Liz Warren no longer supports MFA
Liz has been backing away from Medicare For All for months, but she finally made it official.
After pushing the swift creation of a government-run health care system that would cover all Americans and eliminate private insurance, Warren is now emphasizing her calls for a transition period that would make it optional for most of her first term in office.
During a three-day bus tour through Iowa, she increasingly stressed the word “choice” in her interactions with voters, saying the three-year implementation period would let Americans keep their existing coverage or try out Medicare for All.
“We’re going to push through health care that’s available to everyone,” Warren said during a town hall in Clinton, Iowa, on Saturday. “You don’t have to, but it’s your choice, if you want to come in and get full health care coverage.”
Sanders now sits alone on the left-wing.
The more Liz has vacillated, triangulated and moved to the center, the more she has sunk in the polls.
So how has this been reported in the press?
The dramatic and sudden decline in Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (Mass.) polling has left progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) as the main counterweight to three ascendant moderates: former Vice President Joe Biden, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. For the first time since Warren began her steady climb, it seems like a majority of Democratic primary voters currently prefers a moderate.
Amy Klobuchar?!? Why does the media keep trying to shove Miss 2 Percent down our throats when it is obvious the voters don't want her?
Don't they know that this automatically discredits any article?
Comments
Well hell, which would I choose?
My current 900 per month premium (a "retirement" benefit of being laid off but hey, at least I do have coverage) or would I choose to "get full health care coverage" under M4All? Hmmmm, choices, choices..... It's a real dilemma I tell ya.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Tough choice
Let me get this straight.
We are actually going to bend policy to accommodate those people who don't want to "get full health care coverage"?
Are we going to do the same for people who want believe the Earth is flat?
Coverage isn’t health care. You only get that if and
when a doctor will see you. And if the doctor sees you, can you afford it.
Warren is already moving to the right. Imagine what would happen should she be nominated. I shudder to think.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Good point. If anyone had any remaining doubt that she would
fold like a paper fan once in office this should lay that doubt to rest.
At least Obama waited until he was elected to renege ...
It might be interesting to see if any of this plays out Thursday, and between which candidates.
Assuming the moderation allows anything interesting and factual to intrude into the show.
Yeah, she lost me
Won't support anyone who won't push for MFA.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
You and your purity pony!
/s
But you just *know* we're going to start hearing this BS hurled at us again soon. And constantly.
ac-commode-ate
If you're working class like me, it means that "we are actually going to bend"..... over and take it in the you-know-where yet again! (BOHICA)
We ought to "ac-commode-ate" all of them. Read: we ought to find the nearest commode and flush them down it like the turds they are!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
The media aren't news media
They are simply propaganda organizations. They are not worried about fairness and accuracy and they are not worried about credibility as long as no major "news" organizations break with the narrative they are pushing. Most Democrats still believe Russia hacked the election for Trump and that Trump tried to get Ukraine to investigate Biden. They don't know that Biden bragged about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, they don't know that Democrats helped eviscerate the defense re-authorization act of any measures that would have reduced aggression by the US and their stooges, they believe that Juan Guaido is the legitimate President of Venezuela, they don't know that the US security apparatus tried to slant the 2016 election in Clinton's favor, etc., etc. The media don't report reality, they create a hallucination that passes for reality. In this bizarro world, Amy Klobuchar is a viable candidate because they want her to be.
Yah!
That!
What does Warren's position now imply?
Does it mean that not everyone will be forced to get Medicare? People can stay on their old insurance if they wish. Or they can remain uninsured. Does that mean that anyone who wants to join Medicare on day one will still have to wait until new health care legislation is written?
Theoretically, they could just join Medicare. It is fine as it exists. But the mechanism to pay the premiums are not in place yet. (After all, thousands of people do Join Medicare every day when they come of age.)
So Warren's position is that on day one, uninsured people can buy coverage at the ACA, or they can remain uninsured. And at some unspecified time in the future, Democrats will try to pass legislation for national health care. Warren was talking about working on lowering drug prices, instead.
if only a partial Medicare for Some bill is passed, which is what Warren implies that she will work for — will the remaining economy of scale still work to bend the health care cost curve in the US? That is to say, will total health care costs in the US be slashed from $4 trillion dollars per year to $2 trillion dollars per year (in line with what the rest of the world spends for cutting edge health care, on a per capita basis) if we do not cut the insurer parasite out of the US health care system?
I don't understand why Warren is
running for president at all. She has what might as well be a lifetime senate seat which has already gotten her a national reputation. She will or could I guess be a power to be reckoned with in DC for years to come. From what I can see, her campaign in rather half-hearted at the best of times. Is this something she was told to do by we don't know whom?
Mary Bennett
Simple
Liz is running to keep Bernie from becoming president. If she actually believed in all the things she said she did at the start of her campaign then why didn't she just get behind him and try to get him elected? As for her safe seat in congress it will still be there after she loses, but her job will have been done. Remember that she supported Hillary over Bernie last time even though she had a problem with many of the things Hillary did to us when she was the second half of the team that destroyed welfare as we know, the crime bill that saw the prisons and the prison population explode, and too many other things to remember.
Oh yeah, Liz will be just fine.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
I think this is it
I mean why not? The dems tried republican lite. Why not Bernie lite? Just keep throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks, according to the latest poll.
Ego?
That's the only answer I've been able to come up with. I don't really get a strong feeling for why she's running, if not to be a progressive spoiler. The problem is, the only thing she seems to really care about is a kind of nebulous "stemming financial corruption". Everything else it seems like she hasn't really thought out and trips herself up trying to come off as progressive without scaring off the mainstream.
I just feel like she had her little Twitter spat with Trump and thought, "I'm smarter than this clown, I could be president." I wouldn't doubt that she had whispers in her ear encouraging her to run also.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
One more placeholder for Hillary?
If added to Biden’s deluded (sleepwalking?) supporters her potential delegates help to insure that there is little or no possibility of Bernie reaching the threshold for a first ballot victory. They are both throw away contenders for national office, following orders of the DNC strategists to keeping the back door open for a Hillarious “rescue”.
Insanity; jumping into the abyss with a proven loser and expecting a different outcome.
“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024
Hey, this her only shot at the big circus
She would need major help from pharma and insurance lobbies to stay in the game, especially if she is dissing the financial sector. Therefore, the little people needing some help paying med bills is small change compared to her 'bigger ambitions'. Why do people run for office with nebulous visions anyway? Spreading out the odds. Actors marketing their brand to money backers and sound bites is what we seem to get.
Seeking power just to have it
"Why do people run for office with nebulous visions anyway?"
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Her caving to the right
Only makes it obvious the DNC fears a Bernie win, which would happen. Instead the corporate masters want one of their "pets" that are bought and paid for to face tRump, that way if they win, they get to keep their precious "status quo" aka stagnation and rot.
tRump wins? they still get what they want, and there is no guarantee the DNC is going to actual impeach tRump let alone impeach/imprison the orange con-man and would be dictator and King of America, they are usually so vacillating it makes my stomach churn.
As for the uninspiring and bland Amy Kloudbootjar? she is one of their safe pets, Biden is falling apart at the seams and Mayor Pete is showing feet of clay, and Warren is sinking as she is implied shifting to the sinking side of things.This allows Bernie to surge, and they are running scared!
But in the end, did anyone really think that they would let Bernie just go and get elected?
This nation has become a thing the founding fathers wanted to avoid, a place owned so wholly by the wealthy and their proxies(corporations), that the will of the people must fight to get what it wants, not the will of the money holders.
We live in the Corporate States of Oligarchia, wake up people!
So long, and thanks for all the fish
Good look there
Not only do we have:
CEO's @ $50 mil/annum
CFO's @ $25 mil/annum
now comes the CSO animosity. Monstrosity.
Kinda rhymes with see I told you so.
Or the corporate sell out, as this crazy side show proves to be.
We fought a war against England
after they gave the East Indies preferential treatment and now our government is doing the same thing when they give tax breaks and subsidies to the corporations, but not to the little guys who own small businesses.
Wasn't it Jefferson who said to be leery of letting the banks get too big? Boeing killed 400 people because they wanted higher profits and it's the banks pushing for higher ones every year. Congresx does nothing when companies keep their wealth offshore. Okay they do something. They give them tax holidays if they bring it back here. Rotten to the core!
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
So they brought it back here
and used it to buy back their own stock (which used to be illegal). So only the big stockholders and CEO's profited significantly. Oh, the people with 401K's made a few thousand and applauded while the big boys made tens and hundreds of millions.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Well I have had the same choice for the last four years.
I stayed on my wife's health care plan. It was primary and M4A was secondary.
Now for 2020, I will be on Original Medicare as my primary, Parts A and B, and I have a supplemental insurance policy (used to be called Medi-gap which was far more descriptive of the medicare holes in coverage) to cover what Medicare does not. And I have Medicare Part D which is also an insurance policy for drugs.
My Part B premium is deducted from my Social Security and I have to pay my supplemental and drug coverage premiums to insurance. If I opted out of paying for drug coverage then I was going to get penalized by the government for almost the cost of my drug coverage.
So I am forced to have choice now and I have no choice but to pay two of my three premiums to insurance companies.
So what is the beef? Do M4A proponents think they are not going to have to buy private insurance. Well I have got news for you. Ain't happening unless you want to be liable for all the care and drugs you get that you did not insure yourself for.
My problem with all of this is that people don't really understand what M4A is until they have been on it. They have some pie in the sky notion that M4A is totally paid for by the government and that they are fully covered for everything and that private insurance is not part of the equation. That is not the case. Private insurance is very much part of the equation. For those of you who do not know this, I hate to burst your bubble.
Now that you know that private insurance is very much part of the equation, maybe you ought to rethink what Liz has said. And I am no fan of hers, just that I think she might be getting a bum rap for this as are some of the others who are "backing off of M4A."
Not trying to be snotty
at all, but shouldn't the goal be to get rid of all private insurance and the need for it? I do get what you're saying, I got a small primer about Medicare and Medi-gap when my mother was alive so I get it as Medicare stands right now. If we continue to allow any private insurance aren't we just allowing private companies to once again skim off of government revenues with no value add in actual healthcare?
I admit, I have always been lousy at understanding health insurance as I have not needed a lot of care, yet. And since I am so highly cynical any M4A gets passed in my lifetime I admit I have not gone through details of Bernie's vs Warren's plans, maybe Bernie addresses it, but why would we need supplemental insurance if we had true single payer?
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
You are not wrong
Originally medicare was set up for health care to be administered in a hospital setting. Over the years with medicare cutting reimbursements to hospitals, hospitals were forced to push patients into outpatient status. Get the patient out as fast as possible to get reimbursement, be penalized for days over the average. Health insurance filled the gap. By reducing reimbursement to hospitals medicare created the market for health insurance. Also by using medicare reimbursements as a starting point, insurance companies could negotiate contracts from a "floor" for payments to hospitals.
You could be right
I never thought to look from the other end of the telescope. When the Scandanavian countries socialist health plans and safety net are brought up they are equated with our medicare system. It's not close. The Scandinavian countries middle class voted in the system they wanted for themselves and were willing to pay for it. They also made it so all the people, even those less prosperous than the middle class were covered. Damned socialists!
Bernie is saying no premiums or deductibles
From what I understand it's not really going to be like what Medicare is now. It's more universal health care with no insurance companies getting in people's way. The guy who ran Medicare for Obama said the only thing that really changes is who will pay for it. But if people want they can buy private insurance too. Maybe Bernie has explained it better on his website.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
IIRC
Johnson wanted drugs covered but couldn't get the votes. Too many opponents of ANY coverage.
Medicare is drifting farther and farther Right. I think most people are now in a Part C HMO which is not really Medicare at all, just a subsidy to private insurance companies.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I am also on Medicare
Do you understand that what we have now is not what Sanders is proposing with his M4A bill? Since you've got a formal education in legislation, please consider reading the actual bill he's written, or at least reading the bullet points:
Whether Sanders can find a way to get his bill through an extremely hostile Congress is a separate question but what he is proposing, what he has written into bills, is different than what we have now, and it is several orders of magnitude better than what we have now. What Warren is proposing is garbage.
But then don't call it Medicare 4 All
Because as you point out that is something far different from Medicare.
But here is the Catch 22. I don't see how you get insurance out of the system. It seems like to me any attempt to do that might be unconstitutional. If a product is legal, and insurance has been ruled to be legal for eons, and in fact, has been declared to be highly advisable at times, then taking away the right to have insurance, if you want it, might be unconstitutional. It is a property right and taking away property without just compensation violates the fifth amendment. Seems to me it would be unconstitutional for the government to take away something a person has and then not compensate the person for it. And the government is not going to pay us for taking away insurance.
And saying it is providing something else in lieu of compensation is probably not going to solve this issue unless every possible medical event is covered by the government. And that will not happen because the government at some point will say you don't have the right to have care any time you want it. With insurance you do if you are willing to pay the premiums for that kind of coverage.
It seems to me that if you want better coverage than what the government provides, you should have the right to buy it if that is what you want.
The government should be a floor for coverage, but not the ceiling. So I don't see insurance ever being out of the system. Insurance will still be necessary for liability reasons. Insurance is primarily about protecting yourself by spreading risk over a group of people, so that if misfortune happens to one of the group, everybody pitches in to alleviate the hardship of that one person.
I doubt any country in Europe prevents its citizens from buying health insurance if they want it. So I don't see how you get insurance out of the system.
NHS works this way
A few years back the family were visiting rellies in the U.K. and one of the kids needed stitches out. We went to a non-NHS doctor’s surgery to have them removed using our family insurance because that was easier to find and schedule from the US. So you can get private insurance on top of NHS and there is a set of doctors you can go to. Just not a lot.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
British English
Took me a second to catch on. "The family were" and "rellies."
Really?
Your educated opinion of this language is that it is an attempt to outlaw all private health insurance?
I mean, I don't have a law degree so perhaps you're right and I should defer to your education and years of experience, but what you are saying is really not what it looks like the bill actually says.
@Reverend Jane Ignatowski Who proposes this?
Does Sanders? Because Section 103 guarantees choice which is what all the fuss over Warren is about.
And I don't think this act would be unconstitutional for that reason alone. And it guarantees that you can buy insurance greater or supplemental to what the Act provides. And if the act prevented that, I think it would be unconstitutional.
Here is what Section 103 says:
SEC. 103. Freedom of choice.
Any individual entitled to benefits under this Act may obtain health services from any institution, agency, or individual qualified to participate under this Act.
And if this is Sanders bill, then this whole OP is nonsense.
Perhaps
You should follow links, and read the bill. Just a suggestion, as I've got no more time to summarize things I've read this morning, have to get on with my day! All the best to you, David.
Choice issue
But if this is Sanders' bill Section 103 pretty much says people should have a choice and Liz is just parroting the bill.
On Edit.
It is Sanders' bill. This choice issue is nonsense. Propaganda from Sanders supporters who don't even know what Sanders' bill says.
??
My disagreement with your comment was your contention that Sanders' bill would outlaw private insurance, and it seems that his bill does not do this.
How the bill Sanders has written compares with whatever Warren says her plan is, is a separate issue, and I didn't speak to that in any detail; simply said the details of Sanders' bill are better than Warren's claims about her plan.
When Bernie says there will be no premiums or co-pays
That implies that there will be no private insurance to supplement M4A. And that is what I was getting at. Now when you read the bill, you find that you can have supplemental insurance which of course will require premiums and co-pays.
Agree to disagree
I think we're talking past each other and I really do have a lot to do today so I apologize for responding to you any further about it.
OK so here is the built in confusion of Sanders M4A 2019 bill
Warren supported Sanders' 2019 M4A Bill, as she was a sponsor with Sanders, who introduced the bill on his own behalf as well as on behalf of numerous other senators in addition to Warren, including three other presidential candidates, Gillibrand, Booker and Harris.
If Warren wants to have M4A now but wants people to have a choice about having equivalent private insurance for a couple of years to transition M4A in, then I think that she will either have to withdraw support for this bill as it is written or amend the bill. Why? Because the bill says insurance companies can not provide the same coverage that Medicare provides. They can only provide supplemental coverage that Medicare does not provide.
So I think the bill would need to be amended to allow insurance companies to provide the coverage that Medicare provides for any transition period.
However, and this is a big however, in Section 106 a transition period is built into the act because the bill does not go into effect until January 1 of the fourth year after its passage. Things would be status quo for four plus years.
So if Warren wants a transition period where consumers get a choice for a couple of years the bill will need to be amended to permit that. On the other hand, if Sanders wants M4A to begin within months of being elected, the bill will need to be changed to have it become effective sometime in 2020, not four plus years after its enactment.
Both of them (and the other candidates who supported the bill) expected it to take some time for this bill to take effect. And changes to this bill would need to be made to accommodate their ideas. Why did Sanders propose a four plus year time frame for enactment? Did he think it had no chance of passage without a four year lead time?
Why did Warren think it was OK not to have a "choice" period for several years leading up to enactment? Apparently now she thinks a transition period of "choice" would be preferable.
Now that is my reading of the bill. Here is a pdf of the bill to review for yourself. Ideas and thoughts are welcome.
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s1129/BILLS-116s1129is.pdf
This is not going to happen
You might read his website to see what he is proposing or listen to his speeches on this. He has said that if people want private insurance they can still get it. What you are repeating is a right wing talking point. Do some research on this so you stop doing that.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
@snoopydawg See my post right
See my post right above because I have read the pertinent parts of the bill now and have figured out how they all go together.
Was it unconstitutional to take lead out of gasoline?
Lead is constitutional. When the change was implemented many if not most cars on the road ran better with leaded gasoline. The government was reducing the value of owners' property.
Possibly
It is possible that could be the case. But like all constitutional rights, someone has to assert their rights in court. As far as I know that was never the case in this situation.
Most people don't understand the reality of Medicare
Part A -- hospital visit coverage (limited) no charge
Part B -- paid for health insurance -- $135 / mo comes out of SSA
get a 'wellness' visit with a practice still accepting that
co-pays and deductibles are extra, fine print rip-offs to shake down the infirm
no limit. Basically disaster insurance full of holes.
Part C -- managed care via private insurance companies - ACA basically
you pay this depending on level of service direct to insurance co's.
Co-pays and deductibles up the yin yang.
Part D -- drug coverage. Costs extra. Govt. won't negotiate group savings.
no limits to out of pocket.
In other words, even just traditional medicare is so full of holes, it is designed to empty out our monthly social security check to where there is nothing left. Got news for the the SSA and politicians.
Spending all of our SSA check on 'health insurance' leaves us nothing else to buy food, shelter, utilities, transportation. Can't afford to use the 'benefit'. It ain't pretty.
That is exactly what happens now.
My friend who has a SS check of $500 a month, though she worked her entire life, after paying supplemental coverage and drug coverage, has very little of that $500 left. So she has no choice but work till the day she dies or become an ex-pat and go somewhere where her $500 SS check will cover her bills.
Thanks to all for the discussion
I’m only 57 but this is not far off, and I find things like this incredibly boring. I shouldn’t of course so I’m grateful to everyone who has taken the time to explain how it works (or doesn’t).
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Is Warren one of those people who can't see the forest for
the trees?
She has what amounts to a virtual lifetime sinecure in the senate. She could easily make herself the go to authority on all banking and finance legislation. Want to pass a bill in that area, you must deal with Warren. That kind of influence and eminence she is willing to give up, or at least jeopardize, for a presidential run she surely knows she can't win. Who now remembers the American presidents between Jackson and Lincoln? Very few of us do, but we have all heard of Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. She might have become the first woman in congress to achieve similar status. I of course agree that substance is more important than image, but you need to avoid making yourself ridiculous.
Mary Bennett
@Nastarana Just a few weeks ago in
Just a few weeks ago in the polls she was ahead of both Biden and Sanders. She has stumbled since then but she might recover especially if they continue to have health issues.
How many angels on the head of a pin?
Debating what theoretical health insurance replacement to have isn't relative to what will end up happening anyway. Of more relevance is how you're going to coral enough senators to get any kind of changes past when they mostly bought in one way or another.
I like Sanders idea of actually going to their state and making a big to do of haranguing them in front of their home state constituents because what comes out at the end of the day is what will pass the senate, not what is argued about on the campaign trail. Politicians fear three things, no donations, getting primaried, and losing elections, it's the last one of those three that is the most powerful at the end of the day.
I certainly don't fault Warren as being the antiChrist for suggesting an approach that has as little to do with what will come out as anything. She's just trying to find the sweet spot of higher poll numbers to generate enthusiasm. And she's right about where most of the public is.
Medicare for all who want it is what most people think when you suggest M4A anyway. I'd even hazard a guess that most people don't know current Medicare beneficiaries have to pay, and they might well not know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.
Mmmm
I figured Klobuchar had dropped out. I have seen nothing reported about her or crowds supporting her or even campaign promises. Nothing.
Meanwhile, Sanders is racking up donations and drawing the biggest crowds.
Does anyone get the suspicion that the mainstream media has a rooting interest in the Democratic primaries? And with whom is the mainstream media aligned?
In the old days the CIA had a way of getting rid of politicians it didn't want ascending into power which, as long as they do their own investigating, will always work. To paraphrase memes circulating, Sanders won't shoot himself.
Side note: Amy Klobuchar.
I don't know what poll it was, but someone noting poll results showed a poll where Klobuchar had, wait for it... 10%!
That's not an outlier, it's a dust mote somewhere out in the Oort cloud.