Tulsi Campaign Early Note on Medicare for All
According to a poster on Reddit, the Tulsi campaign came out with a statement around the Medicare for All questions that have been circulating. The quote seems partial and I can't find the original source (hasn't come through campaign emails or on their website). If someone can find the original, that'd be good confirmation.
But at any rate, here is the quote:
Tulsi hasn't changed or waffled. She supports M4A and believes that Sanders' approach is still better than the status quo. However, she believes those with insurance should have the option to stay on their current plan ...
Medicare would be extended to every American...There is no advanced country in the world that has a complete single-payer system. Countries like Canada, England, and others all have some role for private insurance.
She will release her own plan that will be different than every other candidates' plan. She doesn't support banning duplicative coverage or prohibiting private insurers from covering the services covered under Medicare.
Some people are saying this means everyone would need to be covered by M4A, but it doesn't say that. Some people are saying this would require all people to pay for M4A through taxes, and they could keep coverage outside of that, which it might mean, or might not.
What it does say is that everyone would be covered and that private insurance would have a role (not explicitly defined yet) and that she will be releasing her own plan.
My opinion--I'm not against plans like Canada, France, Germany, or even England (although England is probably my least favorite). But, my concern is that M4A will not be adequately funded unless the entire citizenry pays into it and participates at some level. Private insurance outside of that--perfectly okay to my mind. But if the basic plan is financially unworkable, it undermines everything.
Waiting to hear more . . .
Comments
I think it was in her NPR interview
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/09/25/tulsi-gabbard-2020-democrat-c...
I heard it was a gotcha sham job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VksdjIiVTZ8 (7 min)
The rising had her on this week...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEyv_Yk5Yac (22 min)
The advantage of M4A is easy of filing for payment...a single source rather than dealing with dozens of insurance companies. I'll look forward to Tulsi's clarification.
EDIT to add:
https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-medicare-all
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
The first video is a total hitjob
No matter what Tulsi told this woman she kept repeating the talking points she wanted to make. And then when she went after Tulsi's religious upbringing, just wow. That was totally out of line. Imagine her asking Bernie something about a bad point of Jewism or any christian candidate something bad about it.
I couldn't listen to the end because kept interrupting Tulsi to continue making her points up what her parents thought and not how Tulsi has evolved on many issues.
Report the news don't make it and definitely don't make it up.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
I couldn't either
Anyone who respects NPR reporting better wake up. Lee Camp reported on them recently...
NPR Names U.S. Propaganda Chief As New CEO (Web Exclusive)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDX7r783Wu0 (11 min)
National Propaganda Radio
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
The NPR interviewer's name,
, is Robin Young. I used to (pre-July 2016) enjoy her program "Here and Now." But during her coverage of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, she did a piece on Larry Sanders' tearful nomination of his younger brother, Bernie, and when his voice trembled with emotion, Robin Young snorted and giggled. The audio recording of her reaction was available for a few days afterward, and I shared it online, but even NPR could see how ugly and inappropriate it was, and they eventually erased Robin's sneering reaction to Larry Sanders. Shortly afterward, I ended my longtime support of Neocon Propaganda Radio for good.
Robin Young is a despicable operative of the neocon neoliberal "Democratic" establishment, and she has about as much heart, about as much soul, as Hillary Clinton herself. So of course she trapped and tormented her obvious moral superior, Rep. Gabbard.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
Neocon Propaganda Radio indeed
I just read that it's being run by the CIA. Can anyone confirm this?
What in the blue hell makes people change their perceptions of others and behave the way they do? Is it just the money and prestige or something else? That Rachel is 180 degrees from who she was when she was on Air America and now just boggles my mind. Was it Obama's so called charm or was she just a phony persona back then? Ellen degenerous used to be anti war, but now she dances with George F Bush! McCain's redemption just because he didn't like Trump. How long until we see people hugging Dick F Cheney?
I wish I understood why people changed so much after Obama's tenure and Hillary's run for president. Especially people who were rapid anti war. Today I read that the Ukraine president was rightly run out of Ukraine and into Vlad's loving arms. Good grief.. how can they not know our role in the brutal Ukraine coup that resulted in thousands of deaths and f'cking Nazis being installed in the government?
The Gossipblower is asking for protection from Trump because people actually believe that Trump would have him killed. Why?
Which country was it that a journalist was framed for having drugs and the president ordered the police to let him go? And which country right now put a journalist in a maximum security prison and possibly torturing him with drugs and seeking his rendition so it can prosecute him and lock him up for the rest of his life? Oh that's right. He's a rapist and he worked with Vlad to get Trump elected. Never mind he deserves it right?
Yeah this is a rant!
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
The Gossipblower has created a GFM for $250,00
His attorneys have created this for him after Trump publicly threatened him. This is a tax deductible donation and any extra money raised will go to others in this situation.
What are the odds that it will go to help Assange? Or for Chelsea's $440,00 fine when she is released from jail? Slim to none I'm betting!
Grrr..sorry to go off topic here.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Good questions,
, and I too have wondered how it works. Just spitballing here, but perhaps the perks of inclusion, success, and wealth go to some people's heads. There have been morality tales forever about people who "sell their souls to the devil," which could be a metaphor for what happens within them when they're offered fabulous rewards. Or ... what if these big media companies deliberately seduce and brainwash their top employees? Maybe the culture itself is toxic and wears people down. Donna Brazille wrote that after Seth Rich died, she was afraid at work (at the DNC). That's a pretty intense environment. Maybe the term "rat race" is almost literal. And then there's group think. I have an old friend, a lifelong Democrat, who takes in a lot of MSM and NPR, who a few months ago said she was beginning to like George W. Bush and admired his paintings. The MSM creates group think, and they're good at it; they're pros.
I personally would find it difficult to imagine going through the rest of my life without basic integrity. But then I'm not exposed to a glamorous "life in the fast lane." Something to give thanks for, I guess.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
"she was beginning to like George W. Bush
and admired his paintings." Yes good ole Georgie gets to sit in the bathtub and paint pictures of his toes while there are countless vets who don't have toes any longer. Or feet. Or legs. Or........ because he sent them off to a bogus war. There a lots of Iraqis who don't get to admire his paintings because they are no longer alive.! Might suggest that to your friend if you think it's worth it.
Then there is this:
Yes Caitlin nailed that essay on manufacturing consent through propaganda and of course it has always existed in the media for a long time, but it sure got a shot of adrenaline when Obama made it legal for the government to lie to us or tell us blatant propaganda bull pucky. Gee now what did he see on the horizon that he would do that? I have posted an article before which I wish I could find that described how Obama and Hillary deliberately made up the Trump in Putin's puppet long before Russia Gate started to either derail his presidency or to tie it to him in case he contested the election results. Great job, Barry! just one more way that you had a hand in making things in this country much worse that even Shrub did.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
To the rest of your comment,
-- we are being played, big time. Caitlin Johnstone talks about the manufacture of narratives, the matrix. The MSM and many if not most politicians are leading us along, lying to us, gaslighting us. It's a lot of work for us, sifting through their claims and games, trying to sort out what's likely to be true and what's clearly b.s. It's also irritating, tiring, and alienating. Plus it's disrespectful, breaks the basic social contract. That's why we need to be around trustworthy people and nature and animals, things that are real. And the evening/weekend photography and poetic prose threads on this site, like a timeout from all the alienating stuff. (Maybe we are a little OT.)
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
My general view is that private insurance can't actually
compete with M4A (outside of supplemental coverages), so it doesn't really matter whether it's "allowed" or not.
The premise of all capitalist enterprise is, "continual, endless growth": Growth in markets, and growth in profits. The only way to have continual, endless growth in the profits of a health care enterprise is to charge more and more, while providing less and less. Even in the short term, there aren't enough rich-ish people in this country to sustain a First Class medical care market. If a clinic spends 5 million dollars on a machine that goes ping, it must be able to amortize that cost across far more people than just some local pool of wealthy snobs; and to "compete", every clinic must have a machine that goes ping.
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.
I believe she
calls her plan "Medicare Choice for All", something like that, per a couple of her recent interviews.
Confusing when you look at her campaign website where it notes she has co-sponsored actual M4A bills, but in interviews she is saying something entirely different. Medicare Choice is not the same as M4A as it allows duplicative private insurance coverage along with Medicare which some experts say undermines the Medicare program and barely makes a dent in bringing down health care costs. This is why Bernie's plan prohibits private insurance offering duplicative coverage, but private ins can offer supplemental coverage for more non-essential or cosmetic medical care.
She really needs to clarify the situation so her public pronouncements are consistent with her official website, and the site should be much clearer about the plan she proposes, not just confuse things by listing all the other plans she has supported in the past. And of course her supporters should not have to rely on some anonymous poster at Reddit to explain her position. This current confusing state of affairs on M4A has the unfortunate appearance of wanting to please everyone by being all over the map.
re her recent NPR interview: This one is very contentious. Go listen. Tulsi really goes after the NPR interviewer for her loaded, biased questions, especially in the FP area and in her personal upbringing. This is the kind of fighting spirit I want to see, and especially wrt calling out the MSM for their hostile questions. She has her Aloha side and her Warrior side, both on display.
Only wish she'd shown more Warrior spirit in her recent Rave Dubin interview where she allowed too many anti-progressive loaded questions to go unchallenged.
You can reject traditional Medicare also
but everyone has to pay the taxes.
I signed up at age 65 to avoid higher charges later although I was still working with FEHB.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
So, it depends on how the taxes are done.
I firmly believe that if there is ANY connection between how and how much an individual is paying (beyond perhaps some small annual limit), and what care they’re receiving, the process will fail. Whereas, if the care is free at point of service, I don’t see why anyone would continue to pay insurance premiums.
Can't argue with that. N/T
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Some thoughts
Many have said that Rep. Jayapal's bill was the best of the proposals. Tulsi has on her own website that she is a co-sponsor of that bill. What I think that has brought about a change in her position is that people on union sponsored plans and people on Tri-Care are reluctant to have those plans taken away, so it appears that Tulsi is trying to come up with something that addresses those concerns. I am not sure I agree with this strategy but here are my own thoughts.
1) Several people close to Tulsi have stated that her plan will require everyone to pay into Medicare for All but they can also opt in to continue their current coverage in addition. I have seen nothing in writing about this one way or another. But if that is the case, it would address the funding issue. But...below are my concerns.
2) Will Tulsi's plan provide the depth of coverage that Jayapal's and Bernie's plans have or will it be similar to the current Medicare that we seniors have which almost requires that we purchase supplemental insurance?
3) If people are allowed to continue their employer plans, will that lead to politicians claiming that we do not need Medicare for All or that Medicare for All is simply a welfare program? IMO, this is a very real possibility. Also when people are required to pay for something they are not using, they are less likely to defend it, regardless of how good it is.
4) In order for Medicare for All to be successful, it must require every person to be enrolled and contributing to the funding. It has to be comprehensive. And it should be marketed for its portability, thus uncoupling it from employment.
A lot of the Bernie people are jumping all over Tulsi as being a sell out and worse. This is not a good thing. They are attacking Tulsi while letting Warren who calls Medicare for All a "framework" skate. Bernie wrote the damn bill! But I am willing to wait to see what Tulsi has to offer.
Medicare for All or any other domestic programs do not exist in a vacuum. Military and intelligence spending is hindering us badly from in investing domestically. Military and intelligence spending absolutely must be significantly reeled in. Otherwise all the domestic programs and climate change will continue to languish on the back burner..
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Tulsi appeals to blue collar Dems...
many of whom have insurance through union jobs.
She needs to tailor 'her' plan to address the corporatist Dem/media scaremongering about her supporters 'losing' their insurance to M4A.
If I read Tulsi's plan correctly, it just means she's not cutting them of cold turkey, but providing a buffer period until covered Democrats realize that paying a little more in taxes for healthcare is a lot better deal than paying a lot more for crappy health insurance.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
As I often must do, I will preface by saying that I am
reluctant to project strategies into the heads of politicians; nonetheless, I agree with your take on this. Or indeed, I don't even care what TG's actual strategy is, because the reality will function as you have laid it out. The first time a union's negotiating team walks into a meeting and discovers that they can get a 25% wage increase for switching to M4A, that will be the end of that part of the conversation.
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.
Exactly...
It's like opening the doors to a prison and the inmates not yet realizing they can just walk out.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Warbama talks about how unions have negotiated hard
for their health insurance plans. Duh! They have been forced into fighting hard for not having to pay even more for it while their wages are not keeping up with the costs.
People who have employer health insurance plans still are receiving less in wages because their employers have to pay their share of the cost. This really seems like a no brainer. But in one video here she says that she isn't planning on raising taxes. Huh? Then how does she plan on paying for it?
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Warren's plan..
is to give us a watered down Public Option, call it M4A, and then kneecap it with absurd restrictions and needless red tape until Obamacare looks good by comparison.
How do I know that? Because it's the same Incrementalist MO every time.
Besides, she doesn't need to raise taxes if she plans on starving the funding.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Don't think that most unions are particularly
worried about losing their health care coverage, since, for the most part, the enactment of the ACA has gutted much of the unions' group health coverage.
IOW, the threat of the ACA's "Cadillac Tax" going into effect has already caused group health plan deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance to skyrocket.
Of course, pre-ACA that would have been a valid point, since, typically, private union and public/government employees had coverage that was considered to be the 'gold standard' for the group health market.
From my observation, it's mostly a conservadem lawmaker/politician talking point. I guess it's being bandied about as an excuse not to endorse a pure single-payer system (MFA, or UMFA). (which, of course, I support only if it's the Original Medicare program, amended and expanded to cover Everyone)
BTW, it's also being spouted by Bennett, Delaney and Ryan. (And, I think, Booker and Mayor Pete.)
I believe that the House recently voted to repeal the Cadillace Tax/surcharge--but, that's a joke. The damage has long been done. Don't know if the Senate has acted on it, or, if it was just a Dem 'show vote.'
Have a good one.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Lots of questions and
suggestions for Tulsi re health care proposal. All very good.
But it was obvious from the outset of this long campaign that M4A would be a major issue this cycle, and the polls reflect that.
So it's almost October and where is Tulsi's plan?
As I see it, we've got 2 candidates of a progressive nature, Tulsi and Liz, both of whom have yet to fully lay out their M4A plan. This is not encouraging.
I appreciate Jordan Chariton calling out Tulsi and calling it plain -- come out for M4A or I'm done with you. A little stronger than I would have put it, but the issue is that important. And it should be clear that the quarter-loaf Public Option which TG backs is no longer a worthwhile goal.
Single payer works because of leverage
As the ONLY buyer we can set the terms.
Big Pharma desperately wants us to keep our other coverages so we aren't the only game in town. It weakens our leverage.
Additionally,
there are huge administrative savings. Look at the number of non-medical people in doctors' offices. It's not unusual for them to outnumber medical staff. They have to work with a large number of insurance plans with different coverage and copays. I've often had doctors ask me which insurance plan I had before writing a prescription.
Just think about it. You contact one administrator to get compensation. It takes a huge burden off doctors. One of the best doctors I ever had stopped practicing to teach in a med school. He told me he couldn't take the insurers any more.
Medicare for all as an option is just one more insurer in the pack. And it provides incentives to increase subsidies to private insurers just like Medicare Advantage.
Weak Sauce Public Option Plan
This is just a rebranded public option. That would have been a reasonable goal a decade ago, but is just a waste at this point. As long as for-profit insurance is allowed to duplicate coverage in the public plan, two things are a certainty:
1. The for-profit corporations will try to game the risk pool so they get all the healthiest people and the public plan gets all the people needing the most costly care. This will allow them to maintain their profit margin and stay price competitive with the public plan. It might even allow them to be cheaper and then they can use the old bullshit conservative canard that the market always does things more efficiently.
2. The for-profit corporations will continue to buy politicians and propagandize the people to get an ever larger portion of the healthcare market and to sink the public plan.
Any health care reform that allows for-profit companies to duplicate coverage of the public plan will be an expensive boondoggle that is destined to fail and end up being re-privatized. If we brand that boondoggle with the Medicare label, we'll end up having fully privatized Medicare by the end too, a longtime conservative dream.
Yep, when interviewed
When a documentary about health care across the globe was made, they interviewed some of the involved officials in Europe. Many of the responses were a harsh and hard cold cut off of the insurance companies.
They are involved but at a subsistence level, if someone wishes to pay them for other than what is covered by the single payer system,then they can get an additional plan for cosmetic issues, or lower intensity health supplement plans in say Switzerland for example.
Also the people in our allied nations got Big Pharma to kick out meds for much lowered costs, as has been seen with articles about escalated costs here, they are milking us as well.
M4A threatens Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Hosptital/Med corps.
Any wonder that they buy politicians like Pelosi and others on both side of the aisle? Nutshell; They are scared of the US, their last bastion going single payer on their greedy asses.
So long, and thanks for all the fish