48 comments

  1. It’s real simple, if rich you’re best served by the status quo of conservative regression. If you’re a working person making under the threshold of tax cuts for the rich and can’t afford health care and can’t afford college, you need to be supporting a progressive who will help you get those things by forcing the rich to share the wealth they made off of the working people.

    Reply

    1. @GuitarZombie I assume that people without homes want homes. I assume people without food want to eat. And I assume most people who are sick want health. Those are my only assumptions.

      Reply

    2. @GuitarZombie . So your solution was, literally, nothing lol. Some old lady needs heat in house to live through the winter. You’d let her die instead of letting our taxes pay her heat? Because of a word and flimsy ideology that would have you abandon your own children if you were actually true to it.
      The aca was romneycare. The dems voted it down under bush. The mandate is unconstitutional in my opinion. Can’t force me to buy something as an individual. Taxes are mandatory. It’s redundant to say mandatory taxes lol. M4a will make health coverage cheaper for anybody that’s already paying. And they won’t deny you access to something you’re already paying for like insurance companies Do..

      Reply

    3. @GuitarZombie remember what the poor have is being whittled away by the federal, state and municipal administrators typically to the benefit of those who have more than the poor already. The ever widening income gap is a fact.

      Reply

    5. Fred Ragers TM please note the last part of his moniker—Zombie. Reasonable arguments are lost on him/her, because he/she is a member of the living, thoughtless dead.

      Reply

  4. You really have to wonder about the media. It becomes more and more apparent as time goes by as to how they ignore the polls and spread their tainted rhetoric about what is happening. When around 55 to 80% of the voting public back what Warren, Sanders and others are touting, they still come back and tell you how unlikely it would be to get them passed into legislation. They always seem to overlook the fact that those that vote against these policies simply won’t be around that long should they hold the corporate line and the voters decide to make them “get gone”.

    Reply

    3. @Real Talk76 A well set up single payer agency has almost a monopoly – and considering the naturally weak position of the insured / patients and the disadvantage the U.S. has with for profit hospital chains that strong position is very much needed (also helps with big pharma).

      If more and more and then all people have MfA coverage most doctors (if they do not offer a speciality or are a capacity in their field *) and all hospitals MUST take the contract and Medicare CAN do someting about their rates and prices

      * a competent doctor with acceptable waiting times (and enough space to fasttrack the urgent cases) should be standard in a first world country, that should not require having to pay for upgrades (supplemental insurance) or needing full private insurance.

      There is no such thing as good or bad quality of insurance – it is always admin around healthcare (very standardized) – if the budgets per person are high enough services that the insurance “buys” for the insured can be good (provided the insurers do not refuse to pay out of greed).

      Even “good” expensive U.S. insurance (employer paid, union negotiated) is not better or more comprehensive than that of the default coverage of a wealthy single payer country. Even in the overpriced U.S. system – if you throw enough money at it, the services can be good. But that means someone (employer, the insured, the government) pays for that. If the employer pays too much – the money should better go towards other benefits, better wages etc.

      it is not “outlawing private insurance” btw.

      Sanders wants to forbid duplicative coverage (also a typical single payer feature):
      Medicare is intended to be COMPREHENSIVE and reasonably funded. If Medicare covers it – the private insurers are not allowed to offer coverage. That restricts them to the fringes.

      Patients could offer a doctor with “Medicare not accepted” only out of pocket payment, and that is problematic for the doctors (chasing payments) and a deterrent for the patients. it would become almost impossible for hospitals to refuse MfA patients. Medicare patients would be the majority so no discrimination either.

      _No duplicative coverage allowed_ drastically reduces the market for the private insurers (administrative middle men) – that is a good thing, there is no need to outlaw them.

      Reply

    1. @Terry Tater That is not my point. What is wrong with improving Obamacare? If the Democrats lose the House because of Medicare for all, it would be suicidal even if they win the Presidency

      Reply

    2. @Timbone . We lose the house if pete wins the primary. Dems win down ballot with high turnout. We get centrist votes down ballot because those people always vote. We only win down ballot when the base shows up. Hillary acted like we didn’t need the base cause she’s a narcissist that only cares about herself. She sacrificed the Congress an the Senate. And msm loved it.. But everybody already knows the dems only win with high turnout. That’s why bill pushed voting on mtv in the 90s.. lol.. Now the centrists have such a grasp on the power that the news doesn’t even remind you of everyday realities and you’ll literally state the opposite of reality…

      Reply

    4. Bills that are good for The People are hard to pass – and will be met with resistance * from within the Democratic party as well. What else is new ?

      * becauseof money in politics and most representatives have sold out to a degree – but FDR had to strongarm Democrats as well).

      The special interests will fight tooth and nail (incl. bribing Corporate media with advertising budgets to support them in the battle).

      This is why Senator Sanders talked about a Political Revolution as soon as 2015, currently builds the mass movement and aspires to be the Organizer-in-chief. Not that hard to understand or formulate. ….. You are welcome MSNBC and young establishment tool.

      Warren is not going to build that mass movement, and sadly since she fought for the CFPB (when she was not a politician) she has become a calculating politician. It shows in her staying on the sidelines when it was time to show leadership. Her flip-flopping and word salad and implausible MfA financing plan and rollout also signal to party elites and superdelegates that she is willing to compromize (in advance) and that she does not really mean it.

      Not to sound mean, but when I saw the plan to finance MfA I asked myself if the internes had come up with that.

      If – IF – you come up with specifics they should show that your heart and priorities are in the right place and that you can think around the corners and know enough about the subject. – or even better, you muster some courage and dismiss the right wing talking points and do not let yourself be cornered (taxes on the middle class, there is nothing worse than * gasp * taxes * gasp * – redefine premiums and co-pays as taxes to private unaccountable entities with services that cost double what they should cost – there you go).

      Then you do not have to tie yourself into a pretzel to avoid admitting that this is the way to go and that indeed the Sanders position is the rational and pragmatic one (and all other countries also have payroll taxes for staff AND companies). Her plan was that companies with less than 50 employees would not pay at all. Right ! because it is not like companies would react by only hiring contractors, splitting companies and what not. That nonsense alone has the potential to undermine the reform, because it undermines funding and creates division. Side effect: it encourages contracting which means it becomes much harder to unionize.

      What was she thinking ???

      That perceived capacity to roll over is why SHE is at least mentioned by mainstream media and the coverage is often even mildly positive – while there is a blackout on Sanders. Never mind – he circumvents Corporate media and has the troops on the ground.

      Reply

  6. If it will be difficult to get Medicare For All and a wealth tax under Warren (or Sanders) it will be a lot _more_ difficult under any other candidates.

    Reply

    2. What exactly did being black and female have to do with Political Reporter, Alexi McCammond’s journalistic contribution… You may disagree with her findings, but it was her story, so of course she was a guest sharing her story.

      Reply

    3. @LadyHotdogOfTheBun

      She’s nothing but a token puppet… That is all she is….& Stop pretending like you don’t know the rules of the game….

      Reply

    5. IamExtremely Wealthy You may have an overly active imagination… or simply ignoring the fact that black women can think… analyze and correlate information, and prepare and provide a summation of the findings… and do so without your or anyone else’s permission or approval. The woman is an accomplished journalist and nobody’s “token puppet.”
      While society has moved on… you’re still clinging to the memories of “tokens” and “rules of the game.” It seems you’re the one pretending… harboring resentment, as if it gives you some sense of superiority… while you project your own inferiority onto your so called “tokens.” Adulthood awaits you… and sadly that can be said about far too many people, these days. Best wishes to you.

      Reply

  11. Yeah, we’d hate to have any new ideas or innovative thinking in this country, we’ll just keep doing what isnt working.

    Reply

    1. Shamefully the staggering National Deficits not an issue, no Shutdown looms over the $1 TRILLION Deficit so totally ignored.

      Reply

    1. If people disagree with you, you attack them.
      How are you any different from Fox polls
      There are polls that agree with this.
      Lobbying is a big deal
      and insurance companies carry a lot of power
      The Medicare for all will not pass
      It is common sense
      Look at history. It took decades to pass Medicaid
      Obamacare took 7 years to be popular
      America is made up of a lot more people than the minority that elected Trump

      Reply

  15. Yeah, big Ideas never pass….oh wait you forget that once it’s in congress and we find out who voted against the bills and then we elect their replacements how that can effect other Congress members votes. I think if the bill is popular enough it will pass. Or the congress will start having a higher turn over than the Trump white house does.

    Reply

  16. Mainstream media’s modus operandi.
    1. Introduce a guest and extol their accomplishments.
    2. Have the guest bash and delegitimize progressive policies.

    Reply

  19. You know what would help Warren get her big ideas through? If MSNBC stopped attacking them to prop up their advertisers

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.