Medicare for All

Medicare for All Is Defining the 2020 Democratic Race

A decade after Obamacare, the Democratic Party has embraced health care radicalism.

|

A decade ago, Democrats in Congress were deep into the process of designing and debating the health care law that would become Obamacare. Tea Party protests were about to spring up around the country in opposition to the law. And President Barack Obama was on the verge of delivering a major address defending the law from its critics, and hoping to rally support from his own party. 

In that speech, Obama positioned his approach as a middle ground between two extremes. "There are those on the left," he said, "who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own." 

The following year, Obamacare became the law of the land, and the signature initiative of Obama's two-term presidency. But in last night's Democratic primary debate, which featured a full half-hour segment focused on health care—which was introduced as "the number-one issue for Democratic voters"—it was virtually absent. Instead, the evening's leading contenders extensively defended Medicare for All, a single-payer plan that captured elements of both the extremes Obama said he wanted to avoid. 

Medicare for All, as proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and vigorously supported by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), would end the nation's employer-based health care system and, in the space of four years, replace it with a fully government-run system that is closest to Canada's, but even more restrictive, leaving virtually no room for private insurance. It would, according to both independent estimates and Sanders himself, raise government spending on health care by something like $30 or $40 trillion over the next decade. And it would require tax hikes or tax-like fees or premiums on the middle class.  In terms of both cost and transition complexity, it would dwarf Obamacare. 

Sanders and Warren spent much of the debate's opening segment defending these ideas from tough questioning by the moderators and criticism from more moderate candidates who argued that the plan was too radical, too unpopular, and too unworkable. The polls, at least, suggest that there is some truth to this: Medicare for All is popular in the abstract, but quickly becomes unpopular when respondents are told that it would eliminate private health insurance or raise taxes. 

Arguably the strongest criticisms came from John Delaney, a Maryland Democrat who in the early 1990s founded a health care financing company. Delaney warned that the radicalism espoused by Warren and Sanders would turn off more moderate voters in an election. "We don't have to go around and be the party of subtraction, and telling half the country, who has private health insurance, that their health insurance is illegal," he said. "My dad, the union electrician, loved the health care he got from the IBEW. He would never want someone to take that away. Half of Medicare beneficiaries now have Medicare Advantage, which is private insurance, or supplemental plans. It's also bad policy. It'll underfund the industry, many hospitals will close." 

This was a point that Delaney had made before: the Sanders plan, as expensive as it already is, calls for paying Medicare rates for all services, which would mean a substantial reduction in rates for doctors and hospitals. He repeated it later in the evening. "I've been going around rural America," he said, "and I ask rural hospital administrators one question, 'If all your bills were paid at the Medicare rate last year, what would happen?' And they all look at me and say, 'We would close.'"  

Warren and Sanders had essentially no response to this. Warren accused moderates on the stage of spinelessness, and both she and Sanders argued that questions and criticisms about single-payer health care amounted to "Republican talking points." They took shots at drug makers, which represent about 10 percent of total U.S. health care spending, and insurance companies, which on average have profit margins of less than 3 percent, for profiting off of health care, but never addressed questions about payment rates for providers. 

Nor would Warren respond directly to a question about whether she would raise taxes on the middle class to fund the plan. Sanders has admitted that it would require higher taxes, and Warren has said she's with him on his ideas. But when asked by moderator Jake Tapper whether she's "'with Bernie' on Medicare for all when it comes to raising taxes on middle-class Americans to pay for it?" she prevaricated. "So giant corporations and billionaires are going to pay more," she said. "Middle-class families are going to pay less out of pocket for their health care." And then she went on to attack insurance companies, repeating the same basic formulation about "total costs" going down when Tapper pressed her again on taxes. Warren clearly didn't want to answer the question.

Following the debate, CNN's Anderson Cooper pressed her on the question of upheaval: What would she say to people to liked their current health plans? How did she respond to the idea that Obamacare was already a tough sell politically, and Medicare for All would therefore be even more difficult? Once again, Warren deflected, accusing critics of timidity and spinelessness. 

Looked at one way, Medicare for All had a rough night, facing difficult questions and a phalanx of criticism from the stage's more moderate contenders. But the critics who fought with Warren and Sanders last night have essentially zero support in the party. Delaney, for example, currently polls at 0.7 percent. And while better-polling contenders like Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg have plans that call for something less than full-fledged single-payer, they are speaking something like the language of Warren and Sanders.

The only Democratic candidate who has strongly attacked Medicare for All who has performed well so far is former Vice President Joe Biden, who will appear in the debate's second round tonight. But even Biden's plan has been framed largely as a response to Medicare for All, a way of pushing back against its excesses. 

Somehow, in the space of 10 years, Democrats have drifted away from Obama's performative centrism, his (at least rhetorical) sense that what Americans want is a middle way, an anti-radical solution rather than the "big structural change" that Warren insists is needed. Medicare for All, and all the troublesome questions it raises, is defining the 2020 Democratic race—and the Democratic Party with it. 

NEXT: Elizabeth Warren Hates Your Cheap Foreign-Made Electric Guitar

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Somehow, in the space of 10 years, Democrats have drifted away from Obama’s performative centrism, his (at least rhetorical) sense that what Americans want is a middle way, an anti-radical solution rather than the “big structural change” that Warren insists is needed.

    In other words, they have stopped lying. That is something I guess.

    1. The only thing that stopped Obama from signing crazy Lefty legislation was that the GOP controlled the House as of 2011 and the Democrats spent all their political capital on ObamaCare from Jan 2009-Jan 2011.

      1. You said something true.

        Now if only you could refrain from doing unpaid PR work for some of the most parasitic industries on the planet, you’ll be halfway to having good ideas.

        1. Shut the fuck up Esmeralda.

          1. If I’m Esmeralda, does that make you Prunella, the fat one?

            1. Shut the fuck up Esmeralda.

              1. “If I’m Esmeralda, does that make you Prunella, the fat one?”

                No wonder you chose it as your sockpuppets name ahahahahahahh

            2. Shut the fuck up, you retarded mouth breathing Okie cunt.

              1. Mouth-breathing Okie cunt *faggot*. Don’t hold back now.

                1. Have a persecution complex harder.

                  1. Is that what your cousin tells you when you start crying because she can’t feel you inside her, and it’s not because she’s particularly, you know, agape?

              2. Tulpa is in Oklahoma? Okie?

        2. Esmeralda, I say true things all time. You just don’t like the truth.

        3. Since Tony can’t answer any difficult questions about his preferred policies, everyone else = evil PR people.

          Tony is one very stable individual.

        4. But you are you doing PR work for the most parasitic institutions on the planet. Cannot stand the competition?

        5. “Crazy lefty legislation”.

          Yeah, you’re right tony, he nailed it. Glad you agree.

          Haha

    2. Bingo, Obama would say one thing, and hidden cameras at union events would be where he’d admit what he was actually for.

      1. Obama’s main boy Ben Rhodes bragged about lying to the population. So did the obama architect. Even Voxs Iglesias bragged about lying and changing the narrative on the trump tax cuts.

        How fucking stupid are democrat voters? Oh nm, tony is here to show us.

    3. Is progress for democrats at least that they admit Obamacare is a failure and they want to replace it?

  2. Medicare for All Is Defining the 2020 Democratic Race

    Good thing there wont likely be a Democrat to win the Presidency ever again.

    All the Lefty policies Democrats want to implement indicate that even Democrat leadership knows they are done for nationally.

  3. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Medicare for All is a terrible and radical idea. Fine. So one aspect of the Democratic platform is unacceptable to us Koch / Reason libertarians. You know what’s even more unacceptable? The literal concentration camps Drumpf has built.

    At this point it’s counterproductive to focus on the minor disputes within the progressive / libertarian alliance. The fact is we have two major parties in this country. One is pro-concentration camp. The other is anti-concentration camp. I know which side I’m on.

    #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders
    #ImmigrationAboveAll
    #AbolishConcentrationCamps

    1. Those aren’t concentration camps https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camp-comment-immigration-facilities/ . Good grief, they can leave whenever they want to by agreeing to return to where they came from.

      Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, Not A Newspaper!

      1. Hello. You must be new here. Welcome!

      2. That’s a parody account, and not a good one. A waste of time to engage.

        1. Oh, I don’t know. If his shtick is to mock looney left positions with the textual equivalent of a straight face, I’d say he’s ok.

          On the other hand, if he really believes the crap that he posts………. Haha. Nahhhhh….

          A waste of time to engage, yes, that’s true.

  4. “A decade after Obamacare, the Democratic Party has embraced health care radicalism. ”

    Well, that’s two decades after they first tried radicalism; see Clintoncare.

  5. “The following year, Obamacare became the law of the land, and the signature initiative of Obama’s two-term presidency.”

    And that’s all you need to know about Obo’s presidency…

    1. That and all the killings and new wars done by a Noble Peace Prize winner.

      1. That might be something you need to know, but what I want to know is how many people you can kill before they revoke your Peace Prize? Apparently the number is pretty high.

  6. In February 2018, I had a brief discussion with Mr. David Bossie, confidante of President Trump and head of Citizens United. I warned him that medical delivery (aka/”healthcare”) would prove itself a decisive issue in the forthcoming election that November. It did. The Republicans offered Americans nothing in that regard. I recommended a plan based upon the Science of Human Behavior and nominated unsolicited for two, national awards by the American insurance-industry — a plan now contained in the semi-fictional novel, Retribution Fever.

    What did Mr. Bossie do with my advice? I’ve no idea, but I can guess.

    1. “What did Mr. Bossie do with my advice?”

      Well, he could probably tell you were a fucking imbecile when you offered up this stupidity

      “The Republicans offered Americans nothing in that regard”

      1. Nothing from government would be wonderful. It’s all the somethings that are the problem.

        1. The evidence pretty clearly shows “something” is how we got this mess.

        2. Nothing is the preferred option. Nothing but the freedom to make my own decisions on healthcare, retirement and the rest.

  7. Suderman, tacitly admitting that the Democrats are admitting Obamacare was a failure.

    1. Define failure. Did it increase or decrease access to healthcare? Or is that not your metric?

      Is your metric perhaps “the black man did it, thus it’s a failure”?

      1. “Define failure”

        Obamacare.

        1. So option B it is.

          1. Hey bro, your guys are the ones trying to replace it because it failed. Ask them.

            1. No progressive loved Obamacare. It was perceived correctly as a half-measure that could get through Congress. But whatever. Republicans are cunts who don’t care about helping anyone. That’s a reality we have to deal with.

              What’s your healthcare plan, and will it result in more access to healthcare than Obamacare?

              1. No Tony, we’re talking about the Dems admitting Obamacare is a broken failure, not whatever sad fucking distraction you want to shift the focus to.

              2. “It was perceived correctly as a half-measure that could get through Congress”

                Dems – “Hire us, we implement broken policies that don’t work, but they pass!!!”

                1. It worked to some degree. More people got health insurance.

                  Are you arguing in favor of a more robust nationalized program, or are you just being a mindless partisan cunt?

                  1. “It worked to some degree”

                    Tony, tacitly admitting that my original point was correct and that Obamacare was a failure.

                    1. Compared to what?

                      What’s your plan? Is it universal Medicare, or is it sitting with your thumb up your ass while you defend Republican politicians for doing the same?

                    2. Don’t ask me, I’m not the one who implemented a broken policy then admitted it failed, that’s you and the Dems bruh.

                    3. So you’re a completely unserious person with no ideas about anything beyond poking liberals with a spoon and thinking that equals a political movement.

                    4. No, I’m a person who got you to moron stomp up to my comment, admit I was right, and then desperately try to change the subject.

                    5. “Compared to what? What’s your plan?”

                      People GROW THE F*UP and stop insisting “the world owes me”. I don’t owe you ANYTHING! Get your own healthcare. If you have to beg then beg to your LOCAL state government/welfare-branch/city council.

                      Its disgusting how so many Democrats look at charity from others as a “right”. They insist beggars can choose (by using law/guns/force). They really believe in slave ownership and it shows.

                  2. More people got healthcare…

                    but how many were thrown out of perfectly good plans that the czars of obumacare didn’t think covered enough?

                    how many more had their premiums rise to pay for that stuff they didn’t want or need?

                    what part of “leave me alone” do you progies not understand?

                    1. “Leave me alone” kinda clashes with their narrative of “you can’t take care of yourself. We’ll make it all better”.

                      Haha

                  3. “It worked to some degree.”

                    After you top hitting your head against the wall, it makes you feel better, so hitting your head against the wall ‘works to some degree’ in making you feel better.
                    Fucking ignoramus…

              3. Republicans are cunts who don’t care about helping anyone.

                That must be why they donate more to charities than Democrats.

                There are ways to help people besides through government force. Not wanting a government program doesn’t mean you don’t think there is a problem to be solved.

                1. That must be why they donate more to charities than Democrats.

                  Take out churches/cults and they don’t.

                  Not burning in a lake of hell-fire is a strong incentive to tithe but not the right one.

                  1. Oh, here’s turd to cherry pick his way into proving how stupid he is!
                    Does cherry picking pay enough to fund your perv interests?

                  2. And churches never help anyone.

                    There are plenty of things I disagree with Christians about, but you can’t say they don’t do good in the world or try to help people.

                    My initial point was that not wanting government to “help” doesn’t mean you don’t care about helping anyone.

                    1. My grandparents had a huge garden. They took a lot of the food to their church to give away. My joke was that they feed the whole church. Lefties like to piss on that kind of giving. They seem to prefer the non-voluntary kind.

                  3. You are one major league stupid asshole.

          2. And Tony’s stupid attempt to cry “RACISM!!” is destroyed once again.

      2. Health Insurance ≠ Healthcare.

        1. But it does generally equal access to healthcare, which is the phrase I used.

          Are you saying you agree with the Bernies who want to eliminate health insurance?

          1. “But it does generally equal access to Healthcare”

            Only if you’re an idiot.

            1. We only have so many hours to live in this world. What is the point of arguing that health insurance isn’t a vehicle to access healthcare? What zinger are you trying to lob? What point are you trying to make?

              1. “What is the point of arguing that health insurance isn’t a vehicle to access healthcare?”

                Accuracy.

                I know, it’s not that important to you. That’s been obvious fof years.

                1. Would you consider making an actual point for once in your life?

                  1. Will you consider understanding one?

                  2. Would you consider not being an insufferable retarded clown for once in your life?

              2. Find one story where anyone was turned away from a hospital because they didn’t have insurance? Have you heard of sliding scale community clinics? Community health centers, which offer many preventive care for little to no costs? Christian charity hospitals and clinics?

                1. Those things already existed, so are you suggesting that universal healthcare already existed pre-Obamacare? Or do you have some other scheme in mind? Do tell.

                  1. Yes universal healthcare exists. That is the point. You moron! What you are calling for is universal insurance. Universal healthcare access is a reality, you are arguing for universal insurance.

                    1. If you can’t afford something, you don’t have access to it.

                      Theoretical universal healthcare is no great comfort to someone with a tumor and no job.

                    2. I just listed multiple ways you have access without having to pay. Nothing theorotical about it. No emergency room can turn you away. There are free and sliding scale clinics. There are church funded charity hospitals and clinics that charge what you can afford. There is community health clinics that charge only what you can afford. All of those are available now.

                    3. All of those still cost money. The major purpose of making healthcare delivery more efficient by having a single-payer plan or something like that is… efficiency. Someone pays for ER visits. That’s socialism, just very inefficient socialism. I can’t believe you’d even bring that up. You’re just defending a status quo that is no less free, no less socialistic, only more expensive and reliant on the whims of religious charities.

                2. If you can’t afford something, you don’t have access to it.

                  Go back and read his 2:28 comment again.

          2. If we’re willing both willing to avoid straw-mans, I’ll play. Therefore I will ignore the “Are you saying…” question.

            Obamacare said it was going to fix healthcare, and attempted to do so by placing regulations on the Health Insurance industry. It did nothing to increase the supply of actual healthcare.

            But it does generally equal access to healthcare

            So does cash, or a healthy line of credit. It does not make them one and the same. Equating healthcare and health insurance in rhetoric is one of the ways we got into this bind. Changing the way we pay for something doesn’t increase the supply of that something, nor does it decrease the demand.

            Essentially, the way health insurance is being forced to operate, is not that of actual health insurance, but instead like pre-paid healthcare. Regulations have stripped health as a risk of much of it’s insurable nature (Pure risk, Fortuitous Losses, Definite and Measurable losses, Large number of similar exposures, independent and non-catastrophic, and affordable to avoid adverse selection.)

            There are 4 players in this mess: Government, Providers, Insurers, and consumers. Focusing strictly on Insurers misdiagnoses the problem. Obamacare was doomed to fail from the start simply because it was built on the wrong premise.

            1. It did nothing to increase the supply of actual healthcare.

              Just false. Somewhere around 20 million people gained access to healthcare who lacked it before. That includes those who were newly admitted on Medicare as well as those who were prevented from being discriminated against in the private market.

              If you want to suggest that private insurance isn’t the same as healthcare, fine, you’re on Elizabeth Warren’s side. But no sane accounting of the effects would include the claim that 20 million more people with health coverage received no actual increase in access to healthcare.

              1. “Just false. Somewhere around 20 million people gained access to healthcare who lacked it before.”

                Ahahaha ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE ISN’T ACTUALLY HEALTHCARE AHAHAHAHHA

                How are you this fucking stupid lololo

                “They got insurance that let’s them access doctors”

                “ARE there more doctors now”

                “No but ACCESS to them has increased”

                Lololol AND IT ISN’T EVEN TRUE AHAHAHAHAHAHA

                1. I know you think Tony is a lost cause, and he probably is. But I really don’t think you’re helping.

                  1. I’m not trying to.

                    1. Fair enough then. 🙂

                  2. You know what, I’ve scorched him enough. Have at it.

                    1. You’re a hero in your own asshole. You know, I’d prefer not spending this much of my day feeling sad and embarrassed for another human being.

                    2. Your self hatred is not my problem. We both know you could fix that at any time too, you’re just a coward.

              2. Access ≠ Supply

                You’re making the same mistake as before. 20 million people getting on Medicare/Medicaid does not mean there are new doctors, hospitals, nurses, drugs, medical equipment, and emergency workers. I reiterate, it did nothing to increase the supply of actual healthcare.

                It also doesn’t change what I stated about Obamacare as policy.

                1. I’d be thrilled to see some data that Obamacare resulted in people being unable to access healthcare services when they were before.

                  I presume that those who never had it to begin with are just a write-off.

                  1. I’d be thrilled if you finally realized we all see your stupid attempt to equate two separate things.

                  2. “I’d be thrilled to see some data that Obamacare resulted in people being unable to access”

                    It’s like you totally ignored his entire post.

                    1. Didn’t see any data.

                    2. Which just proves again that you didn’t understand his post.

                    3. He already told you to shut up and stop harming his case.

                      I am perfectly willing to change my mind about anything in light of new data. I’m not great lover of Obamacare. But I’ll need more than “insurance has a different definition from healthcare, AHAHAHAHA! I’m an insane methhead!! AHAHAH” to convince me that it’s a relevant point.

                    4. That you keep asking for data as though it has anything at all to do with my point shows even more clearly that you don’t understand his post.

                    5. This is delicious. Tony doesn’t even understand what he doesn’t understand lololol

                  3. I’ve not stated once that Obamacare resulted in people being unable to access healthcare services. I’m not sure why you expect me to produce evidence to support a claim I’ve not made.

                    This discussion is about whether or not Obamacare is a failure as policy. I am stating that it is a failure of policy because it failed in it’s stated goals: It did not increase the supply or quality of the healthcare, and it failed to reduce costs to the consumer (Direct payment to providers, Premiums to Health insurance, or taxes).

                    It was doomed to failure because it makes the same assumption that you made in your original post, namely that Healthcare = Health Insurance. Once it failed to meet it’s stated goals, apologists for the policy made a second assumption in an effort to show that it was a success; namely Access = Supply. Both assumptions are false.

                    As a policy it did not consider the fundamentals of an insurable risk, consumer behavior and incentives, provider behavior and incentives, and existing government distortions in the marketplace. It never had a hope of achieving it’s goals.

                    1. I don’t know what the goals you’re referring to were, but tens of millions of people gaining access to an avenue to healthcare (since you insist on the pedantry that insurance isn’t the same as care), is no failure, at least compared to the status quo.

                      I’m all ears for a libertarian alternative that covers more people. If you don’t actually have one, then your criticisms are rather sour and grapeish.

                    2. “” If you don’t actually have one, then your criticisms are rather sour and grapeish.”‘

                      You should take your own advice.

                    3. Affordable. That was the goal. If an act called the Affordable Care Act fails to make care more affordable, it is a failure.

                      Before and after Obamacare the plight of the uninsured and under insured remains the same: go to a hospital and get treated. That has not changed. The supply did not change. The only thing that really changed is that everyone is paying a lot more now.

                      Again, you are looking for the wrong thing. “Covering more people” does not mean that people actually are getting the healthcare they want. It’s a terrible goal. Venezuela and Cuba have 100% coverage. Babies starve to death in their hospitals. Having insurance does not feed them. It’s not pedantry, it is a misdiagnosis of the problem, and the reason that Obamacare could not succeed.

                      As far as solutions any policy must address the 4 players in the game: Insurance, Government, Providers, and Consumers. It must correctly identify their incentives, and understand how they work. If you’d like I can expand in a separate thread. This one is a little crowded with “AHHHAHAHAHs.” As amusing as I find Tulpa, it’s a lot of scrolling.

                    4. I’m all ears for a libertarian alternative that covers more people.

                      Note how you’re still talking about insurance and not healthcare.

                      I had a neighbor some years back (long before the ACA) who was very low income and worked only sporadically. She had no health insurance. When she had medical emergencies, which she did occasionally, she went to the hospital. They treated her, released her, and she never paid a dime. She had a terrible credit rating, but she never paid a dime.

                      The ACA forced her to take some of her very limited income and spend it on insurance that barely covers anything.

                      Her access to healthcare has not changed in any way. The amount she pays for insurance has gone from $0 to infinitely more than that.

                      How has the ACA helped her?

                  4. Life expectancy dropped after ACA. It’s kind of the biggest measure of healthcare.

              3. “20 million more people with health coverage received no actual increase in access to healthcare.”

                AHAHAHAAHAHHA HE DIDNT SAY ACCESS TO BABBLING FUCKING GIMP, HE SAID “SUPPLY” AHAHAHAH YOU DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED AHHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA

                1. The level of your stupidity is beyond my comprehension. It’s like you think in three-word phrases supplied by whichever rightwing fucknugget you prefer to get your “thoughts” from. I’d respect you more if you were just a useless troll, but sometimes I actually think you believe you have real thoughts about things.

                  1. Hahaha hah you STILL THINK ACCESS IS THE SAME AS SUPPLY AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

                    HOW ARE YOU THIS STUPID AHAHAHAHAAHJAJA

                    1. HE THINKS ACCESS IS THE SAME AS SUPPLY AHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH HOW DOES HE FEED HIMSELF AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH OMFG HE’S AN ACTUAL ADULT HUMAN AND THINKS ACCESS IS THE SAME AS SUPPLY AHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHA

              4. Gee, I dunno, ton’. It sounds like those high deductibles were a big problem for the poor that the ACA was supposed to help. It would be interesting to see stats on how many of those 20 million people with newfound “access to healthcare” actually used it for preventative or non emergency care.

                Of course, that might make it look like a big giveaway to the evil insurance companies.

                But don’t worry. I’m sure there’s a way to make it all free without denigrating at all the great and powerful O – healer of people, healer of the planet. All praise.

                Haha

          3. When the government defines healthcare, it can announce that the country has no gay men, just transgender women who need tax payer funded involuntary treatments for their cross-dressing. Tony, the Democrats want to create a nation where you pray every weekend that the government funded doctors agree with your gender identity.

      3. It is a net decrease. The people who got free access did it in the back of others. Then millions of us lost our affordable superior private plans, pretty much eliminating the gains in access for the ones receiving the welfare. Then factor in the inferiority of the public plans forced on us, plus the restrictions in receiving actual care due to rationing.

        Obamacare is an unmitigated, unconstitutional disaster. Everyone who made it happen is a traitor.

          1. Hospital wait times, primary care wait times, number of patients not picking up prescriptions due to deductible amounts, life expectancy…

            Which data link do you want?

            1. How about the one that shows that the US has the best healthcare outcomes among developed country as a result of its relatively laissez-faire system?

              1. Your cherry-picking the outcomes… The U.S. is the “best” for healthcare initiatives/discoveries.

                And here’s the real kick in the shorts. While that has ALWAYS been true it wasn’t until all the socialist policy (i.e. like Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.. etc.. etc..) it become UN-accessible by being UN-affordable.

                If you are a broke health stricken person looking for security then go visit the LOCAL welfare office. If you just want everyone else to pay for your healthcare – you’re trying to rob others of their work (i.e. slavery).

                But the most sickening and contrary part is making policy that not only brews medical monopolies but actually the plan to entirely monopolize the whole industry under one corporate name GOV.

      4. It decreased it due to longer wait times for primary care physicians and the push to HSA plans with high deductibles causing people not to be able to afford medicines they could under HMOs.

      5. Failure is throwing 5 million people off of insurance they had, running up the cost of insurance for the 85% of the population that had health insurance that worked for them and eliminating the freedom for the individual to make their own choices. A complete and utter failure so bad that even democrats want to get rid of it.

  8. “And it would require tax hikes or tax-like fees or premiums on the middle class.”

    Raise people’s taxes to pay for insurance they can’t afford? Brilliant! *facepalm*

    1. Didn’t you know? The first law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to government programs.

      Nor the second.

    2. That was the penalty in Obamacare. If you can’t afford it they will fine/tax you for not buying it. Maybe we can end homelessness and hunger the same way. Just fine or tax you if you don’t buy food and a home.

  9. I for one am not at all surprised that health care in this country is nothing more than clowns to the left and jokers to the right. I got the feeling that something ain’t right,
    I’m so scared in case I fall off my chair

  10. very very good article sir thank you so much for sharing With us.

  11. Does Medicare for all mean we have to pay into the system for 40 years before we get coverage?

    1. No. You pay into the system and never get any coverage.

      1. It’s all based on Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel’s paper that details his ‘complete lives system’ that rations health care primarily to 14-44 year olds. Who are the mot productive for the State. Outside f that age range health care is to be further rationed. No matter how much anyone pays in. So some 25 year old rolling from Guatemala last month who has paid in nothing, gets preference to a 65 year old native citizen who has paid in to the system all his life.

        1. The problem is paying into a government system. Everyone buys the same plan. Even for the same person the proper insurance coverage will change depending on your stage in life and every individual should be able to buy what matches their needs.
          Once size fits all, fits no one very well.

  12. I’m waiting for the true libertarian ‘solution’. Not the solution to the problem. But the solution to the utter stupidity and paralysis that has pervaded this issue on all sides for gong on 30 years now.

    That being – eliminate all the subsidies (tax exemption for pay in the form of benefits) and mandates on larger employers that require coverage. Then at least we’ll see if the free market has a solution or if that’s a dead end and at least EVERYONE will be awake (and likely pissed off) to the issue.

    I’m sure Godot will arrive first.

    1. JFree
      July.31.2019 at 12:47 pm
      “I’m waiting for the true libertarian ‘solution’….”

      No, it’s been offered many times: get the government out of the medical market.
      What you really mean is that you are waiting for a solution *you* like.

    2. The first thing is mandatory coverage and allow ala carte insurance. Why do I have to pay for chiropractic Care, or holistic healing or crystal therapy or etc. I should be able to tailor my service for the coverage me and my family need. Also, allow me to purchase catastrophic care and invest unlimited funds into my health care savings account, with no requirement on when I use it. Allow across state insurance sales. End laws requiring employers to pay for insurance. End the AMA and nurse associations monopoly that leads to them controlling how regulations are written. If we are going to spend money on improving health care access (not stating we need to or should) but the first thing is to increase the number of medical students and nursing students (and other specialties). Allow nurse practitioners and PA to cover more stuff, allow pharmacist (who are medical doctors) more prescribing power. End regulatory capture at the FDA. Make it easier for doctors and nurses who immigrate to the US to acquire their license in the US. Make it easier for churches and other private charities to operate clinics, hospitals etc. If you are going to use taxpayer funds to provide insurance (again I would rather not) give the recepients a prepaid debit card and allow them to purchase the plan they want and the rest deposit into a HSA. Those are just off the top of my head.

      1. I agree with some of that but it wouldn’t do much. Once we based our healthcare system on current employment, then we created a situation where most people are oblivious to and want to ignore it all – and the rest of the population is split into weird groups where the market WILL fail. Rationing by price doesn’t work for the poor, the really sick can’t work, and the old are often both sick and can’t work. AND the nature of employment has changed too – permanently. So yeah of course the entire thing has become a cronyist cluster#$%^ – and we can’t even have a rational discussion either. My solution just gets us to the rational discussion part.

        Insurance itself is was the final nail in the coffin for ‘church’/charity based hospitals – but they had failed badly as early as the Spanish flu epidemic (1918) when ‘send them home we don’t want them here’ exacerbated the epidemic and led to waves of muni-owned hospital construction. Muni-owned were actually the hospitals that were providing most care for most people on the eve of WW2 (when the first federal tax subsidies for employer insurance started). But obviously that leads one towards thinking the solution is more of a local tax issue – which is entirely incompatible with multi-state employers who have good ‘national’ bargaining power over nothing specific but none locally – or a national ‘Medicare for All’.

        Likewise, most of the stuff re the training/reg of doctors occurred cuz Carnegie/Rockefeller decided our doctor system sucked – for them. So they had a guy named Flexner write a report recommending changes in 1910 and within a couple decades, the power of big donor dollars on medical schools (and state-level govt) changed the sorts of doctors being produced. Within a couple more decades, the nature of the existing doctor population had changed irreversibly. But that’s not an outcome of fedl govt but of a few billionaires who decided what is good for everyone else. In fact, one could argue that Medicare itself was the cronyist creation of medical specialists – NOT the elderly.

        1. Providence health services is one of the largest health care organizations in the US. Guess who runs them both? The Catholic Church. The Lutheran Church runs hospitals throughout the upper Midwest. Deaconess health group is Protestant ran. There are numerous Jewish ran hospitals. So what was that about religious charity hospitals failing? They are literally all over the place.
          I never mentioned the federal government in connection with medical schools, it is mostly at the state level, but trust me it exists. The same with nursing schools. You asked for solutions. I gave them. You dismissed them (and were wrong in most of your dismissals).

          1. So basically you just wanted to move the goal posts so you can claim libertarians and conservatives have no health care plan, right Jfree?

          2. Peace health opened a new hospital in my small community in the San Juan’s. It replaced a medical center that was just a doctors office. Huge upgrade.

            My liberal friends complained that you can’t get an abortion at peace health facilities. You couldn’t get one at the old medical center either.

            No shit, it is that stupid. There’s just no pleasing the “everything is so terrible and unfair!” crowd.

            Haha

          3. Most private non-profit hospitals (which is roughly 50% of hospitals in the US – the rest split evenly between for-profit and govt-owned) were STARTED by churches. Many still have saints or the religious origin in the name. The two nearest hospitals to me are religious origin. Hell at one point, close to 1/3 of Colorado’s population had TB (before they realized it is a contagious disease) and every denomination in the US built their ‘respiratory specialty’ hospital here and sent patients here for the ‘clean air cure’. But they are all very standard non-profit hospitals now.

            My statement was not that the hospitals themselves disappeared. It was that ‘insurance’ used to be something that HOSPITALS offered (and bought themselves to insure their own big-expense reinsurance risks). Blue Cross is the ‘surviving’ (much morphed) entity of what used to be a bunch of local hospital networks offering ‘pre-paid’ medical care. Those hospitals themselves took on medical risk. THAT is the business model that broke when employer insurance and then Medicare took over. It’s actually a good model for most people who only need local medical care. But it BROKE.

        2. And just FYI municipal or county owned still provide most of the care in rural America.

        3. JFree
          July.31.2019 at 6:17 pm
          “… Once we based our healthcare system on current employment,…”

          Courtesy Harry Truman…

          1. Courtesy of FDR giving the unions a handjob by pushing limits to keep Ford from paying more than unionized GM.

            1. Didn’t know that was the beginning, but after the war’s end, Truman kept wages fixed, so the companies competed for help the only way they could; offer non-taxed benes.
              Truman, of course, thought they were acting ‘not in the national interest’, as if the national interest is something you can show your stock holders on the quarterly reports.
              I don’t know of any POTUS who could claim real knowledge of econ, but in his favor, this one at least knows what a bottom line is.

    3. That is the solution I want, the politicians will never give up the power once it has been taken.

  13. Bernie and Lizzie were attacked by the centrists in the debate and both are unfortunately too stupid to see that most Democrats don’t even want Medicare For All. Only 4-5 of the candidates support MFA so it wouldn’t even win among the candidates.

    So much for dumbasses like John and LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomDick1789 and their idiotic claims that all Democrats have moved far left.

    Ol Joe can win this thing without showing up for another event.

    1. Hey bro no one in here wants your kiddie porn around.

      1. Don’t you have a GOP gloryhole to work today?

        1. Yes, 6 actually. That doesn’t change the fact the no one wants yours kiddie porn around.

        2. No, you’re the one the schedule for that Kiddie Raper, in between your marathon child porn sessions.

          You sick piece of shit.

    2. “Ol Joe can win this thing without showing up for another event.”

      Well he’s never been my first choice, but I’ll gladly vote for him if he gets the nomination. He was, after all, the VP during the strongest 8-year run in US economic history. That’s gotta count for something.

      #LibertariansForBiden

    3. Ol Joe can win this thing without showing up for another event.

      Not showing up for another event is probably his best chance of winning, best not be even tangentially associated with the rest of the candidates

  14. Hmm, checking my copy of the Constitution again, looking, looking….

    “to provide for the health care of all”…..

    nope, still can’t find it in there.

    Nor anything like it.

    1. But that was written by a bunch of old white guys like 80 years ago who owned slaves, and doesn’t mean anything today.

    2. Just look behind the penumbras. Common mistake.

    3. It is in the same paragraph as the authorization for secret FISA courts and the common usage exception to shall not be infringed.

      1. And penalty taxes.

  15. Look on the bright side. If healthcare is a basic human right that should be free to all, how much more so self-defense and food?

    1. Somewhere along the line people started equating “right” with “free”. Having a right means the government cannot interfere with your exercise of. It does not give you a means of no cost acquisition.

      1. I have a right to bear arms, when is the goverernment going to purchase me a new Bushmaster XM15 varminter or a Sig-Sauer p320 m17?

        1. And why did I not get to keep my M16A2 when I was discharged damnit?!

          1. A man of culture I see.

            I too carried the ol’ A2 longbow while deployed. Gotta say when I came back stateside and had to qualify with an M4, it just wasn’t the same…

            1. The A2 was a rifleman’s rifle. The M4, eh… Besides the buffer spring was to short and week, resulting in more jams. But dipshit flyboy Rumsfeld decided we didn’t need a new rifle system, let’s just issue everyone a carbine. Why the US military still hasn’t adopted a bullpup design is beyond me. The accuracy and power of a full size rifle with the ease of mobility of a carbine.

              1. Besides I was pretty damn good at knocking down the 300 m target with the A2. Not even sure I could hit the 300 with a M4, do they still qualify out to 300 with the M4?

      2. Nonsense. I have a “RIGHT” to have government force other people to pay for my basic needs! And a few wants too!

        Damn, it doesn’t sound so good when you put it like that. Never mind.

        Haha

  16. Bernie: I’m not a socialist. I don’t want to nationalize industries and put them under State control.

    Except for the healthcare industry. But that’s it.

    1. So from the perspective of economic theory, he is a fascist.
      Private corporate ownership, but full government control of what is produced, where it is produced, where it is sold, and who can buy it, and at what price.
      (Full disclosure; just finished reading a Mussolini biography)

      1. yup, we have long lived in a private / government partnership economy. this isn’t a new concept. and the term fascism today no longer is narrowly defined as a third method of economic organization between laissez faire. using this definition, the entire western world is fascist. rtrded hyperbole aside, you’re fine, and will be fine once your health care is cheaper.

        1. “Cheaper”? Ya think?

          Haha

      2. Mussolini and the Wilsonites under FDR had a mutual admiration society before the Austrian paper hanger brought a bad odor to talking about it out loud.

  17. The only thing that stopped Obama from signing crazy Lefty legislation was that the GOP controlled the House as of 2011

  18. “Medicare for all?”
    More like “bankruptcy for all.”

    1. tell that to Canada. they’re making it work somehow, for less than we pay. If you people ever left your trash echo chamber, the world would be a better place.

      1. Fuck off, Hihn.

      2. Screw this ‘waiting for moderation’ shit:
        Just for grins:
        “In October 2007, the Fraser Institute, a Canada-based libertarian think tank, reported that Canadians waited an average of 18.3 weeks between seeing a general practitioner and getting surgery or treatment.”
        https://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/comparing-health-care-in-canada-to-the-us/
        Wanna bet it hasn’t gotten better, shitbag? That;s 12 years ago, and no one is bragging about improvement.

      3. And well, looky there:
        “Patient wait times in America: 9 things to know”
        […]
        “1. It takes an average of 24 days to schedule a first-time appointment with a physician — a 30 percent increase since 2014, when the average wait time was 18.5 days, according to The 2017 Survey of Physician Appointment Wait Times and Medicare and Medicaid Acceptance Rates.”
        https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-physician-relationships/patient-wait-times-in-america-9-things-to-know.html
        Given your obvious IQ level, let’s make it clear that the vaunted “FREE” Canadian system of promising a place in line means you get to wait roughly ten times longer. Gee, shitbag, if you win, your mom is probably gonna get pissed since she dies before she gets treatment. Fucking scumbag.

  19. As a reminder, Medicare only pays 80% of covered medical expenses, and has NO limit on out of pocket expenses.
    But ‘Medicare for all’ probably gave the focus groups orgasms.

    1. Part B does not cover preventive care either.

    2. Of course if you get rid of private insurance, you get rid of what has been quietly (if unwillingly) propping up the actual Medicare system.

  20. Honestly best case scenario we maintain status quo or get one of the centrist dems elected with R’s holding the senate.

    The fact that the left and their media apparatus seem intent that garbage kamala harris is a force to be reckoned with after the first debate is terrifying. She got black girl sassy, arguing against a 40 year old policy that has little to no relevance today, and made the equivalent of a middle school debate argument (or what passes on social media as legit). That is what passes for a “win” in terms of reasoning in the minds of the democratic machine and their voters. She got a 10 percent bump for bringing up fucking busing…

    Not to mention, most of those fuckers were on board for providing insurance for illegals and abolishing private insurance…at least in the first debate until they thought for more than half a second that it will get them murdered in the rust belt.

    I cant stand trump but they are strongly making me consider holding my nose and pulling his tacky golden plated lever.

    1. omg, insurance for illegals? that would be so terrible. medicare for all? Like they have in many western countries with lower costs and similar health outcomes? Why, that’s nothing but a socialist take over….

      seriously, most of your trash types arguments against left wingers hinge on them having some sort of secret, motiveless malice. As if it’s not possible for people to simply disagree, they must have some Iago like motivation.

      1. Oh, and that wonderful UK system (which anyone who can afford it dodges; it’s Non Healthcare System for those who would rather be cheap than healthy):
        “NHS brings in three month minimum waiting times despite warnings patients will suffer ”
        […]
        “NHS officials have introduced new limits which mean patients in some parts of the country will be made to wait at least three months for routine surgery, such as hip operations and cardiac procedures.
        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/18/nhs-brings-three-month-minimum-waiting-times-despite-warnings/
        Note that the wait time is the government-claimed chance for your mom (who should have aborted you) to die, thereby reducing their case-load:
        “…will be made to wait *AT LEAST* three months…”
        Fuck off, Hihn

      2. Canada: 34 million people.

        USA:…….

        Haha. But you know this. I’m sure scaling it up X10 is easy peasy.

  21. Will the Democrats have to clean up rats and other vermin from the cities they control before or after implementing Medicare for all.

    Just wondering.

    1. hello, stereotypically racist, uneducated person. Just a friendly reminder to stay in your lane. Milwaukee’s Best Special Reserve Ice is on sale down the street. make haste! they only make a few hundred thousand of those a year. Leave the adulting to educated people, we’ll let you know what we decide. Ok, sweety? Take a koozie before you go.

      1. Hello, fucking lefty ignoramus. Just a reminder of how stupid you are; look a bit upthread for your vaunted ‘free’ medical care works.

      2. Are you stating that Baltimore isn’t rat infested and only racist rednecks would think it is? Gee didn’t know PBS documentaries were made by racist rednecks.

      3. Leave the adulting to educated people

        You should let the ink dry on that diploma before you go waving it around like that.

  22. Obama was a lazy, half-assed, coward who did pretty much nothing, but those things he did do were watered down, useless half-measures. “Medicare for all” is a simple step towards what we SHOULD have. But this crap about handing benefits out to illegal trash washing up on our shores needs to end.

  23. Hello Reason, and the alt-right trash that dominates your comment boards:

    Single payer health care- something many western, industrialized countries already have (while paying much less) is radical because why?

    1. Reason, why do we end up with so many fucking lefty ignoramuses?

    2. something many western, industrialized countries already have

      What Western, industrialized country of 300,000,000 already has it?

      1. The greater the population, the more the economies of scale tend toward efficiency. That’s the whole goddamn point. China is not Western, but it covers 95% of its billion+ population with basic health insurance, and has a goal of universal basic health coverage by 2020.

        That’s more people, in case you don’t do numbers.

  24. I support medicare for all funded by a very, very hefty baby boomer tax to make up for all the borrowing they did at my expense, while deferring trillions of dollars of maintenance on our infrastructure, doing next to nothing about global warming, new wars they started, and the myriad tax cuts they voted for themselves without offsetting with spending cuts or tax increases.

    1. I support medicare for all funded a huge tax levied on fucking lefty ignoramuses like this, since they have benefited from all the work and productivity which has gone before and now think they can sit on their asses and whine about their fantasy ‘problems’.

    2. I think you should put your tax on your grandparents. After all, they started WWII!

    3. Social Security and the welfare state were in place before boomers started voting.

      Just sayin’.

  25. The author here forgets that there was support for “Medicare for All” at the time that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed. Tea Party and Republicans like to point out that there was greater than 50% opposition to the ACA at the start. What they did not mention was the part of that opposition that wanted a single payer plan. The Republican spend years complaining about the ACA and undermining it and when they got power they had no alternative. Is it surprising that opposition to the ACA increased support for Medicare for All which is really the only alternative.

  26. “Radicalism” being the thing that every other Western country has. What a senseless article.

  27. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://www.hermesbagstmall.com/hermes-double-sens-bag-clemence-leather-in-burgundy.html word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

  28. Very website is so cool. really i am Your regular visitor and i like to read your articles regularly. Thank you so much for sharing Valuable Information…..
    https://123whatsapstatus.com/gym-workout-status-in-hindi/

  29. If you think “socialist” healthcare is the right idea —
    – MOVE to a socialist country
    – LOBBY your LOCAL government (state/county/city)
    – START a health insurance of your own for like minded

    BUT stop pretending the only choice is NATIONAL SOCIALISM (i.e. Nazi) which is FORCING every individual with big-gun/prison-term enforced law and painting that approach as just “caring”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.