Thursday, July 18, 2019

Medicare For All Is The Way America Should Go Now-- Another Reason To Reject Status Quo Joe And Trump And Vote For Bernie

>





When I look at polls I always have to remind myself of something I figured out when I used to run for office in college. I was elected freshman class president and, in my senior year, an at-laerge senator with more votes than any other candidate running. What I figured out at the time-- in the midst of the Vietnam War is that we start off with about a third of the people favoring, a third of the people opposing and a third of the people not sure or not caring about just about any contentious issue. At my school, it was that way over the war. It was that way when right-wingers tried impeaching me for hiring The Doors (for $400) to play a concert at the college. (It was before they were famous; they became famous the next week, but the complaint the right-wingers had wasn't just about The Doors. It was because I was hiring all sorts of what they insisted was garbage, from Jimi Hendrix, the Jefferson Airplane, Otis Redding, the Dead, Joni Mitchell, Pink Floyd, The Byrds, Ravi Shankar... on and on. And the concerts were free for students. I won the impeachment vote.) All the way back to the American Revolution, you have progressives fighting for our freedom (1/3 of the colonialists), conservatives joining the British to kill the Patriots (also a 1/3) and another third too busy or scared or something to care one way or the other). Once the arguments start, each side can win over some of the third that is undecided or uninterested and maybe even persuade a tiny sliver of voters from the opposing point of view. Like when the impeachment thing came up, I reminded the voters that they didn't have to pay to see The Doors, that since so many of them didn't chose to go, we sold seats to the public and made a huge profit and that, "just look at the charts this week, "Light My Fire" is #1; this band is going places.




Now, take it from me, Medicare-For-All is every bit as good as "Light My Fire" (the long version). And progressives are winning the country over on that. The new YouGov poll for The Economist this week is exhaustive. Before we examine how voters see Medicare-For-All, let's take a quick look at how they see the Green New Deal. 63% of voters answered affirmatively when asked if the world’s climate is changing as a result of human activity, while 28% said the climate is changing but NOT because of human activity and 10% assert that the climate is not changing. Now look at this:



34% support it, 31% oppose it and 35% aren't sure or have no real idea what it is-- a third, a third, a third, more or less. Now let's get to Medicare-For-All. When asked "Do you support or oppose Medicare for all?" this was the result-- NOT a third, a third, a third:
Support strongly- 30%
Support somewhat- 22%
Oppose somewhat- 9%
Oppose strongly- 24%
Not sure- 14%
52% approve, 33% disapprove and 14% aren't sure. That;'s the good news. However, there's some good news for conservatives (from both parties) as well. When asked the question this way: "Do you support or oppose a national health plan in which all Americans get their health insurance from the federal government and private health insurance companies are eliminated?" the results change drastically.
Support strongly- 19% (down 11 points)
Support somewhat- 18% (down 4)
Oppose somewhat- 13% (up 4)
Oppose strongly- 30% (up 6)
Not sure- 21% (up 7 points)
It isn't just Trump, McConnell and the whole GOP that oppose Medicare for All. Remember, conservatives opposed Medicare for anyone for years and years. And that means conservative Democrats as well. Today, among the viable presidential candidates, Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris (who doesn't quite understand what it is) and Cory Booker all say they are for Medicare For All, although one would not be unfair to realize only Bernie would fight for it tooth and nail. McKensey Pete has never made a clear statement about supporting or opposing it and just says whatever the audience he's speaking to wants to hear; that's who he is. Beto used to say he was for it but now admits he isn't. And Biden is not only against it, he's campaigning vigorously against it. Vigorously and-- hey it's Joe Biden-- very dishonestly, using GOP talking points. His own plan incremental plan, expanding Obamacare, isn't bad, but it doesn't fundamentally change much, just props up the current unsustainable Sickness Industrial Complex-- and the way he talks about it is filled with lies. For example, as reported in the L.A. Times this week, "Biden warns that walking away from Obamacare could leave a large swath of the country vulnerable to losing coverage, an untrue GOP scare tactic. Bernie accuses Biden of using the same tactics as Trump and his campaign donors in the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to mischaracterize his Medicare for all plan. Bernie: "I traveled all over the country to fight the repeal of Obamacare. But I will not be deterred from ending the corporate greed that creates dysfunction in our health care system. We must pass Medicare for All."



Biden's plan "still fundamentally preserves the employer-based health insurance system that most working-age Americans rely on for coverage. It builds off the health insurance system created by the Affordable Care Act, with targeted adjustments that appear aimed at fixing some of the law’s shortcomings. Biden’s plan envisions creating a new government health plan akin to Medicare-- popularly called a 'public option'-- that any American could elect to purchase if they are unhappy with their commercial health plan option. It’s not a buy-in to the actual Medicare program that Biden had earlier signaled would be the linchpin of his program, but a new public insurance system styled after Medicare."

Say Republicans will put a billion joules of energy into defeating Medicare For All. They will also put exactly the same billion joules of energy into defeating Biden's much less helpful plan. So why both with incrementalism and starting off by asking for something less than the best? In Biden's personal case... he gets an awful lot of financial support from anti-Medicare For All interests. Besides, the courts are in the process of striking down Obamacare, so why bother fighting for something completely imperfect instead just saying everyone is entitled to Medicare, not just the elderly-- and adding vision, mental, dental and hearing-care? That why over half the voters like it.

Yesterday, during his speech at George Washington University, Bernie challenged the other Democrats running to reject donations from private health insurance and pharmaceutical interests. "You can't change a corrupt system by taking its money. Candidates who are not willing to take [the 'no health insurance and pharma money' pledge] should explain to the American people why those interests believe their campaigns are a good investment."

Bernie continued: "People are telling me that in the year 2019, after Medicare has already been around for over 50 years, when we have all kinds of technology, that somehow we really can't do it over a four-year period. And to answer the question, we're being pretty conservative here. I think it can be done quicker."



Labels: , , ,

12 Comments:

At 5:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Open wide, everybody. Time for you to swallow your morning Bernie pill.

 
At 5:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once the radical reactionaries (I REFUSE to call them "conservative" for they conserve nothing) finish destroying what remains of the health care system in America, they will be well down the road toward creating the Dickensian dystopia which fuels their nocturnal orgasms. Only once it's gone will people understand what they've lost.

 
At 5:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sadly, I doubt they'll understand it even then.

This polling continues to show just how incredibly stupid americans truly are. Within a decade, americans will either have some version of MFA or they'll have nothing. costs will have doubled twice by then, so only the untaxed wealthy will be able to afford health CARE. And insurance premia will be so hign that for the corporations to have enough victims to stay profitable, they'll need annual government bailouts.

Stupidity is endemic in this shithole. president for life trump is our proof.

 
At 6:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

if the democrap party exists in a decade, americans will have nothing. I don't know if americans will have to become dumber to keep electing democraps by then or not. We seem sufficiently stupid for that today.

 
At 8:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ 5:19 am

I had no idea you were being FORCED (at gunpoint?) to visit this blog every day. You should file a report with the proper authorities. I like Bernie, but this aggression will not stand!

@ 6:14

You're right about the Dems being in the way of progress. Unfortunately, the idea that a nationally viable progressive alternative will spring to life immediately following the Dems demise is just plain silly. This is not the US of the pre-Civil War period. There will be decades of legislative chaos (even worse than what we're enduring now) following the dissolution of the Democratic Party. Establishment Dems (who currently make up 60-70 of the party) are going to continue to meddle in and disrupt elective politics, while Progressives are going to remain essentially unappealing to racist whites who can't stomach the idea of "colored people" getting any benefits from a stronger, fairer safety net. You do get points for being as tediously monotonous as you are childish, um, which is actually NO POINTS at all.

 
At 8:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This survey

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zf6uc8htcx/econToplines.pdf

is terribly skewed

respondents living in the south: 39%

respondents college grads: 19%

respondents never married: 30%

respondents living in small towns or rural cities: 48%

respondents self employed: 0%

full or part time employed: 51%

retired: 22%

permanently disabled: 10%

respondents born again christians: 32%

 
At 9:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear 08:17,
As you must know nobody forces me to read this or anything else. I read what I read to inform myself, not to always agree with. Now, you tell me: What aggression, and how will it not be permitted to stand?

 
At 11:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Couldn’t we all use a good laugh about now?

Try this version of “Light My Fire”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QPZ9Hi7xH0

There’s a whole album of this stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miTa6lnMF58

BTW, “Light My Fire was released as a single (!) with “Spinning Wheel” on the B side!

 
At 2:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:17, I cannot think of a single case where a viable PARTY spontaneously came into existence.

The cases I'm aware of are when an electorate became so disaffected, disillusioned and disgusted with (their) party that they euthanized it. In those cases there sprang into view one or more individuals who decided to lead the new movement into existence.

Does the name Lincoln ring a bell.?

For today I really don't believe the left electorate is smart enough to become sufficiently disgusted -- it takes enlightenment for epiphany... otherwise they'll remain on autopilot following their chosen sheepdogs into the slaughterhouse.

Does the name Niemoller ring a bell?

But let's entertain the fantasy that the left electorate suddenly became a tiny bit smarter than a potted plant. What then?
You are correct. Viability won't happen instantly. But with the help of one or 4 or 5 or 6 really well-known and trusted figures, it could coalesce within a couple of cycles.

If Bernie had taken his coalition out of the '16 convention and run as a Green (or his own separate party, ala perot), we might be seeing the first Green (or whatever) house majority being a possibility in 2020.

The only thing that would stop it would be the Nazis trying to outflank them on the left... which won't happen because their ONLY issue is hate. Fear of "socialism" is tertiary at best. Their sole issue is hate. That electorate won't react to anything except appeals to hate. They are all slaves to their limbic urges.

But there are 130 million voters who are NOT slaves to the limbic urges that all could be reached by a broad-based left coalition.

If Bernie was leading his party into 2018, do you think AOC, Omar and the others would have run as democraps? If they had, we'd have to find others. But WITH them, the movement would be much stronger and have broad appeal.

I know. the voters are far too stupid. But what if???

 
At 7:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If AOC had run as a Green against Joe Crowley and a Republican in the general election she would still be tending bar. I get the desire for a true left wing third party but under current rules and restrictions—put in place by the two major parties—it is nearly impossible. Bernie is a viable presidential candidate only because he recognized that running as an Independent (or Green) may be intellectually satisfying but ultimately meaningless under today’s two-party system. Jill Stein tried it and was only able to get on the ballot in 45 states. In addition, the 2016 election was a perfect setup for a third party candidate—with both major parties nominating horrible candidates—and the best she could do in any state was 3% of the vote. If Bernie is successful in capturing the nomination he will win the White House. If the economy is in recession (a very good possibility) the Dems will capture the Senate, as well. If these stars align, Bernie and his army of supporters will change the country for the next 50 years, much as FDR did in the 30’s.

 
At 6:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stein ain't no Bernie. She offered to step aside and give the Green nom to Bernie. Had he agreed, he would have come with about 40 million eager voters. Who knows how many I's he would have animated.

With Bernie bringing in more dormant voters, an AOC could have become viable, maybe, because she's the most compelling person in the house in a century.

Yeah, I know. pipe dream.

Here is what is certain: blithely surrendering to the "rules and restrictions" means nothing changes, even with AOC. we've seen this. If you truly want change, something needs to make that happen.
Bernie has been in congress for a very long time. He's been in the senate for a long time. He's been a lefty RHETORICAL firebrand for a very long time. But the only changes have been toward the Nazi shithole we currently have. Bernie may just be all talk... or maybe the parties do have all the power and even populist firebrands like Bernie are just sheepdogs.

Bernie will never be allowed to sniff the white house as a democrap. period.

You can either affirm the shithole or you can do what you can to change it.

I'm doing what I can.

 
At 7:46 AM, Blogger Debtee said...

People need to understand the money flows and the corruption in order to fight more effectively.

The current healthcare system is 'privatized', and privatization is the biggest scam EVER. The corrupt sociopaths who hijacked our government by the early 70s devised the scam to enrich themselves MASSIVELY with federal money (while at the same time doing everything to bust unions, squash people power, and silence critics of unregulated capitalism.

They needed to lie to the public constantly in order to do their scam, embezzling federal money right in front of us.
Here is how it works, what the reality is re federal money vs the lies, and how they do their scam:

They tell us federal money is finite; it is NOT.

Federal money can be issued IN ANY AMOUNT for anything that is physically possible. Sensible planning to allocate labor and resources is all that is needed in order to provide all the good things we want, and must DEMAND, and that we should have had decades ago. Federal money is NOT 'our tax dollars' - taxes are imposed for other reasons, NOT to fund federal spending. That's right - again - taxes DO NOT FUND federal spending!

Privatization allows the people running such companies to bill the federal govt ANY AMOUNT, providing massive exec salaries and millions/BILLIONS in profits! Wall Street firms invest, knowing that profits are guaranteed via our federal money. Most of our politicians in Congress are corrupt, so we can safely bet that they invest in these privatized companies and have them in their portfolios.

Our many DOZENS of war companies are 'privatized', which is why both parties shovel boatloads of federal money to them and lie us into constant wars. Many federal prisons are privatized. And the detention centers - we HAD a system for processing immigrants and refugees, but the corrupt were not in on it, so they pushed the detention centers in order to enrich themselves. Our healthcare insurance is privatized, which is why the establishment fights so hard to keep it; the extra 'costs' are money in bank accounts, to hell with the peasants that are denied the care from the billions of dollars of PROFITS the sociopaths want!

Now we see that the corrupt are privatizing public education, infrastructure and more. The money streams and corruption are why they push to privatize EVERYTHING. Do NOT let the lying bastards pretend they are just starting 'charter schools', or call their privatization scams simply 'for profit', etc. The charter school scam will have some 'non-profits' at the front, backed by 'for profits' that can scam endlessly to enrich the corrupt.

All privatization must be ended. It is a scam that the corrupt use to enirch themsleves, IGNORING the Constitution which directs that federal money is to be spent to provide for the good of all.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home