I have heard the word "wait." It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This "wait" has almost always meant "never." It has been a tranquilizing thalidomide, relieving the emotional stress for a moment, only to give birth to an ill-formed infant of frustration. We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." We have waited for more than three hundred and forty years for our God-given and constitutional rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward the goal of political independence, and we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward the gaining of a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. I guess it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say "wait."

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RicoBoccia:

It's interesting how this thread has split in two. One group wants to discuss our screwed up healthcare system and how we might fix it. The other group wants to play Unpaid Political Operative and make guesses about what voters may or may not respond to. To those in the second group: You're not helping. Please go do something else.

---

ok, to respond in kind: read the thread title. Sure, there's an aside that may serve as a disclaimer, but the premise of this thread is exactly about what the voters may or may not respond to. Although you're not helping, you're welcome to stay. Just don't get snippy about those who responded to the invitation rather than are attempting to hijack the party

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RicoBoccia:

It's interesting how this thread has split in two. One group wants to discuss our screwed up healthcare system and how we might fix it. The other group wants to play Unpaid Political Operative and make guesses about what voters may or may not respond to. To those in the second group: You're not helping. Please go do something else.

---

Sorry, but it is the first group that you specify ("discuss our screwed up healthcare system and how we might fix it") who are off topic. The people who support MFA, constantly want to change the topic, to why MFA is better. I'm not contesting that (although I don't see why it is better than Medicare for All Who Want it, other that it prohibits people from making what you think is a bad choice).

The point is in a general election the difference between the Democratic candidate supporting "Medicare For All" vs "Medicare For All Who Want It", is that you are forcing people who don't want it, for whatever reason, wise or unwise, to accept it against their will. That will cost us votes! It's simple math! And whether or not we win the next election is the most important thing!

It is very simple ...
Any govt run program is wasteful and inefficient, Thus MCA does not and will not ever work.
It may sound great on the outside, but as you clearly state, w/o incentive for the individual to be health and for the administration to be efficient, waste and bloat will predominate in the system and it is doomed to fail. Also private sector is MUCH more capable in adapting to changing issues and developing plans that meed the real needs of the people and society and competition makes sure that those ideas multiply and provide the public with effective options.

IN ADDITION ...
It is ESSENTIAL that the govt mandates a common medical datafile format so that the personal medical records for each patient can be easily transferred electronically to all other providers when a patient changes their provider, AND that there is public, transparent and True-Cost billing of the medical facilities to the insurance companies so that there are limited hidden charges. There are probably more things to add to this list, but this is a start. Maybe some of you have other suggestions as well.

As usual, the real waste is not so much in the overall plans, but in how those plans are implemented and carried out in a manner that does not work for the overall collective good of internal collective competition.
Ken.

It is not true that all government programs are wasteful; it depends entirely on how well they are managed, just like private enterprise. Large organizations generally tend to be less efficient than small ones, and a lot depends on how you measure efficiency. Private corporations are just as wasteful as public organizations, they just hide it better. Plus our fetish for competition is incredibly inefficient, since it involves both massive duplication of effort and also militates against the very standardization that you say is necessary.

Private corporations have as their prime objective the maximization of profit, and in many cases short term profit. This is fine when you are dealing in luxuries, but there is no such thing as a free market in necessities such as health care. If I have the pill that will keep you alive, how much will you as a willing buyer pay me for it? As for incentives to keep healthy, don't you think just being healthy is sufficient incentive? Anyway the same objection holds for any insurance scheme whether public or private.

Any health care system must at some point set a limit on how much care can be delivered: would you rather have that decision made a) by someone who is paid to minimize costs and maximize profit or b) someone who is paid to keep you healthy? Seems like a no brainer to me.

Patrick Brinton

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kburgess:

It is very simple ...
Any govt run program is wasteful and inefficient, Thus MCA does not and will not ever work. ...

---

So do you think the majority of citizens of Canada, England, France, Germany, and whatever other countries out there that have government-run health care systems, dislike their systems and wish they had one more like the United States? I don't really know, just askin'---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kburgess:

It is very simple ...
Any govt run program is wasteful and inefficient, Thus MCA does not and will not ever work....

---

You raise some good points:

Can public sector programs/organizations be considered to be the same as large private sector ones?
Both have their merits, but anything private is smaller and more agile than the public. Yes it does all depend on how it is run/managed, but the incentive in the public arena is just not the same as the private. Yes we can have hybrids and alternatives like Coop's, Trusts, Private w/Public oversight, Open Source and more but no matter how you cut it MCA is just too big to fit all the needs.

What is the best way to maximize cost efficiency within the Health-Care/Disease-Mgt system?

They are very different systems. Health Care is to Care for Health. That starts in the Home, Farm, School, Edu and Society and is not a direct part of Disease-Mgt. Both require research, but DM burns up a LOT more $$ and I feel that all primary DM research should be public and open and not corporate sponsored like we have now. If it truly was public and open we would have many times the number of cures and costs would be dramatically lower. Then the system becomes one of Health Support though positive life, and the distribution of innovative research to handle the odd exceptions, but MCA under our current health/disease structure would be a disaster.

I have chronic conditions and both appreciate places like UCSF and yet hate them for being so limited in the areas that they can endorse and so have to tread both worlds to find my own health and peace.
Ken.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:

It is not true that all government programs are wasteful; it depends entirely on how well they are managed, just like private enterprise. ...

---

I think that it is mixed ...
The US has great high tech research for certain areas of expertise and they love that side of what we do. On the other hand we are much more limited in the breadth of solutions that we will consider, that is what they dislike. They like the fact that they have a simple financial structure but do not like their taxes and wait times for treatment.

On the things that we fund, we do great, but we have major blinders on what we will endorse. Obviously corporate sponsored research, benefits only a few. No new news.
Thanks, Ken.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

So do you think the majority of citizens of Canada, England, France, Germany, and whatever other countries out there that have government-run health care systems, dislike their systems and wish they had one more like the United States? I don't really know, just askin'---

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

So do you think the majority of citizens of Canada, England, France, Germany, and whatever other countries out there that have government-run health care systems, dislike their systems and wish they had one more like the United States? I don't really know, just askin'---

---

You know what the problem with this whole discussion is? There is not one, but many forms of MFA plans being proposed. Of course there is Joe, who is against the idea completely. So the Euro plans can't really be compared because our proposals are many and the Euro's are not homoginist in the implemented plans.

Have you read my link? Comments?

https://www.propublica.org/article/m...-actually-mean

In reply to kburgess on health care.
Pls review the facts.
The per capita health spending during 2016 in the US was $10,224 per person, whereas in Canada it was $4,826 per person - with equal or better outcomes, depending on what measure used. (Source OECD Data)
Canada has a single payer health care system.

Review the facts carefully and you an only conclude that European countries, Canada, NZ with single payer health care spend less and do better than the big corporate for-profit system in the US. Oh, and check out the Medicare trustees’ summary listed total Medicare expenditures of $678.7 billion for 2016, of which $9.2 billion was characterized as "administrative expenses." That works out to 1.4 percent vs. that of private (and life expectancy is the lowest at 78.6 yrs vs. that of 11 developed countries averaging 82.2 yrs in 2016 and going down according to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the OECD Health Statistics Database.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...BJRU5ErkJggg==


Can public sector programs/organizations be considered to be the same as large private sector ones?
Both have their merits, but anything private is smaller and more agile than the public. Yes it does all depend on how it is run/managed, but the incentive in the public arena is just not the same as the private. Yes we can have hybrids and alternatives like Coop's, Trusts, Private w/Public oversight, Open Source and more but no matter how you cut it MCA is just too big to fit all the needs.

Thanks,
I appreciate the points.
I only hope that what is being proposed for MCA truly is the efficient system that you are citing. I have a LOT of doubts that the dems would actually propose a system that is built with efficiency and public benefit as its core design criteria. It is not dem vs rep, but just the DC system on both sides that is rotten to the core with too many hands in too many pockets and ropes around everyones necks. Bottom line for me is that it is NOT about MCA or not, but about DC corruption in everything, and until it gets resolved, for me a private based system is more fair and equitable. Just my thinking.
Thanks again,
Ken.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dogenzip:

In reply to kburgess on health care.
Pls review the facts...

---

But my question is--do the Euros wish they had a plan more like ours? If so, why don't they change it?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

You know what the problem with this whole discussion is? There is not one, but many forms of MFA plans being proposed. Of course there is Joe, who is against the idea completely. So the Euro plans can't really be compared because our proposals are many and the Euro's are not homoginist in the implemented plans.

Have you read my link? Comments?

https://www.propublica.org/article/m...-actually-mean

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

But my question is--do the Euros wish they had a plan more like ours? If so, why don't they change it?

---

Didn't someone ask how do the Euro's manage to finance their healthcare (maybe it was you). Well, just finished watching a short program about US and Scandinavian taxes. It was mentioned that in the Scandinavian countries if a person earns $70,000 then with the VAT tax and all, they will fork over $40,000 to the government. Yowsers!!! Not too sure I'm ready for such a thing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

Didn't someone ask how do the Euro's manage to finance their healthcare ....

---

That is the joy of any socialist type system ...Sooooo easy to keep raising taxes and promise more benefits, but never really have to deliver, because there is no genuine private competition. In a moderately transparent system, there are always innovators who will change the game with a better product. We see it every day with online insurance, razors, cars, food delivery, transportation/Uber/Lyft, ...We forget that all of this is private innovation and game changing innovation that does not happen in a govt run economy.This is why the rest of the world models us!!!(and also tries to rob us blind, the real truth is sickening!!!)Ken.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kburgess:

That is the joy of any socialist type system ...

---

oh, god, come on. The rest of the world most definitely does not want to model us, they do not rob us blind, and the real truth may be sickening but it's not what you seem to be claiming. We and the other colonial powers can be charged with robbing people, quite literally.

True, we're all human and take advantage of cultural innovations from millenia past. The west, and certainly America, has no monopoly on the best innovation. We're also quite willing to put up with costs for our 'freedom' that shocks the rest of the civilized world. Been down the bike path recently? That's a particularly American innovation - not the bike path, the camping. And that cheap online insurance you're talking about? Somehow I don't think you'd find any nation anywhere that envies what we laughingly call a health-care system. We do spend a fortune on the military, so it's only fair that we get spinoffs like the internet or Tang.

But you're falling into the trap a lot of Americans do - they treat our differences as virtues and ignore the incredible human cost. We're the place where high-achieving kids are killing themselves at high rates, where middle-age people who can't manage to turn into younger, high-achieving, well-educated jobseekers turn to people like Trump for salvation and self-medicate with opioids, and where working fifty-plus hours a week for fifty-plus hours a year seems normal. What the hell are you thinking with that scornful dismissal of 'socialism', which you seem to define incredibly broadly?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

Didn't someone ask how do the Euro's manage to finance their healthcare ...

---

I can't say I care what goes to the government. I measure it by how much money I have left for beer, music and debauchery. If the 40 grand goes to expenses I'd be paying like rent, insurance, protection money or other fixed expenses, it's no matter to me whether it's called taxes or not. The only way to compare is to see who can have more discretionary spending on a $70K salary - me or a Swede? oh yeah, there's that quality of life thing too. How are the roads over there?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

.. The only way to compare is to see who can have more discretionary spending on a $70K salary - me or a Swede? ...

---

Not following you. With a fixed income of $70K, more taxes mean less discretionary income.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

oh, god, come on. The rest of the world most definitely does not want to model us, ...

---

and I suppose that you are endorsing socialism?What merits does it have as a truly sustainable system of society?Yes we have our problems, but they are not caused by thoughtful community decisions, but more from executive level choices which are driven more by the banking cartel's than human/personal decision.If we truly had an un-shackled society where truth and human value were the basis for our medium of exchange, we would be in a very different place. Yes I am an idealist, but our world today is a far cry from what it could be, and yet none of it is too far from becoming a reality.Whatever you use for news is not serving you well.I do not disagree about any of the ills that you cite, but also realize that there a LOT more serious ones, and what you cite are just the symptoms of a much greater plague that has encircled the entire world and we are just the last and prize ring for the cabal to destroy.You may not buy my view of the world, but that does not make it any less true.Thanks, Ken.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kburgess:

and I suppose that you are endorsing socialism?...

---

and your believing it doesn't make it any more true.

sure, I, along with JC and others, endorse socialism. It's kind of odd that you think it's not a sustainable system, but simultaneously imagine an "un-shackled society where truth and human value were the basis...". Yeah, that's hard-nosed realism, much more plausible than being able to, say, build on the style of socialism that the Euros have been experimenting with. The governments of the world through history have incorporated more or less socialism, just as they have more or less democracy, with varying levels of success. There have been promising results for both, certainly both trends should continue while learning from the failures.

Your world-view is revealed again (i'd forgotten) by the invocation of the cabal that is apparently the real reason we can't have nice things. I guess if they weren't there, we'd be living in the land of milk & honey? Seems to me that instead, the problem is with human nature; capitalism, especially crony capitalism, leads to the rise of what look like cabals just as much as socialism can. Centralizing power is the problem. Democracy is one attempt at limiting that, and socialism, if it's implemented in a way that maximizes everyone's power, actually helps maintain equality. It's more in the nature of capitalism to allow for the rise of an uber-class and a race to the bottom for the rest. Uber (the company, not the class), which some tout as a sign of the miracle of a free economy, actually is a better example for my argument. Cabbies were solidly middle-class, while Uberists are fighting to stay there.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

Not following you. With a fixed income of $70K, more taxes mean less discretionary income.

---

all else being equal, sure. But you're talking about a Swede making $70K, paying $40K in taxes. Sounds high, but whatever. Still, he pays rent, food, etc. and then sits outside watching the northern lights while drinking up whatever pittance he has left over. After paying his bills, how much did he have left to buy beer for himself and his friends?

while here, I take my $70K and pay taxes, health insurance, rent - and maybe I pay higher rent so I don't have to live near people in their tents, car and gas costs since there's no public transit, car repairs due to the beat-up roads, and then sit outside watching the whales at Bodega head. Which of us can buy more beer? ok, our beer's probably better so we have to account for volume vs. quality, but the principle stands.

You are correct, you are not following him. Discretionary income is what is left over after you pay taxes and other necessary expenses. If some of the taxation pays for things that you would otherwise have to pay more for yourself (for instance if an extra $500 a month on your taxes saves you $1,000 in health insurance premiums) you can indeed have more discretionary money along with higher taxes. Plus you may well have a better standard of living too.

Patrick Brinton

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

Not following you. With a fixed income of $70K, more taxes mean less discretionary income.

---

I do not think it is useful to talk about "isms", especially when we do not have anything approaching agreement on how they are defined. Also, while I support your general position, I see the history that has brought us here somewhat differently. For the entire 10,000 years or so of the feudal system, with the exception of a brief period in Greece and a similar period in Rome, the (so called civilized) world was run entirely by autocratic monarchies, with not a trace of socialism. Even Greece and Rome were democratic, not socialist.

It was not until the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution that governments were instituted from scratch with the people (as opposed to already existing power structures) in mind, first here in the US and then in France. Most of the western democracies followed their lead not through revolution as much as deterioration of the old power structures. A fair degree of socialism came along for the ride, but the very first (and so far only) true socialist system was ironically imposed by dictatorial decree by Castro in Cuba. All of these with varying degrees of success. This is a broad and sweeping summary, and I am sure minor counter examples can be found, but the fact is that it is incredibly rare for government systems to be invented. They have been instead imposed from above by those in power wishing to consolidate their power.

Technological advances, particularly in communications, give us the opportunity to do it differently going forward. We can think about how we want things to be. But we have come to agreement on what principles we want our society to embody. I would suggest we start with equality of opportunity (not equality of result), and a floor below which nobody can fall. Nobody should get seconds until everyone has had firsts. In other words (if you must put it in terms of "isms") socialism for necessities and capitalism for luxuries.

Patrick Brinton

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

and your believing it doesn't make it any more true....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

and your believing it doesn't make it any more true.sure, ....

---

I understand that the cabal idea can be a bit tough to swallow, but there are a lot of folks who have done some pretty extensive research on the matter and one of the best is Anna Von Rietz.This is a quick article on her site with over 2000 other articles that might help to clarify things.Take a look at the rest of her site for a wealth of good information and simple solutions.Thanks, Ken.http://annavonreitz.com/factsfirmlyinmind.pdf

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:

You are correct, you are not following him. Discretionary income is what is left over after you pay taxes and other necessary expenses...

---

Discretionary income
noun
income remaining after deduction of taxes, other mandatory charges, and expenditure on necessary items.

So if increased taxes are greater than the cost of a person's medical premiums, that would be a negative, right? I don't believe anyone has rationally laid out a plan to pay for MFA. Makes me nervous because once Government programs are implemented they are very hard to roll back. For me, MFA is a loser because I have employer provided healthcare. Any increase in taxes would provide me no benefit.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

.... For me, MFA is a loser because I have employer provided healthcare. Any increase in taxes would provide me no benefit.

---

that's certainly a point the real plan will have to deal with. There are many ideas, none that you can take too seriously before the post-election negotiations that will be brutal, judging by our history with 'obama-care'. But one option would be to have your employer paying those extra taxes, not individuals who they employ. The details of what to do for the self-employed, and how to incentivize employers who offer insurance to still do so without forcing a one-size-fits-all solution on employers who currently don't, are TBD.

These issues will have to be solved, along with a ton of others. Some will throw up their hands at the complexity, or out of fear that the results won't be good. That's not totally unreasonable, if you think the current situation is not only acceptable but sustainable. I don't think either is true, though. The battle over different plans by different candidates is really just foreplay, though. Elements of the plans that a winning candidate proposes will have a slightly better chance of making it through the next round, but no guarantees. The real thing being decided is how important the electorate find some sort of single-payer healthcare to be.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

..For me, MFA is a loser because I have employer provided healthcare. Any increase in taxes would provide me no benefit.

---

In defense of MFA, it does come with a phase in period (4 years?), during which time employment arrangements could be adapted to account that the government would be paying for healthcare once it gets started.

But I think this is another good reason that a public option is a better path to get to universal coverage, so those arrangement need not be changed if desired.

A public option sounds reasonable, as long as it is done in a way that makes it attractive compared with private plans. Of course there would need to be enough people enrolled in the single payer option to make it economically viable.

But I am amazed that only one person has actually responded directly to my very simple, repeated question on this forum: how many citizens in countries that already do have some sort of single payer health care system would prefer to substitute our system for theirs? That person, of European background, only responded privately and basically said that such citizens would not prefer such a substitution.

This discussion has been more or less theoretical, yet it appears that virtually every country--at least in Canada and Europe--except for ours actually has some sort of government run health care system. Is this correct? So how much agitation is there among the citizenry to make their systems more like ours? I'm sure there are complaints. I've heard that there can be rather long waits in Canada to get some procedures. But does this rise to the level where many Canadians would prefer to switch their system to one more like ours?

I'm no scholar of other country's health care systems, and I don't know how many of you are either. But I think a little more scrutiny of what's already out there would be worth more than further speculative arguments.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

In defense of MFA, it does come with a phase in period (4 years?),...

---

As I've stated before, hard to contemplate a MFA plan when there are many proposals. Case in point. You mention a 4 year phase in, but that sounds like Bernie's plan. Warren's plan calls for a 10 year phase in.

Hello folks,
I know that my world view might seem a bit tough to swallow, sooo,
Here is a link to a free book written by Judge Anna Von Rietz who is an amazing historical and political researcher of law who has tried to simplify an incredibly complex and difficult to understand topic into a 22 page book written for the average reader.

It is true, I have been studying this material for years and when I realize that the majority of folks who just watch the news or even talk radio, this stuff can seem ridiculous and pretty far fetched, that that does not make it untrue, only very well hidden and a testament to those who want to keep us ignorant.

I do not like being ignorant, so I dig a little deeper and when I find that folks have nutty stories I look into them, and when what they say fits, I follow it. Anna is one of those people and as I have listened to many people over they years have similar ideas and I have found her's to be a bit more complete, I say to myself, 'this might be just the one!'

Enough jabber,
Here is the link to websites and book,
Please let me know if you pursue this info and what you think of it, good or bad,
Ken.
book also attached.
http://www.annavonreitz.com/
http://www.paulstramer.net/
https://theamericanstatesassembly.net/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

and your believing it doesn't make it any more true....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cynthia Poten:

Link to how medicare and welfare for all is done in Sweden. https://www.democracynow.org/2019/12...social_welfare

---

A different view, and to my mind a more realistic view of Scandinavian healthcare, would be the following link to a discussion of Socialist and Swedish healthcare. Swedish healthcare is directly addressed at the 30:00 minute mark.

Socialism and the Scandinavian illusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uS8A0TVE9A