Dems told to lie and say they are for "Medicare for All" (not Single Payer)

Submitted by Battle of Blair... on Sat, 08/19/2017 - 1:19pm

Dem candidates are being instructed by the donor class to lie and say they support “Medicare for all” in order to jump on the Bernie Bandwagon without committing to an actual Single Payer system. What they intend to give us instead is a Big Pharma friendly updated version of the ACA.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2017/08/dccc-kings-landing-consultan...

As you know, “Medicare for All” is language that can either refer to Medicare as a public option or Medicare as a vehicle for single payer. It’s intentionally confusing (my DC consultants advised me to use this language, and I told them I wanted to be very clear about where I stood). The language below (including talking about Medicare for All in the context of “access to health care for all” and “improving on the successes of the ACA”) sounds consistent with the public option version of Medicare For All and not a single payer approach.

On a follow up phone call he went on and on about the DCCC and their associated consultants are telling their candidates to say whatever it takes to trick Democratic primary voters.

“The consultant class is obsessed with having candidates try to sound like America’s most popular politician while somehow not upsetting their donors.”

Tags:

#Demexit

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sat, 08/19/2017 - 3:22pm

Very Interesting

The distinction between Medicare For All as a single payer program verses a public option is a new concept for me.

Will the DCCC public option plan be an alternative to Bernie's Medicare For All bill? I am assuming Bernie's legislation will be a single payer program. I could be wrong.

Can you clear that up on available information or is it too early?

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sat, 08/19/2017 - 4:13pm

Bernie's MFA Plan

@Meteor Man @Meteor Man
Mollie posted a PDF of Bernie's campaign MFA plan at gjohnsit's diary. There must be a second piece of legislation hiding in the wings.

Now we can be on the lookout for the actual DCCC bill. It must be an alternative bill.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sat, 08/19/2017 - 9:50pm

Just to clarify, this MFA brochure

@Meteor Man

may not be the same plan that is going to be proposed (by Bernie) in September. I say this based on his words to Jake Tapper (July 30) and other hosts on CNN. Per the CNN transcript, his staff is preparing or 'tweaking' a bill for introduction this Fall.

Guess we'll see soon!

Mollie

"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage."--Lao Tzu

"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart."--Helen Keller

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."--Old English Proverb

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sun, 08/20/2017 - 12:49am

He has said that he backs "a public option available

@Meteor Man

in every state." If that is correct, that is not the same as a national universal MFA program like Conyers' legislation calls for.

I've posted this several times before, but here's an excerpt (July 30, 2017) from his interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on this subject. Here's the link. If you read the entire transcript, you may notice that Tapper later made a reference to MFA instead of a public option. Don't know if Tapper's unaware of the difference, or, if he's attempting to confuse and/or fool folks.

CNN Transcript, State Of The Union, July 20, 2017

TAPPER: What do you make of the threats directly at members of Congress about your health insurance? Mick Mulvaney was on the show earlier trying to explain what the threat exactly meant.

SANDERS: Well, I would turn that around a little bit and say to the president of the United States that, yes, every single American in every state in this country should be able to get the health care that members of Congress have.

And that is why, if we are able to return to regular order, if we are able to have a serious debate on the health care crisis, I think there should be a public option available in every state in this country.

If people don't like the private insurance that they're getting, if it's too expensive, they should have a Medicare-type public option available in every state in this country. And that's one of the ways forward. . . .

On Democracy Now, Dr Carol Paris of PNHP stated that such a plan (a state-based public option) would work against passing and implementing a national MFA program. She claims that the key to success, and the savings that is promised, is a single risk pool.

Also, if it's correct that Bernie's new legislation won't include any information regarding the funding, and therefore the cost (premiums) to beneficiaries, it could make it a very difficult sell to millions of folks--including seniors who are currently enrolled in Traditional Medicare and comprehensive Medigap plans which pay all their deductibles and co-pays. That would also to apply to millions of other individuals and families who have excellent group health insurance/coverage at a decent cost--a number which I suspect is shrinking every day, just as retiree health insurance plans are being yanked as a benefit. (Or, diminishing in quality.)

I'll 'Tweet' this essay, and maybe take a quote or two from it for a signature line.

IIRC, Dr Jennifer Flowers called out Senate Dems for their cowardice after they refused to vote for a bill offered by Republican Senator Daines--which was a 'copy and paste' of John Conyers' original MFA Bill. The bill wouldn't have passed, anyway. Regardless, Senate Dems voted '5' Nay, and '43' Present. Rather telling, IMO.

Frankly, if I were to decide to get involved (again) in health care activism, I would insist upon a universal (national) single-payer system, or a true MFA program.

Lately, I've considered advocating for lawmakers to provide 'us' with the same excellent coverage that they receive for a $503 annual fee.

Below's a short blurb about their care through the OAP:

The Office of the Attending Physician includes at least four Navy doctors as well as at least a dozen medical and X-ray technicians, nurses, and a pharmacist.

When a specialist is brought in, members pay no additional costs.

Indeed, lawmakers receive top-notch, wait-free care, and money is largely no object.

Members pay a flat annual fee of $503, and it covers all expenses—without submitting claim forms to their insurer.

Despite soaring costs throughout the health care system, prices have been largely stagnant in the Office of the Attending Physician for 17 years.

(My words: this is referring to the $503 annual fee, which hasn't risen since the early 1990's.)

Some lawmakers didn’t pay the fee and still took advantage of OAP services.

(My words: It is not 'mandatory' for lawmakers, or Supreme Court Justices to pay the annual fee, or participate in this program. Yet, by law or by custom--I don't know which--if a current lawmaker or Supreme Court Justice shows up at one of these facilities needing medical care, he/she cannot be refused the care.)

**Keep this in mind the next time you hear a member of Congress complaining about the nightmares of government-run, taxpayer-subsidized health care.**

Thanks for sharing this information. I was already pretty skeptical of some of the folks who supposedly signed onto Conyers' bill--then, ran like scalded rabbits when they had the opportunity to support it (i.e., vote for it) a couple of weeks ago.

[First Edit: Corrected garbled/confusing syntax in two sentences. Second Edit: More garbled syntax. Whew!]

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by Akze on Sat, 08/19/2017 - 7:36pm

Prof Bernie was a sheepdog all along

@Unabashed Liberal @Unabashed Liberal selling the public option instead of single payer

#1

in every state." If that is correct, that is not the same as a national universal MFA program like Conyers' legislation calls for.

I've posted this several times before, but here's an excerpt (July 30, 2017) from his interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on this subject. Here's the link. If you read the entire transcript, you may notice that Tapper later made a reference to MFA instead of a public option. Don't know if Tapper's unaware of the difference, or, if he's attempting to confuse and/or fool folks.

CNN Transcript, State Of The Union, July 20, 2017

TAPPER: What do you make of the threats directly at members of Congress about your health insurance? Mick Mulvaney was on the show earlier trying to explain what the threat exactly meant.

SANDERS: Well, I would turn that around a little bit and say to the president of the United States that, yes, every single American in every state in this country should be able to get the health care that members of Congress have.

And that is why, if we are able to return to regular order, if we are able to have a serious debate on the health care crisis, I think there should be a public option available in every state in this country.

If people don't like the private insurance that they're getting, if it's too expensive, they should have a Medicare-type public option available in every state in this country. And that's one of the ways forward. . . .

On Democracy Now, Dr Carol Paris of PNHP stated that such a plan (a state-based public option) would work against passing and implementing a national MFA program. She claims that the key to success, and the savings that is promised, is a single risk pool.

Also, if it's correct that Bernie's new legislation won't include any information regarding the funding, and therefore the cost (premiums) to beneficiaries, it could make it a very difficult sell to millions of folks--including seniors who are currently enrolled in Traditional Medicare and comprehensive Medigap plans which pay all their deductibles and co-pays. That would also to apply to millions of other individuals and families who have excellent group health insurance/coverage at a decent cost--a number which I suspect is shrinking every day, just as retiree health insurance plans are being yanked as a benefit. (Or, diminishing in quality.)

I'll 'Tweet' this essay, and maybe take a quote or two from it for a signature line.

IIRC, Dr Jennifer Flowers called out Senate Dems for their cowardice after they refused to vote for a bill offered by Republican Senator Daines--which was a 'copy and paste' of John Conyers' original MFA Bill. The bill wouldn't have passed, anyway. Regardless, Senate Dems voted '5' Nay, and '43' Present. Rather telling, IMO.

Frankly, if I were to decide to get involved (again) in health care activism, I would insist upon a universal (national) single-payer system, or a true MFA program.

Lately, I've considered advocating for lawmakers to provide 'us' with the same excellent coverage that they receive for a $503 annual fee.

Below's a short blurb about their care through the OAP:

The Office of the Attending Physician includes at least four Navy doctors as well as at least a dozen medical and X-ray technicians, nurses, and a pharmacist.

When a specialist is brought in, members pay no additional costs.

Indeed, lawmakers receive top-notch, wait-free care, and money is largely no object.

Members pay a flat annual fee of $503, and it covers all expenses—without submitting claim forms to their insurer.

Despite soaring costs throughout the health care system, prices have been largely stagnant in the Office of the Attending Physician for 17 years.

(My words: this is referring to the $503 annual fee, which hasn't risen since the early 1990's.)

Some lawmakers didn’t pay the fee and still took advantage of OAP services.

(My words: It is not 'mandatory' for lawmakers, or Supreme Court Justices to pay the annual fee, or participate in this program. Yet, by law or by custom--I don't know which--if a current lawmaker or Supreme Court Justice shows up at one of these facilities needing medical care, he/she cannot be refused the care.)

**Keep this in mind the next time you hear a member of Congress complaining about the nightmares of government-run, taxpayer-subsidized health care.**

Thanks for sharing this information. I was already pretty skeptical of some of the folks who supposedly signed onto Conyers' bill--then, ran like scalded rabbits when they had the opportunity to support it (i.e., vote for it) a couple of weeks ago.

[First Edit: Corrected garbled/confusing syntax in two sentences. Second Edit: More garbled syntax. Whew!]

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

—

Solidarity forever

Submitted by Battle of Blair... on Sat, 08/19/2017 - 5:45pm

You read more into it than the article is about

@Meteor Man @Meteor Man It's not about the planned introduction of a bill in the near future. It's about Dem candidates being told they should claim to support Medicare for All, but not specify that they mean Single Payer as a means to fool the electorate. They want to twist Medicare for All in the context of “access to health care for all” and “improving on the successes of the ACA”

That is not the same as being for Single Payer. So the idea is fake Dems making phoney campaign promises. The point being that we need to call them out by making them answer directly are they for Single Payer or not? If they hem and haw, then we have a phoney and shouldn't vote for them.

As for specific upcoming bills, that is not what this article is about.

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sun, 08/20/2017 - 7:49am

Thanks

@Battle of Blair Mountain @Battle of Blair Mountain
Clarification appreciated. I was not at all aware that a fucking public option was being promoted as Medicare For All.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by dkmich on Sat, 08/19/2017 - 4:55pm

If there a way for the corporate Dems to lie and sneak,

they will do it.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Sun, 08/20/2017 - 2:01am

And if there is no way, they'll make one.

@dkmich

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Sun, 08/20/2017 - 2:00am

Medicare for All has a specific meaning. So does single payer.

I favor Medicare for All, without giving a flying rat's whisker about the number of payers, except that one or two payers saves medical providers money and that is a feature.

Right now, Medicare can involve at least three payers for pretty good coverage, the patient, who pays a monthly insurance premium that is very low, plus the government, plus maybe a co-insurer. For the general public, it's one of government's most popular programs. For those who can't pay at all, there is Medicaid. However Medicaid can easily be combined with Medicare and, IMO, should be.

In my opinion, nothing is wrong with requiring people who can afford to pay the full cost of health insurance to do so. And those who can't afford the full cost should pay on a sliding scale that starts with zero.

I suppose we can dig in our heels and insist the government foot the entire bill for great coverage for everyone, from the homeless family to Bill Gates or we're not interested. Personally, I'd be ecdtatic if we got Medicare for all.

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Sun, 08/20/2017 - 9:54am

in more sensible countries, instead of myriad byzantine

@HenryAWallace
systems to determine who is rich enough to pay for what share of this or that benefit, they simply use taxation to collect differential sums from people, and then everybody gets the same benefit.

we don't do that in the US because we HATES US THOSE TAXES and we HATES US THOSE GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS. so, instead of a simple and sensible system of wealth redistribution, we have a preposterously complex tax code involving dozens of adjustments -- deductions, exemptions, credits, and so on.

thus, we end up in a stupid debate about whether some multi-millionaire's kids should be allowed free tuition at a public university. the answer is, fuck yeah. the only sliding scale we need is on taxes and tax rates. the UK doesn't have nonsense like "earned income tax credits" and "child tax credits" and a different set of tax brackets for heads of household (all of which exist in the US to disguise what is really happening, which is wealth redistribution). instead, there's one set of tax brackets (last time i looked, anyway), and then, for example, EVERYBODY who has a kid gets a family-assistance check from the government every month, regardless of their income -- because their income has already been factored into their single point of taxation, rather than their several points of benefit.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sun, 08/20/2017 - 3:17pm

Good point, except that taxes have been slashed

@UntimelyRippd

for the highest income Americans for decades.

And both corporatist neoliberal Dems and Repubs are willing to further slash the highest federal income tax rates in exchange for further dismantling the social safety net, fund infrastructure spending, etc.--especially, Social Security.

From all that I see and read, we're heading toward a much flatter tax liability for 'the wealthy.' And, a tax rate that is largely detached from ability to pay--which exists in many, if not most, countries.

I 'Googled' to see just how bad it is, since I could only vaguely remember that the top marginal tax rate was about 90% during Eisenhower's Administration. Apparently, it's been even higher--it was 94% at one time. Yet, we're hurtling toward a top rate of between 15 to 25 percent, give or take.

Here's a short blurb about our federal income tax history,

We turned to the Tax Foundation’s federal income tax rates history, which documents figures going all the way back to 1913, when the income tax began with the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)

What does it mean, though? For the duration of Eisenhower’s presidency, that rate affected individuals making $200,000 or more per year or couples making $400,000 and above per year.

In 2015 dollars, that's roughly $1.7 million for an individual and $3.4 million for a couple.

Today the tax brackets are adjusted for inflation, but are exceptionally lower than in Eisenhower’s day.

The top rate in 2015 is 39.6 percent, applied to single people making $413,200 or more per year, or married couples filing jointly making $464,850 or more annually.

If we went back to 1954, single people making the equivalent of $413,200 would be in a 72 percent tax bracket, while a couple making $464,850 would end up in a 75 percent bracket.

What’s the highest income tax bracket ever put in place? In 1944-45, during World War II, couples making more than $200,000 faced an all-time high of 94 percent.

Bottom line, there would have to be a major reversal of our current and proposed federal income tax policy, before using the metric of 'taxes' regarding eligibility for public health or welfare programs would be equitable, IMO.

Which is not to say that I would adopt the income levels, or tax rates referenced in this article. I wouldn't. But, I have to acknowledge that our Political PtB, or Bipartisan Establishment Leaders, have no intention of raising taxes on 'the wealthy' for the purpose of providing an enhanced social safety net and/or opportunities for the masses.

If we want that, I'm thinking that we'll have to organize and fight for it. Unfortunately, everywhere I look, folks of all political persuasions are jumping on the 'lower taxes' bandwagon.

*Sigh*

Hope you're enjoying your new locale!

Mollie

"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage."--Lao Tzu

"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart."--Helen Keller

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."--Old English Proverb

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 08/21/2017 - 4:17am

They need not be myriad or byzantine.

@UntimelyRippd

Maybe I'm just selfish. The word "reform" has come to mean "things I don't like," as in Bill Clinton's welfare "reform." I have no reason to assume that any tax "reform" undertaken in the foreseeable future would be to my liking.

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sun, 08/20/2017 - 10:50pm

This has always been abundantly clear to me

Simple phrases like "single payer" can be spit up and chewed out by the DC propaganda machine. In the end it isn't the payment mechanism that's the problem. It's all the graft, corruption, and greed in the pipeline. A new "single payer" pipeline that has all that same loading of crap in it will still suck.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard