Sanders and Warren advocate for Medicare For All. Don't wimp out. Go for it.
“I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.”
Elizabeth Warren
 |
| "Medicare for All" vs. "Get real." |
Democratic moderates say it is too big a lift. People don't want it. We don't have the votes. It costs too much. Preserve patient choice.
At last night's Democratic debate Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were in center stage, the poll frontrunners. They were arguing the Affirmative position on Medicare For All: Warren has a plan; Bernie wrote the damn bill, as he put it.
They were spirited, aggressive, and adamant. They advocated and defended Medicare for All against all comers. They did not focus on gradual, staged implementation, implying that the change would be slow, not to worry, we don't really mean it. Quite the opposite. Each focused on its benefits, as fully implemented, as acknowledged change, disrupting an indefensible and broken system.
Nothing tentative. No apology.
Sanders cited the cost of insulin five miles away from Detroit, in Canada: one tenth the cost in the US. Warren said the insurance companies were leaching money from health care and putting it into insurance company profits. Their sole purpose was to say "no" to patients, and make money for themselves, she said. Each framed their argument as between good and bad, the victimized American people versus the corrupt insurance and drug corporate villains.
 |
| CLICK: NPR. |
Buttigieg, Delaney, Hickenlooper, Bullock, Ryan, Klobuchar, and O'Rourke spoke to problems:
***It was pie in the sky, unfulfillable promises. You don't have the votes.
***It was hopelessly expensive.
***It was too generous to the undeserving undocumented immigrants.
***It was unpopular. People like having choices.
***It takes away from union workers a hard-earned, negotiated benefit.
***It is taking away health care from 150 million people who currently are happy with what they have.
***It will add visible and unwelcome taxes on middle income people.
***It will validate Trump's already-begun accusation that this is "socialism."
Tim Ryan warned: We will lose the House and Trump will win in a landslide, winning 48 states.
Warren stood her ground, saying Democrats win when we forge ahead and advocate for what is right.
 |
| Positioning himself as first. |
Takeaway Number Two: Not much middle ground. Neither of the two sides are finessing this, looking for middle ground, except Pete Buttigieg. His position of "Medicare for people who want it" is combined with the statement that, in fact, people will want it and that it will force private insurance competitors out because the public option will prevail in the marketplace.
Takeaway Number Three: Each position was well argued, by people who look credible as a presidential candidate. Warren and Sanders had that standing going into the debate. Buttigieg once again seemed mature and sensible. Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, Bullock, Ryan, and O'Rourke all got more visibility and came across as credible presidents. They said they can get things done. Bullock got elected in red Montana. Klobuchar and Hickenlooper were successful in purple states. Their stature as president was diminished by the fact that each is one of many, but some will drop out; the one or two who remain will look like the young, electable alternative to Biden.
Takeaway Number Four: Beto O'Rourke mentioned Texas and El Paso repeatedly. A personal strategy is emerging. He is running for Vice President, bringing with him the potential of Texas' 38 electoral votes.He brings provides youthful white-male balance to a candidate headed by a woman or person of color. In the post debate spin room and on Morning Joe this morning O'Rourke spoke to his popularity in Texas, his campaign in Texas' 258 counties, and Texas being in play.
[Note:
Tomorrow, Debate Night Number Two.
Coming soon, a close look at Trump/GOP/RNC angles of attack against Medicare for All. The TV ads have already begun, citing costs, bad outcomes, government takeover.]
5 comments:
I'm not sure Beto can deliver Texas, that's a tall order.
The thing about health care that wasn't mentioned is that the employer based system is subsidized by every consumer and since there are no controls on insurance companies it is a major inflationary factor that is unsustainable in the long run. A dip in the economy will cause millions to lose their benefits as employers first cut costs, then payrolls.
My opinion is that a two pronged approach will continue to support an often corrupt and broken healthcare system. I fear it will pressure unfairly the dismantling of med for all. Employers in the new plan won’t need to allocate dedicated expenses to healthcare plans and this windfall can be returned to the employee as a pay increase to help offset any tax increase...and moreover no one will lose access to their doctor, to all the existing benefits AND benefits will actually increase. Only a fool would reject winning the lotto
One of the biggest risks to future entrepreneurs and the self-employed of present is the non-existence of affordable single payer health care. Some of the brightest and most intuitive minds will be enslaved to corporate structure for the inability to cover health care costs during business startups. America will continue its dependence on corporate structure while opening the immigration gates to free health programs.
Peter, Good on ya for recognizing Beto's positioning. I'm all about Medicare for those who want it or need it and have been as an employer. I wince when my favorite candidates call out a quick end to private insurance, it is a good way to lose an election standing on your principles to the end. Crummy choice.
Peter: How would you feel about a candidate who said s/he kinda sorta halfway supports Freedom of Speech? Or equal rights for everyone? Does every have a right to health care in the richest country in the world or not? Kenn is right: a two tier system means that only public employees or those employed by giatech companies will have affordable health care.
Not fair!
Post a Comment