Conservative Democrats Are As Slimy And Repulsive-- And Dangerous--As Republican Conservatives

Before the 1964 Democratic landslide-- resulting in 295 Democratic House seats and just 140 for the Republicans and a 68-32 Democratic majority in the Senate-- conservatives had teamed up with the American Medical Association (AMA) to slime Medicare proposals for SIXTY years. Once Joseph Tydings (D-MD) beat James Beall, Joseph Montoya (D-NM) beat Edwin Mechem, and RFK (D-NY) beat Ken Keatings is became clear Medicare would soon be on its way to LBJ's desk for his signature, AMA or not.

The AMA, working with the Republican Party and with conservative Democrats, had managed to make Medicare into a system that only covered people over 65-- it was written to cover all Americans-- and that didn't cover many basic procedures, as well as leaving out dentistry and pharmaceuticals. The AMA was a complete force for evil in the healthcare world and, in part, it's why so many people my age grew up, distrusting doctors and seeing them as rich, greedy, self-serving assholes who needed to be brought down a peg. When they were, no one wept but themselves... and their wives.

Playing the AMA role today are a crew of well-paid slime-bag lobbyists (like former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Lauren Crawford Shaver, a former Hillary Clinton staffer, widely considered one of the single most disgusting, foul and corrupt people in the DC Swamp, and former Indiana House Democrat Jill Long Thompson), Partnership for America's Health Care Future (PAHCF),a group Dante would have to create a new circle for-- beyond treachery. The scumbags behind it are the Federation of American Hospitals, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. They have been funneling bribes to the Blue Dogs and New Dems and will do anything to prevent Medicare for All. Look at the actress in this new ad they group just released. What else would she do for money?





Libby Watson focused on the Partnership for America's Healthcare Future monsters and their deceitful press releases back in March: Look at These Absolutely Ordinary Americans Who Hate Medicare for All. "The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future," she wrote "is a lobbying group dedicated to fighting single-payer and even public option health plans, formed by the biggest players in the health insurance industry-- pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and health insurers, among others. We don’t know how much money they have, but one of their members, the pharma trade group PhRMA, raised $456 million last year alone, so it’s likely to be quite a lot. I receive PAHCF’s press releases, which are frequent. Every so often, they’ll highlight 'voices throughout the nation' in a recurring feature they call 'WHAT THEY ARE SAYING,' collecting anti-Medicare for All letters to the editor and op-eds from around the country. The strong implication is that these voices are somehow representative of Real Americans who fear Medicare for All, and not just the talking points of an industry-sponsored group."

Take this quote from Mustafa Tameez in a March 1 PAHCF press release, for example:

Mustafa Tameez, Businessman, Texas:

… I think we have to do is improve what’s working with the ACA and fix what’s broken before we try and change the system all over again … We have to have a better partnership with both the public sector and the private sector, and I think the solutions lie there, rather than all the solutions are with the private sector or all with the public sector. Anytime you see strong public-private partnerships, that’s when you find most efficiency, rather than putting it in one or the other.

PAHCF describes Tameez as a “businessman.” Sounds nice and normal, someone who would have a unique understanding into how harmful Medicare for All could be-- taxes!!! Ahhh!!!

But Tameez isn’t simply a businessman. He’s the managing director at Texas-based Outreach Strategists, a public affairs and lobbying firm. Their clients include Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, University of Texas Physicians, and St. Luke’s Hospital, among others. This seems rather relevant, but is not disclosed. Another PAHCF press release quoted an op-ed that Tameez published on the Houston Chronicle’s In the Loop blog, which doesn’t describe his job at all.

In advocacy campaigns, there are grassroots-- genuine, broad-based political action by real people not employed in politics day to day-- and grasstops, the practice of cultivating local leaders to influence their communities. And then there’s astroturfing, the practice of trying to create a false impression of broad public support or outrage on an issue when there isn’t any. Big, well-funded advocacy firms in DC spend quite a lot of their time doing these sorts of things.

This is the advantage of “grassroots” activities: It lends a legitimacy that, say, quotes from the people who directly stand to profit from the continuation of a private healthcare system can never achieve. It is more convincing to hear arguments about what would happen to real people from those real people than just another politics wanker in DC. But when those voices are few and far between, sometimes you have to get a little bit creative about who counts as a regular American.

Tameez isn’t the only example of this. A PAHCF press release from today quotes a letter to the editor of the Billings Gazette from Jim Corson, who is simply quoted as “Jim Corson, Montana.” Who is Jim? Jim worked for former Sen. Max Baucus for 14 years. Baucus, as chair of the Senate Finance Committee and the Affordable Care Act’s chief proponent in the Senate, helped kill the public option in the ACA, and was a fierce opponent of even discussing single-payer in healthcare reform hearings in 2009. Now, that’s not to say that what happened 10 years ago means Corson is ethically compromised on this issue; it just means that highlighting his voice as one of Real Americans without saying who he actually is comes off as just a tad dishonest.

We’ve reached out to PAHCF to ask if they’ve worked with any of the individuals highlighted in their newsletters to place letters to the editor or op-eds in newspapers. We’ve also reached out to all of the letter and op-ed writers named in this post themselves to ask if they had help placing these and if they disclosed their work or political activism to the papers or the PAHCF. We’ll update if and when we receive any responses.

James Rang was described as a “businessman” in Iowa when PAHCF quoted his March 7 op-ed in the Telegraph Herald, which is behind a paywall, saying: “In a single-payer system, patient choice and free-market competition are removed to make way for higher costs and reductions in the standards of our care.”

What is not disclosed is that Rang’s business is the insurance business: He is the vice president in the employee benefits department at the Friedman Group, meaning it is his job to sell health insurance to businesses. In 2018, James won an award from Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield. Way to go, Jim! But I would say that when it comes to PAHCF pushing his quote, it is somewhat less convincing that it came from a guy whose job is to sell private health insurance, since that entire industry would basically go away if Medicare for All passed.

Carlos Carbonell from Florida is yet another person described as a “businessman,” when PAHCF quoted his words to the Orlando Sentinel's “panel of 100 influential leaders.” The Sentinel described Carbonell as a “CEO/Founder Echo: Tech Strategy & Apps.” You know, Apps. What Carbonell also is: A “Public Affairs Advisor” at Converge Strategies, a government affairs (read: lobbying) firm whose website says it works with the healthcare industry, though it doesn’t name specific clients. Just another businessman sharing his businessman opinion!

Jack A. Roy’s February 23 letter to the editor of the Eagle-Tribune in Massachussetts is quoted, saying: “Recently many politicians have embraced another healthcare proposal, ‘Medicare for All.’ I do not understand how this could work.” Who is Jack? Jack is the former head of the Haverhill City Republican Committee. Just a normal person who could otherwise absolutely be expected to be open to supporting Medicare for All.

Mark Havlicek is yet another “businessman” quoted by PAHCF from his short February 18 letter to the Des Moines Register, which doesn’t actually describe him as a businessman at all. How did PAHCF know what Havlicek does for a living? Did they just guess, since it seems like 90 percent of the letters to the editor are written by bored “businessmen” who should be doing their real jobs?

Anyway, Havlicek is indeed a businessman. According to his LinkedIn, he is a vice president at Wells Fargo Mortgage and runs a management consulting firm, though his page says the group also offers “political consulting.” This makes sense, since Havlicek is experienced in politics: He was a member of Jeb Bush’s Iowa leadership team, and a press release from the time describes him as a “committed Republican activist.” Again, just someone who you would expect to have a good-faith objection to Medicare for All.

In her Washington Post OpEd last month about the campaign of lies about Medicare-for-All, Pramila Jayapal outlined 6 levels of deceit corrupt conservative Democrats are using:

• Americans love their private insurance
• Americans will pay more because of taxes
• Unions hate Medicare-for-All
• Supporting Medicare-for-All is like supporting GOP efforts to repeal Obamacare
• The nature of incrementalism
• Scare tactics

After the lies on the debate stage by Frackenlooper, Biden, Delaney, Kamala Harris and other corporate candidates about Medicare-for-All Pramila felt compelled to remind voters that "when I introduced our comprehensive, 120-page Medicare for All Act of 2019, I expected attacks from Big Pharma and for-profit insurance companies. But I did not expect misrepresentations from Democratic presidential candidates about what the bill is and is not... The United States currently spends an astronomical $3.6 trillion per year on health care-- almost double what peer countries spend-- and it is set to increase within 10 years to $6 trillion annually. Pharmaceuticals such as basic insulin cost up to 10 times less in Canada for the exact same drugs. Approximately 500,000 Americans turn to bankruptcy each year because they cannot afford medical costs-- and that includes people with insurance. With so much at stake, facts matter. So let’s get them right."

First, it is a myth that Americans love private insurance. The vast majority of Americans are deeply frustrated with the health-care system-- even if they have private insurance. Opponents and pundits often quote polling that suggests support for Medicare-for-all drops when you tell people that their private insurance plan would go away. But when polls accurately describe Medicare-for-all, and explain that you can keep your doctor or hospital, the majority support increases. People just want to know they can keep their doctors and hospitals, even if they switch or lose their jobs. Medicare-for-all would let them do so.

Second, it’s wrong to assert that taxes will rise without talking about what health care currently costs Americans in premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The average American family with employer-sponsored insurance incurs more than $28,000 dollars in health-care costs per year, of which about $15,800, or 56 percent, is paid by employers. And many argue that they still can’t get the care they need. Americans are smart enough to be asked questions like: Would you be willing to pay more in taxes each month if you saved more money by not paying private insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays and were guaranteed high-quality health care?

Third, it is simply false that labor unions don’t want Medicare-for-all. Sure, they fought hard for employer-sponsored health insurance plans for their workers. But they, above all others, recognize that the rising costs of insurance premiums are directly related to stagnating wages and, more and more, the pressure of those costs hurts worker power at the bargaining table. Take a look at the unprecedented number of unions that have endorsed our bill, all of which know Medicare-for-all is necessary.

Fourth, comparisons of Medicare-for-all to the GOP’s push to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act are simply unfounded. Republicans are the only ones trying to take away health care. There is absolutely no daylight between leading on Medicare-for-all and fighting to shore up the ACA right now, or stopping the GOP from stripping care away. The Affordable Care Act made profound improvements to our health-care system. But it was never meant to be the end goal, because it does not address the real disease in our system: a profit motive that leaves millions either without access to care, bankrupt or unable to afford medication in the world’s richest country. We can strengthen the ACA and work toward Medicare-for-all at the same time. Even former president Barack Obama agrees.

Fifth, we simply cannot expect to bring down the costs of health care in the United States without taking on the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical corporations, which are raking in billions of dollars at the cost of American lives. Incremental steps such as a public option might sound appealing but would still leave more than 10 million people without coverage while keeping in place a costly private-insurance middleman that eats up 25 to 30 percent in administrative waste and profits. If we want to achieve true universal health care while containing costs, Medicare-for-all is the only answer.

Finally, Democratic candidates should stop using one-liners from industry front groups and Republican playbooks-- such as “Medicare-for-all would shutter hospitals," or telling seniors that “Medicare goes away as you know it. All the Medicare you have is gone.” These claims-- amplified by contributions from the private health-care industry-- are designed to incite fear and sow confusion. I’ve spoken with several hospital CEOs who see Medicare-for-all as a lifeline for their hospitals-- particularly safety-net and rural hospitals that are barely surviving under the current system. And my Medicare-for-all bill improves Medicare for seniors by adding additional benefits such as dental, vision, hearing and long-term care.

As the debates continue, I hope that my fellow Democrats will take a good look at our bill and get the facts right. The Medicare-for-all movement has overwhelming public support, unprecedented grass-roots organization and a serious plan that is ready to change our health-care system right now.

The Medicare-For-All thermometer on the right connects to an ActBlue page that lists only one kind of candidate-- progressives who are campaigning on Medicare-for-All. Unless we replace conservative enemies of healthcare-- from both parties-- with progressives who are working to explain, pass and implement Medicare-for-All, the health care problems in our country are going to continue to fester and worsen and become harder to solve. Please help support candidates at the thermometer, not the phonies and corporate shills being pushed by the Republican Party and the DCCC and DSCC.

Kara Eastman is running fro the Omaha seat oppcupied by right-wing GOP crackpot and Trump rubber stamp Don Bacon. Needless to say, if he could abolish Medicare altogether, he would. Kara backs Medicare-for-All. "I believe that we deserve candidates with bold ambitions to make the lives of everyday Americans better. Healthcare is a right and in the wealthiest country in the world, we can afford to provide high quality healthcare to all. One of the primary reasons I support Medicare for All is choice. Under this plan which provides universal access to healthcare in our country, everyone would finally be able to choose their provider without the whole 'in network' and 'out of network' web of confusion. With a publicly funded, privately delivered system, people are able to pick the provider they want and need. I also support Medicare for All because it eliminates the high cost of prescriptions, co-pays, deductibles, premiums, and out of pocket costs that are decimating families. The average family of four in the U.S. pays $10K a year for these things!"

Mike Siegel is a Texas human rights attorney and he sees healthcare as a basic human right. His opponent, Trump enabler Michael McCaul. "Medicare for All is about human rights," Mike told us, "it's about environmental justice, it's about fulfilling the American Dream, that this is a land of opportunity for all, not just the wealthy. I'm supporting Medicare for All because it is the right and moral thing to do, but also because it is practical. Here in Texas 10, we've lost three rural hospitals in ten years. The primary cause: Republican refusal to accept Medicaid expansion. Without federal reimbursements for indigent care, our rural communities are being left behind. By guaranteeing a universal, single-payer healthcare plan, we will empower tens of thousands of people in this district who are uninsured. We will empower many thousands more who have inadequate care, who are on the brink of bankruptcy, who are forced to choose between electric bills and prescription drug costs. And we will re-establish the promise of equal opportunity in this country."

Indiana progressive Jennifer Christie is running in an open suburban/rural seat north of Indianapolis. The DCCC would rather run an anti-healthcare corporate shill for the seat. "Medicare For All," she said, "is fundamentally about freedom: the freedom to go to the doctor of your choice, the freedom to work where you want, and the freedom that comes from peace of mind. Our health care shouldn’t be a bargaining chip. It is a human right."

Jason Butler, a progressive pastor, is running for a seat held by Trump butt-boy George Holding in northeast North Carolina. "People are suffering and dying due to lack of healthcare," he told us. "Are we ok with this as the richest nation on earth? Still yet, millions of others are being crushed under the weight of medical debt. It's time for bold action to stand up for the health of our citizens, our families, and our communities. It's time for Medicare for All."


Brianna Wu, a Medicare-for-All advocate, is running for a Boston area House seat against anti-healthcare New Dem, Stephen Lynch, who even voted against ObamaCare. "The truth is," said Brianna, "opponents of Medicare for All have to mislead the public to fight it. The cost is lower, the coverage is better, and it’s a solution that is garnering overwhelming support in the Democratic Party. This is an issue where politicians show who they truly stand with. Are you with big pharma, the insurance conglomerates, and the billionaires profiting from for-profit healthcare? Or do you stand with the people you claim to represent? The clock is ticking."

Rachel Ventura is a member of the Will County Board and is running for a congressional seat west of Chicago, currently held by conservative multimillionaire Bill Foster, a New Dem. She's seen the way corruption in politics impoverishes the lives of working families in Chicagoland. Early this morning, Rachel told us that "The latest corporate Democratic smear comes from Rahm Emanuel-- no surprise here! On ABC-TV's This Week program, which aired on 9/9/19, Rahm Emanuel told George Stephanopoulos: 'Medicare for All will eliminate 150 million people’s health care…'

This is absolutely not true. Medicare for All will replace the expensive, unstable, employer-sponsored insurance with much better coverage that includes all medically necessary care. No one will lose coverage. It will be guaranteed for life. Every year millions of people lose their insurance coverage for reasons such as their employer closing, or being laid off, or simply not being able to afford the premiums any longer. When employees get sick and can’t work, they lose coverage when they need it the most. Financial toxicity is now listed as an actual side effect of cancer treatment in this, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Enough is enough.

I have personally heard heartbreaking stories while walking door to door in my district and among the volunteers on my campaign about what real medical coverage would do to change the lives of the American people. Medicare for all would not depend on your job, age, marital status or income. There are no premiums, or out of pocket costs. You can choose your own provider. It's yours-- for life. Healthcare is a human right.

Last weekend we found that voters in Naperville, Illinois, one of the more affluent parts of the 11th Congressional district, are very excited about moving forward towards an improved, expanded, Medicare for all system. But we also found that quite a few of them, and even a few volunteers for Bill Foster, didn't know that he opposes Medicare for All and that he has taken over $600,00 in campaign contributions from big pharma and the for-profit healthcare system. After just a few minutes of explaining how it would work and how it is paid for these voters flipped.

As for Emanuel continued comment, '[It] provides health care for people who just came over the border.' This is a race-baiting statement which plays to irrational fear of immigrants. We are better than this. Helping people in need is a basic American value. On a practical level, covering everyone makes sense, as it helps prevent the spread of communicable diseases and lowers the cost of emergency care. Under Medicare for All we can afford to cover immigrants and refugees. We can do what is right.