Sunday, June 25, 2017

TrumpCare 3.0 vs Medicare-For-All


Last night Bernie spoke about TrumpCare at the Pittsburgh Convention Center and this morning he’ll be doing the same at Express Live in Columbus, Ohio and again this evening at the West Virginia Civic Center in Charleston. You can get to the essence of his message by watching the short clip he released (above). Do you doubt anything that he says in his response to the Republican “healthcare” bill? All those assertions about what Americans want, for example? On Friday, the Pew Research Center released a new poll, senators might want to look at before they vote on TrumpCare 3.0. Top line: "a majority of Americans say it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. And a growing share now supports a 'single payer' approach to health insurance."
Currently, 60% say the federal government is responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, while 39% say this is not the government’s responsibility. These views are unchanged from January, but the share saying health coverage is a government responsibility remains at its highest level in nearly a decade.

Among those who see a government responsibility to provide health coverage for all, more now say it should be provided through a single health insurance system run by the government, rather than through a mix of private companies and government programs. Overall, 33% of the public now favors such a “single payer” approach to health insurance, up 5 percentage points since January and 12 points since 2014. Democrats-- especially liberal Democrats-- are much more supportive of this approach than they were even at the start of this year.

Even among those who say the federal government is not responsible for ensuring Americans have health care coverage, there is little public appetite for government withdrawing entirely from involvement in health care coverage. Among the public, 33% say that health care coverage is not the government’s responsibility, but that programs like Medicare and Medicaid should be continued; just 5% of Americans say the government should not be involved at all in providing health insurance.

The issue of the government’s responsibility in ensuring health coverage remains deeply divisive politically, according to the new survey, conducted June 8-18 among 2,504 adults. More than eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (85%) say that this responsibility falls to the federal government, while about two-thirds of Republicans and Republican leaners (68%) say it does not.

Still, most Republicans (57%) say the government “should continue programs like Medicare and Medicaid for seniors and the very poor.” Just 9% of Republicans say the government should not be involved in providing health insurance at all.

Among Democrats, 52% now say health insurance should be provided through a single national insurance system run by the government, while fewer (31%) say it should be provided through a mix of private companies and government programs. The share of Democrats supporting a single national program to provide health insurance has increased 9 percentage points since January and 19 points since 2014.

Nearly two-thirds of liberal Democrats (64%) now support a single-payer health insurance system, up 13 percentage points since January. Conservative and moderate Democrats remain about evenly divided: 38% prefer that health insurance continue to be provided by a mix of private insurance companies and government programs, while 42% favor a single-payer approach.

Overall, support for a single-payer health insurance system is much greater among younger adults than older people. Two-thirds of adults younger than 30 (67%) say the government has a responsibility to provide health coverage for all, with 45% saying coverage should be provided through a single national program.

Among those 65 and older, 54% say the government has a responsibility to provide coverage for all, with 30% favoring a single payer approach.

Both parties are divided by age in views of the government’s role in health care. Fully 66% of Democrats and Democratic leaners ages 18 to 29 say government health coverage should be provided through a single national system, compared with 48% of Democrats and Democratic leaners ages 30 and older.

Among Republicans, a greater share of those younger than 30 (39%) than those 30 and older (28%) say the government is responsible for providing health coverage for all; more young Republicans than older Republicans favor single payer (22% vs. 10%).
And the Senate bill certainly doesn’t do anything that Trump or the Republicans promised it would do-- like making medical coverage much more affordable or protecting people with bankruptcy-inducing “preexisting conditions.” More affordable, easier and cheaper for consumers? Not this bill!

Reed Abelson in yesterday’s NY Times stripped the bride bare:
[M]illions of Americans will pay more for an insurance policy that comes with a much steeper deductible under the new Senate plan, according to some health economists and insurance experts. It could also make it much harder to find a comprehensive plan covering various conditions ranging from heart disease to depression that would not be prohibitively expensive.

“This is going to be a very unstable market” where only the very sickest people resort to buying coverage on the federal exchanges at much higher prices, said Paul B. Ginsburg, a health economist and the director of the Center for Health Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Those likely to suffer the most under the Senate plan are people who would not be eligible for any remaining subsidies, he said, because they could be priced out of the market. Most worrisome to those opposing the Senate bill is that states could give insurers leeway to offer skimpy plans that cover a lot less and exclude people with certain illnesses.

…If the Senate version becomes law, insurers could increase premiums for individual coverage by at least 20 percent more than the double-digit increases already under consideration. By 2020, other changes are likely to result in plans with much higher deductibles. People now getting tax credits that allow them to purchase a policy with a deductible of $3,500 would get subsidies for a plan where the deductible would nearly double, without any funding to pay their out-of-pocket costs.

Many people will face a Hobson’s choice, said Craig Garthwaite, a health economist at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. They will have to choose between a plan with a premium they cannot afford or a plan with a deductible they cannot afford.

While lower premiums touted by Republicans could attract healthier people to buy coverage on the exchanges, other changes could still drive up prices, said Mr. Garthwaite, who is a registered Republican. “It could turn out to be higher premiums and higher deductibles,” he said.

One stark difference between the Senate bill and the Affordable Care Act is the decision to drop the mandate requiring insurance. That could inadvertently discourage the youngest and healthiest people from buying insurance, leaving a higher percentage of sicker people with expensive treatments on the exchanges, driving up insurers’ costs.

Thursday, conservative New Dem (former Blue Dog) Adam Schiff became the latest (and 113th) House Democrat to sign on as a co-sponsor of John Conyers’ Medicare-For-All bill (H.R. 676). The Blue Dogs and New Dems-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- have tended to stay away from the bill but as election season approaches and the popularity of the approach, particularly among Democrats and independents-- becomes manifest, even conservative politicians like Schiff are jumping on the train. Schiff is interested in running for the California Senate seat Dianne Feinstein told him she would be giving up next year. No one’s going to win statewide office in California without being committed to single-payer.

Over the past several months, you’ve read how all the Blue America-backed candidates are proponents of single payer health insurance. Some, like Illinois emergency room physician, David Gill, have been working towards it for many years. Our newest endorsee, Randy Bryce, the progressive Democrat running for the swing district Wisconsin seat Paul Ryan has been in, did an interview with the New Republic and explained why he favors single payer health insurance. This morning he built on his statement by telling us that “our very health is literally under attack. I am outraged by what I see going on in our government. When our campaign made our first video, I felt it was important to address the issue of health. It’s an intergenerational issue that affects us from birth until the day we die. Health care is a right. I can’t believe that they’re working behind closed doors to find that best way to strip away our ability to be well just so that their richest donors can become richer. When I begin to work in Washington D.C. one of the first things I look forward to doing is adding my name to the Conyers bill that will make sure every American has access to health care. We need to stop looking for excuses as to why it can’t be done and start figuring out how to do it. I plan on being part of the solution.”

Goal Thermometer The two North Carolina Berniecrats Blue America has endorsed for 2018, are excellent examples of how grassroots activism-- even in “red” districts-- manifests itself in dangerous times. Matt Coffay is campaigning for the wester-most district in the state, flat up against Tennessee, currently held by TrumpCare godfather and Freedom Caucus chairman, extremist Mark Meadows. You’re not going to ever hear Coffay degenerate into a Republican-lite establishment shill. That’s not who he is and not why he’s running for office in such difficult circumstances. "One of my first acts in Congress,” he told us, “will be to co-sponsor HR 676, the Conyers ‘Medicare for All’ bill. This bill has been on the floor of the House since 2003 with little in the way of support; now, though, there is a real opportunity to pass this bill and create a universal health care system in this country. I intend to use my voice as a Congressman to elevate public awareness of the benefits of universal health care, and work alongside folks like Bernie Sanders to create a health care system that takes care of every single person in this country." Jenny Marshall is running for the central/western North Carolina congressional district anti-healthcare fanatic Virginia Foxx operates out of. Foxx, who started off as a fiery extremist, sold out to the establishment long ago and is now a Ryan rubber stamp. Jenny told us that the bill the Senate Republicans unveiled “puts millions of lives at risk” and threatens households vulnerable to economic hardships. “In the 5th district 1 out of every 7 people will lose their healthcare. It is simply unconscionable. The GOP stands on free market principles claiming everyone has access to healthcare under their plan. I disagree. There is no access when people cannot afford to buy healthcare insurance and cover the out-of-pocket expenses. There is no access when people wait for far too long to seek care because of the rising cost of doctors' visits, prescription costs and medical procedures. People have been priced out of the care they need, but the GOP has turned a blind eye. I on the other hand support moving to a single payer program that covers not only medical, but vision and dental care as well. That is why I would add my name as a co-sponsor of Rep. Conyers' Medicare For All bill (HR 676) when elected to Congress. We must step up and do what is right for the people of this country, standing strong that healthcare is a human right. Millions of lives depend on it.”

At any given moment at this time in the cycle, Blue America is vetting at least a dozen candidates. I’m happy to say that right now every single one of them has expressed an eagerness to co-sponsor Conyers’ Medicare-for-All bill. Marie Newman is a good example. She’s primarying of if the most conservative Democrats in Congress, Chicagoland Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, a committed member of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Lipinski, who tends to vote with the Republicans far more than any moderate Democrats, has adamantly refused-- even as other Blue Dogs and New Dems have signed on-- to co-sponsor Conyers’ bill. Last night Marie told us that “as a candidate so focused on fighting to expand health care for all, I would co-sponsor the Conyers bill in order to establish Medicare For All and put action behind the truth that ‘health care is a right'." You can support her tough primary battle against Lipinski here. We need more Democrats in Congress like Marie-- and far, far fewer like Lipinski.

Kia Hamadanchy worked as a Sherrod Brown staffer in DC before moving back to the Orange County district he was born and raised in. His opponent, Trump rubber stamp Mimi Waters, has repeatedly refused to move into the district and almost never goes there except to meet with wealthy GOP donors and for photo-ops. She was a prominent backer of Ryan’s TrumpCare bill, a bill Kia opposes. “At the end of the day,” he told us, “health care is a human right. No one should ever go bankrupt because a lack of health insurance, and every single person in this country deserves to have access to affordable health care coverage that's there when they need it. And while I don't want to see the Affordable Care Act go away and strongly oppose efforts to repeal the law, I also believe that enacting  single payer health insurance is the best way to ensure that we meet the healthcare needs of every single American. That's why when elected I will absolutely cosponsor John Conyers’ Medicare-For-All bill."

Sam Jammal is considering running in another Orange County district, Ed Royce’s CA-39, the Republican-held district in the area that went most heavily against Trump last year. The DCCC has its own crackpot idea about selling the nomination to a rich lottery winner, but Sam is the progressive alternative to Royce and offers a coherent alternative to Royce’s reactionary and bigoted agenda."Ask any senior," he told us last night, "Medicare is great program. It makes sense to expand this for everyone. Imagine if a small business no longer had to budget in health care costs for their employees and could use those savings to hire more workers or a family knew that they wouldn't be at risk of losing their home just for getting sick. Our economy is changing and we need to take health care off the table as a political issue and focus on the economic benefits of getting everyone covered. If I were in Congress, I would be a co-sponsor of the Conyers bill."

 Although the DCCC is on the road to lose CA-10 again and give Jeff Denham an incredible run for a Republican in a blue district, grassroots Berniecrat Dotty Nygard, has different ideas. She’s not waiting around for another DCCC loser to run; she’s taking on Denham herself. She told us that when she makes it to Washington as an elected representative, she’ll "wholeheartedly co-sponsor H.R. 676, the Medicare for all Bill. As an elected I will have a duty and moral obligation to represent in the best interests of the people I serve, not in the interests of corporations or  Big Pharma. The American people deserve quality healthcare; they don't need insurance."

Elizabeth Warren took to the floor of the Senate to eviscerate the Senate bill. Brutal-- absolutely brutal:

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


At 6:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm always amused at the futility (these days, anyway) of speeches on the floor of the senate. If anyone is unsure how they will vote, they won't be listening to anyone giving a speech (look at pan shots... nobody home). They'll ask their favorite lobbyist, or their party leadershit who collects all the bribes. Almost nobody watches senate/house speeches on Cspan etc.

I'm always amused that democraps, including Warren, will excoriate the Rs for their pure evil, but when they had numbers, they did only a Planck's constant better... because of corruption.

"Among Democrats, 52% now say health insurance should be provided through a single national insurance system run by the government"

Proves how barely sentient democrat voters are. If you have government SP, insurance is moot. Insurance is the method by which risk is pooled and profit is skimmed, not a method of simply reimbursing for services rendered. A big selling point for SP is that there is NO PROFIT LAYER(S) built in to the system.

When did this shithole cluster fuck get so universally stupid, anyway?

At 7:48 AM, Blogger Grung_e_Gene said...

The Republican U.S. Senate has been corrupted like the Polish Sejm just prior to the partions of Poland. Republicans Senators are bought by outside groups with no loyalty to the People and a Single Senator can object and delay/hold up legislation by invoking arcane undemocratic "rules".

At 8:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rs have a religious belief that government has does NOT exist to help people who need help. It exists to help business and the rich get richer.

The FORMER D party used to believe that government (in the model of all other western democracies) exists partly to protect the powerless from predations of the powerful.

The CURRENT D party believes that government exists to enrich everyone who gives them money while pandering (only) to the powerless for votes.

Thus, "trumpcare x.0" will always be some scheme to kill some number of the powerless and transfer their wealth to the rich. This is their religion.

The current Ds wrote ACA to enrich health insurance and affirm the R meme of letting phrma rape the American populace for obscene profits.

So... it's always going to be a choice between death and rape until the Ds are permanently euthanized.

It's all up to voters. Which is a very scary thought.

At 10:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The record of the Democratic Party acting against such candidates as you propose screams of the bias in the leadership. You will see the party act openly against them, much like the article posted about the GOP attacking one of their own in Nevada.

So I propose to all of the Democratic voters who still believe the Party can be reclaimed to watch what happens to these proposed candidates. If I'm wrong, GREAT! That would be wins for the people.

But if I'm right? If we see requests for relative paltry sums by progressives get denied (Kansas) while incredible sums are spent in Georgia for a corporatist? If we see all of these candidates go down to defeat -no matter how narrow- because the Party didn't lift a single finger to assist?

Then I suggest you give serious thought to leaving the corruption in the cesspool and look for truly green pastures where humans matter more than money. As things now stand, that isn't either major party.

At 11:31 AM, Blogger rlfast said...

As one who was covered by Canada's single-payer healthcare plan for twenty-five years, I am totally supportive of implementing something similar here.

But it's best not to repeat the claim about McConnell receiving taxpayer funded care for polio. It's readily debunked at Snopes.

At 11:40 AM, Blogger mjbarkl said...

I and most of the CA-10 DEM candidates support H.R. 676.

On my website I present a budget I built that fully funds it. -


At 6:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

mjbarkl, irrelevant what you support. Pelosi, who will dictate what sees the floor (should you'se guys win the house), will never allow it. Or I should say the donors won't allow it. Which is the same thing.

respond to that please. You going to "bill cosby" her so you can get 676, in bill form, to the floor? How many others will have to drink from that same punchbowl? 150?


Post a Comment

<< Home