Medicare for All Is All Democrats Want To Talk About

Health care policy has dominated the early 2020 debates, and Obamacare has few defenders left.


In summer 2009, while Democrats in Congress were deep into the process of designing the health care reform that would become the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Tea Party protests sprung up around the country in opposition to the law. In a primetime speech delivered that September, President Barack Obama hoped to convince critics on the right and in his own party that Obamacare was 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 this year's Democratic primary contest, it has few defenders. Health care policy has dominated the early debates, consuming more discussion time than virtually any other issue. But many top-tier candidates have made the case for Medicare for All, a single-payer plan that captures elements of the extremes Obama said he wanted to avoid.

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

The plan is not without its critics in the primary. During the initial Democratic debates, former Maryland Rep. John Delaney argued that paying Medicare rates for all services, which the Sanders plan calls for, would cause hospitals to close, since the amounts are typically much lower than those offered by private coverage. Delaney also argued that the plan would cause union members to lose their current coverage, an idea echoed by former Vice President Joe Biden, whose own proposal calls for expanding Obamacare's subsidies and adding a government-run health insurance plan that people could opt into. Prominent Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have suggested they would pursue expansions of Obamacare and Medicare rather than a full-fledged single-payer system, suggesting the strongest form of the idea faces long legislative odds.

Yet even Democrats who have not backed a single-payer system have appropriated the language of Medicare for All. Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has touted a plan he describes as "Medicare for All Who Want It," which calls for an opt-in expansion of the program as it exists today. And after multiple flip-flops on the question of whether she would allow private health insurance, Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) proposed permitting private insurers to offer heavily regulated plans through the infrastructure of Medicare. Her proposal would eliminate employer-sponsored insurance as we know it, the political drawback she was presumably attempting to avoid. Like Sanders, she also calls her plan Medicare for All.

What all of these plans share is a rejection of the status quo. They are premised on the understanding that Obamacare does not work in its current form and that another significant overhaul is necessary. Even Biden's plan, which he has framed as a defense of the ACA, amounts to a tacit admission that the law has not achieved its goals.

The Democrats who are embracing the single-payer vision of Medicare for All, meanwhile, have dispensed with Obama's notion of a middle way between left and right, of an approach that preserves popular elements of the modern American health care system.

There is, perhaps, some virtue to such blue-sky thinking, insofar as it represents a useful break from the status quo bias that has long defined the health policy debate for the worse. But it also demonstrates an unmistakable and newly prominent streak of radicalism on the political left. Medicare for All is not only the defining issue of the 2020 Democratic primary race; it is the issue that is defining the entire Democratic Party.

NEXT: The Third Lesson of Economics

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. What all of these plans share is a rejection of the status quo. They are premised on the understanding that Obamacare does not work in its current form and that another significant overhaul is necessary

    In other words, Team D wants another crack at fucking up our healthcare system even more, after fucking up our healthcare system bigly in 2010.

    1. Obamacare was deliberately designed not to work. It was always the gateway to Medicare-for-All. The “You can keep your doctor” lie was not an oversight, it was the built-in flaw in the system. A government that controls your access to healthcare has total control over older people. One reason M4A is so popular with the kiddies is that they rarely require healthcare. When you were in your twenties and thirties, you probably didn’t even know any doctors. I’m now old enough to have a full panel of them. There are plenty of market-based improvements that could be made to healthcare, but handing it all over to a government bureaucracy to use against us, while good for our overlords, would be awful for us.

      1. Tankboy, because you are old enough, you can probably get an enormous improvement in your healthcare under Medicare, just as it is. Move to Massachusetts, and use your Medicare there. You will get the best healthcare in the world. No rationing. No unreasonable waiting, after you get your doctors lined up in the first place (that can take a few months to do).

        The problem with the debate over what this or that plan will deliver, is that the plan doesn’t matter near as much as differences in healthcare quality from place to place. In Arkansas, the best Cadillac-style private corporate insurance plan is not going to get you what an ordinary poor black person can expect from Medicare in Massachusetts.

        No matter what politics does to change the basis of healthcare management and payment, the underlying differences in medical capacity between regions will be what determines the value of the plans.

        1. “No rationing.”

        2. “” In Arkansas, the best Cadillac-style private corporate insurance plan is not going to get you what an ordinary poor black person can expect from Medicare in Massachusetts. “”

          Being from Arkansas, I can say you are full of shit.

        3. “An ordinary poor black person”. Why the qualifier? Do you automatically assume “poor black person” gets a worse deal than “poor person”? Isn’t that a little condescending, and feeding into grievance?

          I’m sure they appreciate your concern, but this seems counterproductive.

    2. In 2010? They screwed it up when they passed Medicare. Costs 4 times the estimates only 5 years after passage. Now 65% short of money needed to pay promised benefits per the Trustee Report.
      It is not insurance it is insurance fraud. If it were private they would shut it down and prosecute those running it.

      1. …. +1000; There it is. Why we have a “Healthcare Crisis” today. It was socialized close to a 100-years ago and is now on the verge of total collapse. Hey – Isn’t that what all communist countries do too?

        1. Well, the original bite of the apple was under Kennedy in uh, 61? Then LBJ’s “Great Society” ratcheted it up to the mess we had until Obamacare came along to turn it into a fine fecal slurry. So it’s more like 50 years, really, but the post-WWII tax exemptions for benefits made the employer model a lot more common, so maybe you could say it’s 75. A ways from a full century, but certainly a long time, long enough that if you try to describe a mutual aid society to somebody they think you’re some kind of kook.

  2. They are all for government control. It’s pretty simple to understand and see. Kinda disingenuous to assert Obama wasn’t/isn’t for single payer. He said he was a proponent from the start and Obamacare was structured to collapse and allow them to shift directly to single payer.
    There really isn’t much need to parse through the subtle differences of each Democrat’s proposal since the end game is full government monopolization of the industry

    1. He said he was a proponent from the start and Obamacare was structured to collapse and allow them to shift directly to single payer.

      Wingnut lies.

      But of course Medicare For All is horrid policy. At least 7-8 pf the current POTUS candidates have enough sense to know that. Biden supports the ACA so that makes him the only electable one of the top three.

      1. “Biden supports the ACA so that makes him the only electable one of the top three.”

        What are you talking about? Drumpf is literally the worst President ever; you once linked to academic analysis proving this. He has completely destroyed the economy, as you have repeatedly demonstrated with compelling examples like Sam’s Club closing stores.

        And you don’t think Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders can defeat an incumbent with such an abysmal record? Have some faith, Mr. Buttplug!


        1. Remember how the wingnuts here laughed at Obama’s 2.9% GDP and declared that the Con Man would usher in massive GDP growth of “4%, 5%, MAYBE EVEN 10% GDP EVER YEAR!”.

          The lying Con Man hasn’t even cracked 3% annually yet (and won’t).

          Good times.

          1. I don’t remember. Link, please.

          2. I definitely remember that.

            1. You have the mental capability of a child, so Palin may fuck you.

          3. I started posting here in late 2017 so I don’t remember what people said during the Obama years.

            But you didn’t address the issue. You’re always pointing out (correctly, of course) how awful Drumpf is, particularly when it comes to the economy. You’ve said the harsh recession he caused would be enough to sink his reelection chances.

            Now you’re claiming 2 of the top 3 2020 Democrats are not “electable” — meaning they would actually lose to the worst President ever? As an Elizabeth Warren supporter, I strongly disagree.


            1. Wow. You kids. I think I’ve been posting here since Bush the Younger’s first term, but it may have been earlier. Back then, you didn’t have to register to post, if’n I’m remembering way back then correctly.

          4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAz0qzes8hI
            At 1:00
            “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal healthcare plan”
            It’s not a right wing delusion. It’s verifiable fact. Obama is as far left as the current crop of Democrats. But he is also politically cunning and 10 years ago the nation was not half communist like today and wouldn’t seriously entertain 100% government controlled and funded healthcare unlike today.

          5. No, but I remember your Wingnut ass desperately trying to convince itself that Obama’s flagging economy was a miracle.

          6. Even after you got decimated with facts, you revert back to the same ignorant lies. You really should stick to child porn.

          7. Remember when the democrats in local and state governments with high tech growth co’s thought that they could socially engineer and nudge their populations and business owners with regulations, mandates, bans, taxes, while expanding the welfare state with endless federal money, grants. So the “growth” that you are talking about killed upward mobility and created the welfare dependent socialists you assume to dislike. Now your political party is a circus of intersectional fight club. Brilliant!

          8. “Remember how the wingnuts here laughed at Obama’s 2.9% GDP and declared that the Con Man would usher in massive GDP growth of “4%, 5%, MAYBE EVEN 10% GDP EVER YEAR!”.”

            trud never posts without lying.

      2. “Wingnut lies”

        At least you’re properly labelling your bullshit, now.

      3. Supporting a failed policy that steals freedom and increased costs makes him electable?

    2. Luckily, Democrats wont be a national political force anymore.

      Election 2016 broke Lefties.

      Election 2020 Trump reelection will see acceptance by Lefties via utter despair and violent rage.

      1. I expect him to get reelected, but I’m fairly sure that wouldn’t make the blue team do anything differently. They see themselves as the only game in town in twenty years anyways, since their base is younger than the red team. All the two establishments have to agree on is to field candidates so odious that most americans abandon the polls in disgust, and the vultures can fight over the juiciest bits of the carcass of the body politic.

        1. First of all, Trump was never an establishment pick.

          While Trump might have been seen as the lesser of two evils during election 2016 that will not be the case election 2020. Trump was an unknown quantity then and very popular now.

  3. Yet again, I must remind everyone that Medicare is terrible insurance.

    You pay premiums for 20 to 40 years without benefits.
    Then you must continue to pay premiums even when not working.
    And it does NOT cover drugs at all; that requires an ADDITIONAL premium.
    And it only covers 80% of the expenses.
    And there are many procedures it does NOT cover.
    And there is NO dental coverage at all,\.
    And there is NO vision coverage at all.
    And there is NO annual limit to out of pocket expenses.
    And there is NO lifetime limit to out of pocket expenses.
    If Medicare were offered by a private company, it would be considered illegal.

    1. And yet many people my age early sixties are waiting to go on Medicare. Many people’s retirement plans are dominated by when they can access Medicare. Remember the Tea Party chant, “keep the government away from my Medicare”. It is popular and that is driving the discussion.

      1. Tea-Baggers were never for small government. They were for protecting the Big Gov programs they like.

        1. Agreed

        2. And you Regressives pretended to care about expanding access to healthcare in order to kick 25 million people off their pre-existing healthcare so that Con Artist Obama could illegally “penaltax” them over it.

          As always, you have no point or argument, Buttplug:

        3. Ya — which “protecting the Big Gov programs they like” are you speaking of.. National Security; the very reason a federal government was EVEN created.

        4. People are forced to pay into a program for 40+ and they want something back from it, and this is hypocritical to you?

          Haha. Weak.

          1. Tony is against people paying into social security and pushing for its demise too.

            If you pay to fatten the pig, you can’t want to slaughter the pig.

      2. And remember that digging below the surface sound bites that Tea Party Medicare fans had good reasons to worry, in that program expansions could cost them in quantity and quality of benefits they already paid for?

      3. If Medicare for All is good enough for the plebes then it is good enough for Congress who must surrender their *separate* healthcare which is waaaaay better than Medicare for All.

        Of course THAT will never happen because congresscritters are much more important than their constituents. Wouldn’t want congresscritters to be so inconvenienced, would we?

    2. If Medicare were offered as you indicate it would be awful. But in fact the services one gets can far out strip the fees paid for 30+ years. In the first month alone I had 2 cataract operations that exceeded my payments.

      The problem is that it is a Ponzi scheme, with early entrants like me getting benefits at the expense of younger people as health care costs rise at 3x the inflation rate or more. Eventually it will consume the entire federal budget if not revised.

      1. All I know is that my parents on Medicare visit their various doctors more often than I visit Chick fil a, which is saying something…

        1. Probably both forms of bad behavior.

          1. Jesus Chicken is fairly healthy, if consumed in moderation. I like the waffle fries.

            1. Funny never thought of it as anything more than a good chicken sandwich and waffle fries. I really like the food. They just opened one few miles from here yay. The place is lined up around the block.

              Could care less about the idiots. Hey! You gonna eat that one?

      2. The average medicare recipient receives 3x what they put in, when controlled for inflation. Those who understand math now know why Medicare is unsustainable. Over half of that payment is for the last year of a person’s life. But dumbfucks like Palin who obviously don’t know simple math keep pushing the lie that entitlements are not the driving force behind the deficit. Even when you point out 2016 CBO projections accurately predicting the 1 trillion 2020 debt driven by entitlements, they find a way to blame other things.

        1. Jesse

          So time for them old folks to walk out into the ice. You ready to do that when you can’t provide enough fish for the tribe?

          All the people who paid into that when you and I were in diapers. You and I did that again. It is not libertarian or fair but we did it and will do it again tomorrow.

          Sorry mom. You are unstainable.

          Entitlement. Worked my ass off since I was a lad. Paid into the gooberment more than I can possibly recover when I hang up my skills for good. Never asked for an entitlement. I want my money back with interest.

          If the gooberment squandered it well fuck them too.

          1. This is what they want. To go back to pre-Social Security times.

            It’s disgusting.

            1. The actual plan is the one from the 90s to privatize it – keep everyone within ten years of getting it on the program, allow an opt in for those up to twenty years away, everyone else gets a private account they pay into, while some of the money gets funneled into supporting the existing beneficiaries. Which isn’t really fair, but the boomers have always been about sticking it to their grandkids anyways, and if you do the switch soon enough the younger folks still end up much better off despite getting taxed to support the Moochiest Generation.

              Undoubtedly the reason you feel this is “disgusting” is because you feel it doesn’t give you enough of other people’s money. You might claim this is “your” money, and you’d be wrong: the politicians lied to you, quelle surprise, there is no lockbox and there never was, and the fact that you believed that it “just owes itself money” makes you complicit, really. You want to tax a much smaller cohort a much larger amount than yours had to pay, and consider this to be fair. I consider it to be theft, but I’m willing to allow you to steal from me if you’ll agree to be the last ones to do it.

    3. What they are proposing has no resemblance to Medicare. They use the term “Medicare” because it sounds better than “Medicaid” (which actually covers more, but it’s for poor people, so “ick!” for most of the population) or VA care, which everyone shudders to think about. The plans they are claiming to offer are so incredibly expansive to the users, and restrictive to the providers, that there is no way to actually calculate the true cost. Cost is more than dollars spent, the impact on the medical, dental, and vision providers isn’t considered in the cost.

    4. You left out the Government’s Trustee Report that shows it is 65% short of money needed to pay those promised benefits. So it is even worse than you describe.

    5. It’s true that under traditional Medicare, workers (and their employers) pay small premiums without benefits until the worker reaches 65 (or becomes truly disabled). As to your other gripes – why do you think “insurance” should be so generous? If Medicare did cover dental, vision, long-term care (nursing homes) – what do you think the premiums would be? Why not advocate for just catastrophic coverage – high deductible major medical insurance, then give free market forces a chance to slow down medical cost inflation. Employer provided health insurance and the individual health insurance markets only offer vision and dental as optional plans (that are often a bad value) – and no plan covers all procedures.

      1. They are not small premiums.

    6. And, you forgot it also has a lifetime and “per incident” payment caps on hospital stays, lifetime caps on inpatient care at a psychiatric hospital, and caps on skilled nursing home care.

      Stuff private insurance is banned from imposing — but “We are from the government, we are here to help you”.

      (Socialist Sanders, Warren, Harris et al do eliminate all of these with their MFA proposals.)

  4. Just where in the constitution do they get the power to take over an entire industry? And not just insurance , but, also making every doctor, nurse, hospital employee, pharmacy, and doctor and dentist offices de facto employees of the federal government. I’d also like to know how states and cities can ban legal products that are sold thru out the country in direct opposition to the commerce clause. Their ruining my adulthood.

    1. Just where in the constitution do they get the power to take over an entire industry?

      In the “promote the general welfare” clause, DUH!


      1. What about the takings clause? They gonna reimburse all the property and job losses. I foresee lawsuits and an major disruption in the economy.

      2. Actually, the commerce clause cover a larger multitude of sins – – – – – –

        1. But, interestingly, not Obamacare. Their taxing power was required for that.

          1. Which is completely deceitful as the power to tax was only given to maintain the federal government which was suppose to be restricted to it’s enumerated powers.

      3. What’s funny is there is NO — “promote the general welfare” clause…

        That cherry-picked phrase is in the “Preamble” like an Introducing paragraph found on the back of books.

        Not being cherry-picked the context reads — We created this U.S. Constitution to promote the general welfare… It’s not a guide it’s an INTRODUCTION!

    2. The commerce clause was long ago misinterpreted to give them absolute power to regulate/bayd/tax anything, anywhere. Pay attention.

      1. I don’t think it really a case of misinterpretation but a actually a case of deceit, manipulation and practically all forms of lying to justify the supreme crime.

  5. The Affordable Care Act was based on ideas developed in a conservative think tank and tested in Massachusetts by a Republican Governor. Yet when it was proposed the Republican rejected it political reason and did not want to give President Obama a win. They undermined the ACA at a state level and instead proposed a fictitious alternative. But the Republican had no alternative. The ACA is a good attempt at using a market approach to expand health care access. By rejecting it for political reason the Republicans open the door to Medicare for All and that is now dominating the primary process. Healthcare is important to people and will be an issue the question will be Medicare for All or Medicare for All that want it. This is because the Republican alternative does not exist.

    1. Indeed, the correct solution is very unpopular with us old folks who are now hooked on Medicare like crack addicts. Hence the Heffalumps won’t talk about it for fear of losing a critical voting block. The result may be socialist medicine.

      Socialist government programs are as bad or worse than addictive drug habits since they hurt everyone while the addict enjoys a high.

      1. I would say the problem here is larger than just old people like you and I. In a ec

      2. I would say the problem is larger than just old people like you and I. In a economy with increasing service sector jobs and with more people changing jobs the transportability of health care will be a greater issue. It will be necessary for the government to insure access to healthcare. That does not mean they need to provide the health care but there must be a pathway to access for healthcare.

        1. Health insurance that is not tied to employment is perfectly transportable.

          Employers can supply health insurance at reduced costs because they get group rates. Why can’t/don’t we create groups not tied to employment?

          For example, my extended family has 100+ people ranging in age from 1 mo to 94 yrs. why couldn’t we be a group? The one thing Obamacare got right was not throwing kids off their parents plan until 26. Why throw them off at all? Why not let that be the seed of a group that eventually encompasses hundreds or thousands?

          1. I think the ACA Market Place was the attempt to create groups for non group people. I think you could create a group for your family of over 100, but how much effort would that require and who in the family would take on the task. This is something better left to others like the government or private groups. Also remember that the ACA did not require states to use a Federal Market Place, the Federal Market Place became the default of Republican lead states that refused to participate.

          2. I hope one of those relatives is an excellent lawyer, and at least two others are prime accountants; if not, your whole family will be getting health care (of a sort) in prison.

    2. Yes, the ACA is a market based system to spin it as a win for libertarians. You use a government portal to buy private insurance contractors price bid for. The wingnut set won’t admit that part.

      The bad parts – the mandate, the subsidies, Medicaid expansion are all a low price to pay to stave off a shitty Single Payer system.

      1. The mandate was part of the original proposal for a market based system. The plan called for people to get coverage early to build equity in the program. You simply can not have people buying into a healthcare program when they get seriously ill.

        1. How are you fucking wrong about every single aspect?

      2. “The government stripping people of healthcare and jacking up premiums is a market solution”

        Shut the fuck up, Buttplug:

      3. You are so fucking stupid you think forcing people to buy something they don’t want is libertarian. Stick to child porn dumbass.

    3. The Affordable Care Act was based on ideas developed in a conservative think tank

      (1) Conservative think tanks often come up with crap.

      (2) Details matter; “based on ideas” doesn’t mean it works, even if the original ideas are good ones.

      and tested in Massachusetts by a Republican Governor.

      Yeah, there are plenty of blithering idiots among Republicans as well.

      Yet when it was proposed the Republican rejected it political reason

      It was rejected because it was bad policy.

      and did not want to give President Obama a win

      Well, yes: Obama shouldn’t “win” at “fundamentally changing US society” as he promised.

      1. He’s wrong about the conservative think tank. The Heritage plan called for high deductible HSA type plans, the very plans ACA largely banned with their mandatory minimum coverage.

    4. “The Affordable Care Act was based on ideas developed in a conservative think tank…”

      That think tank plan was for catastrophic coverage and that limited mandate was a hubristic expansion of government authority. Obamacare as passed was not the same thing at all. Medicare for All is another lie , as the system cannot be structured as Medicare is structured and is utterly irresponsible fiscally.

      1. Exactly… Catastrophic coverage that provides as a percentage of
        AGI or Americans who actually work or have income. Obama’s U.S. taxpayers got a mandate, while approx 60% of the working population pays for 30% of the population, including migrants and refugees. Add medicaid expansion and subsidized policies as a percentage of poverty level. (the federal taxpayer subsidies for insurance companies) for the bottom 30-40%, and billions of dollars in medicaid expansion. Its a Crony dream come true, no risk all reward. Bloomberg’s democrat posse were making 40-60% returns investing in healthcare stocks and private equity, the day after passage of the law.

    5. So, the Republicans implemented in Mass., so what a big fucking failure it was in Mass., and scrapped the idea.

      Democrats continue to blindly support it without reading it (per their orders), therefore everything is the Red Team’s fault.

      Brilliant logic.

    6. And the fucking lie is now 10 years old. The heritage plan called for a replacement with high deductible HSA type plans you fucking retarded dumbass. ACA’s minimum required benefits is higher than all but 7 states prior to its enactment, the literal opposite of the Heritage plan.

      How are you so fucking dumb?

      1. A Heritage Foundation fellow, Stuart Butler, proposed the individual mandate in 1989. It was only later after the implementation that Heritage decided it was wrong. It is also true that the “Health Equity and Access Reform Today” proposed by Lincoln Chaffee in 1993 (with a number of Republican cosigners) contained elements of the ACA. My point is not that all conservative supported the idea in the ACA but that the act had broader support than people are lead to believe. Much of the opposition was due to politics. I also believe that Republican opposition to the ACA left them little to work with to try to cobble together an alternative. The fact is that the ACA is a modest moderate plan to provide greater health care access. It has both conservative and liberal idea incorporated into its structure.

        1. “”The fact is that the ACA is a modest moderate plan to provide greater health care access.””

          At a fairly high cost via premiums and deductibles.

          The fact is the ACA couldn’t live up to its first letter.

          1. And it was INTENTIONALLY misrepresented to the voters. The “Lie of the Year”. Far, far more destructive and dishonest than anything the Orange Man has done.

    7. “The Affordable Care Act was based on ideas developed in a conservative think tank…”

      “The ACA v. the Heritage Plan: A Comparison in Chart Form”
      “Here, first, is an exhaustive list of the similarities between the plans:….”
      (check the link; they both require universal coverage; there is NO other match)

    8. Yes, Mitt Romney got it passed and it was a mess for Massachusetts. Democrats only too happy to grab power took the operational failure and expanded it because it fed their greed for power and control.

      1. Nope. Much of “Romneycare” was actually passed through veto overrides. He signed on to the final deal as a surrender to being overridden, when he had tried to veto the various bills that preceded it.

  6. As Koch / Reason libertarians, we evaluate policies according to their impact on the wealth of our billionaire benefactor Charles Koch. So it’s natural for us to be skeptical of big government programs like Medicare for All — they might require raising Mr. Koch’s taxes, which seems like an automatic deal-breaker.

    However, our analysis must not end there. Reason readers know the wealthiest people on the planet benefit financially from the free movement of highly skilled doctors and engineers across our border with Mexico. In fact, Orange Hitler’s low-immigration economy has been absolutely brutal for Mr. Koch, causing his net worth to stagnate in the $58,000,000,000 to $60,000,000,000 range.

    If a Koch-funded Cato study can demonstrate that Medicare for All would make the US a more attractive destination for immigrants, libertarians must seriously consider supporting the program. The economic boost caused by increased immigration could be more than enough to offset the burden of higher taxation.


    1. I always like to start my day with a good laugh. Thanks, OBL.

    2. I see the Regressive Left still has no defense for their shitty programs other than to continue lying that they’re only robbing the Super Mega Wealthy 1% (better known to the rest of us as, “Anyone with a taxable income”).

  7. All they wanna do is have some fun
    With your hard-earned money
    And you’re not the only one.

    All they know to do is tax/spend fun
    Until the whole damn place is equally poor

  8. Destination: Failure.
    How is closing hospitals and slashing provider pay going to increase access to health care?

  9. Europeans have single payer healthcare, and they pay less money but live longer. Therefore, we should do single payer. QED.

    1. Among comparable ethnic groups they do not live longer in Europe. Europeans do tend to exercise more in their day to day activities-walking, and this reduces costs. They also require fewer services provided only to avoid lawsuits, and are willing to wait longer for services.

      1. What part of “more efficient” do you not understand?

        1. If a US government run insurance or healthcare system could function as efficiently as the European government run healthcare systems, Medicare/Medicaid could cover every American out of the existing premium payments with no changes to private insurance or revenue. Furthermore, Medicare/Medicaid is far less efficient in the US than private insurance.

          So, in what way is destroying private health insurance in the US necessary in order to achieve European-style efficiencies? If you move people from the more efficient private system in the US to the less efficient public system, obviously, things are going to get worse, not better.

        2. “What part of “more efficient” do you not understand?”
          What part of that bullshit do you want to defend?
          Get back to us after you do some searching under ‘waiting times’, and quit lying so transparently.

          1. Here, I saved you the trouble (and probably a lack of results)

            Waiting times, NHS England:


            “Your waiting time starts from the point the hospital or service receives your referral letter, or when you book your first appointment through the NHS e-Referral Service.
            The maximum waiting time for non-urgent consultant-led treatments is 18 weeks from the day your appointment is booked through the NHS e-Referral Service, or when the hospital or service receives your referral letter.”

            1. Waiting times, US:


              “Patients are waiting an average of 24 days to schedule an appointment with a doctor, according to a study of commonly used specialty physicians in 15 major U.S. cities.”

              1. Waiting times, Canada:
                Crossing the Border for Care
                Frustrated by long waits, some Canadians are heading to the U.S. for medical treatments”

                1. I guess there is a certain ‘efficiency’ in flushing those who can afford to seek care elsewhere out of some scummy ‘socialized medical care’ system; hell, if they die, there’s no cost involved.
                  Incomprehensible Bitching? Stuff your head and your medical care up your ass, slaver.

                  1. I’m guessing he was making the point that NOT providing services and having long waits makes the plan more efficient from the government’s perspective.

                    At least I hope so.

              2. “”“Patients are waiting an average of 24 days to schedule an appointment with a doctor, according to a study of commonly used specialty physicians in 15 major U.S. cities.””‘

                Specialty providers.
                I have always been able to get same day appointments with my PCP.

    2. That argument ignores confounding variables. Europeans may live longer, but is it due to nationalized healthcare? They are more physically active, they tend to eat less processed food, they may have lower obesity rates, they generally live lower-stress lifestyles, they tend to have more long term social connections to family and life long friends. All of those things have been shown to encourage longer life. Maybe the nationalized healthcare, far from being solely or mostly responsible, is actually a negative factor that is more than made up for by the all the positive ones.

      Waiting many months for a diagnostic test and therefore possibly delaying a cancer diagnosis is not exactly a recipe for a longer life.

      1. How and why do they live lower stress lifestyles?

        Also, what about race? Fewer blacks = lower blood pressure, right?

      2. Also costs are lower in many places because people don’t run to the doctor for every little thing. Seriously are that many of us depressed and in pain?

        Another thing is people have unrealistic expectations of what medicine can do which leads to over testing and treatment. It is part of the reason for excessive malpractice suits resulting in defensive medicine.

        Cost is the major issue and demand is driving that up.

      3. “…They are more physically active, they tend to eat less processed food, they may have lower obesity rates, they generally live lower-stress lifestyles, they tend to have more long term social connections to family and life long friends. All of those things have been shown to encourage longer life…”

        You have a lot of cites which seem to have fallen off.
        Wanna admit that’s a pile of bullshit, or start digging to provide evidence?
        I’m guessing you’ll never quite get around to defending that pile of bullshit, since it is a pile of bullshit.

    3. Europeans have a wide variety of health care systems, many of them based on private insurance.

      1. Amazing how many people do not know that. They confuse universal coverage with single payer.

        I think it is a losing prospect for dems. Obamacare is not all that unpopular especially among dems and independents a majority of them and Americans overall supporting it according to Kaiser foundation data. Those who have employer based are not going to support losing it.

        So 9 years down the road Obamacare did not fail as predicted. The markets have pretty much stabilized. People will not overall support a risky transition when most are used to what they have. They may grumble about cost but only the foolish buy the idea that the government could do it cheaper, let alone better.

        1. only the foolish buy the idea that the government could do it cheaper, let alone better.

          Truer words were never spoken.

          But you are fool enough to think Obamacare is working or has improved anything.

          1. I am just making observations about it. In principle government should not be in that business at all. I thought as many did at the start that it would crash and burn but it has not.

            One reason is that while government makes the rules and puts up a lot of the money it is administered by private insurance.

            Medicare for all would be much worse as there would be no competition. It would be directly carried out by government. So if I had to choose between them Obamacare is a less bad choice.

            There is really no true free market solution for medicine. Nobody is going to let dead bodies pile up outside the door. One approach I mentioned is to have what used to be the charity hospitals and clinics. A separate system that takes everyone who shows up funded by the government and whatever charity and reimbursement they can get. That too seems like it would cost more in the long run.

            I bought Obamacare when I was an IC. It you pay a lot for it without subsidy and coverage for most things is limited with high deductibles. If you are eligible for Medicaid they won’t take you. On the plus side economically there is high incentive for the consumers to not over use it.

            The biggest problem in America is over utilization of the medical system.

            1. “…The biggest problem in America is over utilization of the medical system.”

              Uh, you should check with some Canucks.
              An ex-pat Canuck MD told wife and I that in Canuckistan, you *never* wait to see if it’s going to improve. You seek medical care RIGHT NOW, or you’ll lose your place in line.

              1. So they have it from the other side.

                Average ED visit is around $1300. That does not include what the docs hope to collect. Around 10% result in admission on average.

                Lose your place in line. I see an ophthalmologist specialist try and get an appointment with her. Took me four months. So she is awesome great. Now that I am her patient. I live in a city known for medical services. Lucky me.

                I do not know what it is in Canada.

    4. “Europeans have single payer healthcare, and they pay less money but live longer. Therefore, we should do single payer. QED.”

      Sloppy stats, combined with false comparisons; you are a practiced and miserable liar.

    5. They pay less. LOL How about 35-40% of all their earnings and a VAT tax of 18% on all they spend on top of it.
      P.J. O’Rourke — ‘If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.’

      1. +100; Exactly… And it’s true.

    6. Most European countries do NOT have single payer.

    7. I didn’t know the U.S. wanted to be European!?!?! Wouldn’t it just be a LOT easier for people who love European government structure but hate the U.S. Constitution to JUST MOVE?!?!

      Oh, yeah… That’s right – they already did.. They “escaped” from their S#@$T-Hole into ours and now insist we’re doing it all wrong.

    8. Then we should not institute wealth taxes as out of about twelve European countries that had generalized wealth taxes in recent decades, 3/4 dropped them entirely. They didn’t raise as much money as expected, were expensive to administer, and created capital flight. QED.

  10. “Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has touted a plan he describes as “Medicare for All Who Want It,” which calls for an opt-in expansion of the program as it exists today.”

    Sure he isn’t like the rest of them. But in my mind, his proposal eventually leads to “Medicare for All”.

    1. The overall trend is to some type of single payer government run healthcare. Note the government already cover a broad swath of people with Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, VA, and other government employees. An aging population will increase Medicare. The need for transportable insurance will increase pressure for government to insure access to health care. Pete Buttigieg’s idea will carry us to Medicare for All more slowly. Sander and Warren more quickly. I don’t really see any alternate proposals on the table.

      1. And some how the entire 1700’s and 1800’s survived with absolutely NO alternative on the table and for 1/10th the price tag.

        1. It was much easier to not have health care in the 1700’s and 1800’s because it did not really exist. Life was simple if you got seriously sick you died.

          1. Your excuses don’t hold water. Medical service was at the top of their game for that time period. Are you also gonna tell me in another 100-years from now that today healthcare was simple and everyone just died because flying saucers didn’t exist?!?!?!

    2. I presume, “Medicare for All Who Want It” will be 100% self supporting (premiums = admin + medical costs every year) and meet the current requirements for private health insurance (i.e., without the limits Medicare imposes – presumably because it mostly covers old folks who will die fairly soon with, or without, care — and the same can’t be said for a 30 year old selecting MFAWWI).

      I also presume that care providers (who can’t keep the lights on with Medicare reimbursement rates alone) can opt out of participating in MFAWWI without opting out of Medicare. Otherwise everyone on Medicare who has, or knows those who have, had difficulty finding a doctor to take them as a patient will squash that candidate that proposes MFAWWI after they think about it for a while.

      At least MFAWWI would let us know if Medicare really is that much more efficient.

  11. ObamaCare was essentially a Medicaid expansion of around 10 million people, with a bunch of coercive tactics attached requiring people (especially the young) to buy health insurance they don’t need or don’t want–to make up for all the money providers were sure to lose caring for all those new Medicaid patients.

    To say that ObamaCare has few defenders because of Medicare for All is to ignore the fact that Medicare for all is ObamaCare on steroids. Where ObamaCare was meant to increase the Medicaid rolls, Medicare for All is meant to increase the Medicare rolls to infinity. Why support ObamaCare when you can support Medicare for All? Medicare for All – (ObamaCare)^10

    This healthcare fight really is a zero sum game over socialist programs–because Medicare and Medicaid patients get their medical care from the same providers as the rest of us, and those providers are using the same machinery, prescribing the same medications, etc. as the rest of us. They’re using the same doctors and nurses and x-ray techs as the rest of us. The more the government infects our system with their socialism, the worse it suffers the consequences of socialism.

    Therefore, there is no fundamental reform that will make any substantive difference that doesn’t also involve either putting more people on the Medicare and Medicaid rolls–or kicking more people off the Medicare and Medicaid rolls. Defeat Medicare for All, of course, so as not to make things worse, but because kicking people off of Medicare is politically infeasible, kicking people off of Medicaid should be the focus. I strongly suggest we slash Medicaid spending first.

    We were recently within a few votes in the Senate of cutting $772 billion from Medicaid, but Peter Suderman opposed that bill. If anyone ever sees Suderman support a bill that cuts Medicaid spending, somebody please let me knowm but don’t hold your breath. You may be more likely to see a unicorn.

    1. This is where the open borders ideology conflicts with big government and Medicaid spending. Poor migrants come to the U.S. with no assets and qualify for Medicaid. Reason is on record and bullish on public charge immigration.

      1. AFAIK, Suderman has been silent on the issue of Medicaid, but this is where I draw the line. It’s perfectly consistent with libertarian capitalism to be open borders–so long as you’re anti-welfare.

        Again, I supported this bill, mostly because it cut $772 billion from Medicaid.


        The House passed a version of that bill that cut even more from Medicaid. President Trump promised to sign that bill, and he twisted every arm he could to get them to pass the Senate version. We came up a few votes short . . .

        Where I supported the bill because it cut $772 billion from Medicaid, Suderman opposed the bill–supposedly because of what it didn’t do. I can go on being an open borders libertarian capitalist because even though I want an open borders treaty with Mexico, I want to get rid of Medicaid even more.

        There’s no contradiction for me.

        Everyone who supports open borders while opposing cutting Medicaid has some explaining to do.

        1. I am not sure that Medicare is socialism except in an extremely broad sense of the term. There is a premium I think around $190/mo and deductible. It doesn’t cover everything. The rest is paid though FICA like SS. The British NHS is socialized medicine.

          What Medicare does do is take much of the burden from traditional employer based insurance by covering the bulk of cost for the most expensive part of the population.

          Medicaid is not much more than a subsidy paid to doctors and hospitals to take care of the uninsured poor. It pays pennies on the dollar but it would be a big hurt without it. You could eliminate it but hospitals would start closing. Most docs do not take Medicaid anyway.

          It really has nothing to do with immigration. Immigrants would just do what other uninsured do and show up in the ED at an average of $1300 in cost per visit. If you gave work permits so they could get payroll jobs it would be a net gain as they would pay into FICA without being eligible for Medicare or Social Security.

          1. Socialism is government control of industry, prices set by bureaucrats, and the redistribution of wealth.

            Hospitals are not allowed to reject Medicare patients, prices are set by bureaucrats, and the program is funded through income and payroll taxes.

            It’s as socialist as anything needs to be in order to be properly called socialist.

      2. Also along those lines, . . .

        Trump has started enforcing a law that requires those who willing sponsor and immigrant awaiting a hearing to reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of services if that immigrant ends up on social services.

        It’s been routine to make sponsors sign these forms as a precondition for freeing an immigrant while their immigration hearing is pending, but no one before Trump has ever actually enforced that law before.

        This is also where you can tell the bullshitters from the rest. If they oppose anything that discourages immigration–even if it means billing people who willingly accepted the responsibility for keeping an immigrant fed, housed, and not on Medicaid–then they’re just blowing smoke about libertarian and capitalist principles. If the principles always go out the window when we’re talking about immigration, the operative concern is promoting more immigration–not libertarian or capitalist principles.

        1. What many people do not know is that lawful immigrants, except those on asylum have a five year waiting period to qualify for Medicaid. Some states do provide overage for children and pregnant women before that.

          Illegal immigrants do not qualify for Medicaid or welfare. However hospitals do get funding for taking care of the uninsured so there is an indirect subsidy. Some places also have government hospitals, we have a county hospital here which get funding through taxes. Rural hospitals also often get subsidy through local taxes. So denying Medicaid actually just shifts cost.

          Most immigrants want to work. If you give them work and residency permits the overall tax burden would shift. While I oppose the welfare state in principle current policy is only making things worse.

          1. With all kinds of state and city leveled exceptions for the bluest cities that use federally funded medical grants in Healthy San Francisco and the cities that will follow when the democrats come into power. Switzerland (among one of the best systems), requires work permits, visa holders to obtain private insurance outside of their system for Swiss citizens.

            1. What is interesting is that when you look at all of the variations in health care policy in developed nations they all kinda work. There are pluses and minuses in all of them but the job gets done.

              The British NHS which is the only one I think is truly socialized gets the most criticism and deservedly so but you don’t see a lot of momentum to get rid of it there.

              I think it would be wiser for the US to focus on improving what we have rather than making drastic changes. Really it gets paid one way or the other. Concerning Medicaid as I said previously it is not really free insurance. Think of Medicaid more as a subsidy to hospitals and those doctors who take it. I am in principle opposed to the welfare state but if we are going to talk about what we have then we need to accept the consequences if we eliminate it.

              For medicine it means that means cost shifting to the private sector and closing of some hospitals.

          2. except those on asylum

            Yeah, by ratified treaty, we can’t treat asylum seekers differently from American citizens when it comes to social services.

            There are two kinds of asylum seekers, affirmative and defensive. The affirmative asylum seekers are the kind who present themselves at a border crossing and ask for asylum there. The defensive are the ones who are caught crossing the border illegally–when they’re caught, they ask for asylum as a defense against deportation.

            Those defensive types can be held indefinitely–and over the last year or two, they’ve mostly been children. They get their family members to come sign for them so that they can await their asylum hearing–but as part of that, whoever signs for those kids to get them out of detention agrees to take care of them so they don’t end up on social services. I have no problem with the government going after people who don’t live up to that commitment. The asylum seekers aren’t denied services if they apply (per treaty), and the people who agree to care for those asylum seekers are free to not agree.

            This is all as it should be.

            If you don’t want to be on the hook for taking care of your cousin’s kids, don’t tell your cousin’t kids to traipse up here, sneak across the border, and tell the border patrol you want asylum–and assume that the taxpayer will pay for those kids for you.

      3. No worries. They’ll also open the borders to millions of foreign doctors, eager to make big bucks in the free world. Sadly for said docs, they will import the same problems they’re seeking to escape. Medical salaries will plummet, quality will collapse.

  12. They are premised on the understanding that Obamacare does not work in its current form and that another significant overhaul is necessary.

    So Obamacare worked exactly as intended – it established the principle that the federal government has a duty to provide healthcare to all and now we’re just sorting out the details of how to go about that. Thank you, John McCain, for your noble sacrifice in making sure the ratchet held firmly to the left when the GOP was perilously close to having to actually live up to its rhetoric about being opposed to the socialism of the Democrats. It was a narrow escape!

    1. while the Governor of California just mandated statewide rent control over 70% of the populations wishes. They want transportation and housing as much as healthcare.

  13. Hillary Clinton says that the Russians are behind Tulsi Gabbard, and she says that Jill Stein is a Russian asset.

    “They’re also going to do third party again, and I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far,” the former Secretary of State said.

    Clinton went on to state that her fellow 2016 candidate Jill Stein was also in the election due to Russian involvement. “That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she’s also a Russian asset. She’s a Russian asset, totally.”

    —-Newsweek, October 18, 2019


    It was Hillary Clinton who publicly stated that the Whitewater prosecution was part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her and her husband–despite the fact that 15 individuals were convicted of 40 crimes.

    It was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that initiated the Birther conspiracy against Barack Obama.

    It was the Hillary Clinton campaign that initiated the Piss-Gate report.

    Now Hillary Clinton is claiming that Tulsi Gabbard is being backed by Russian intelligence services, and that Jill Stein is a Russian asset?

    I’d say somebody needs to adjust Hilary’s medication, but she’s been having the same wacky problem for 25 years! If she says this shit in public, can you imagine what she must say in private?

    Remember that time Tom Cruise fired his long time publicist and hired his sister instead? All of a sudden, he started jumping up on Oprah’s couch acting a fool and condemning Brooke Shields for taking medication to treat her postpartum depression. You got the impression that he’s been even nuttier than advertised all this time–his publicist must have been a genius to keep it hidden so well for so long!

    That’s where we are with Hillary Clinton. She’s a fucking loon!

    1. Keep in mind it’s all projection on the left – if Hillary’s claiming somebody’s a Russian asset deliberately planted to rig the election, it’s a pretty sure bet that Hillary is in talks with Putin as we speak to work out the details as to how exactly the election will be rigged.

      1. “”it’s a pretty sure bet that Hillary is in talks with Putin as we speak “”

        Hillary doesn’t do the dirty work. She hires people for that. Steele for example.

    2. Trump is the biggest CT Nut of all time (including Alex Jones) and you still have your nose up Hil-Dog’s twat?

      You’re a fucking loon.

    3. Sometimes conspiracies actually exist. Ask any member of the VRWC of yore and they will probably admit it proudly. By denying the VRWC, you are accusing Republicans of being incompetent at politics over the past decades, and that’s just mean. They are very good at politics. They are very good at conspiring to spread propaganda, engage in coordinated demagoguery, and rig elections. Don’t sell them short.

      She was right about Russian interference in 2016 while people were laughing at her. And it turns out the email thing was history’s biggest nothing burger. But I’m sure to you that was just another conspiracy theory. Oh no, you thought that was the world’s biggest scandal of all time since the dinosaurs? Yeah, shut the fuck up.

      1. You’ve slurped one too many times from HRC’s colostomy bag.

        1. If Shrike and Tony both agree that she isn’t a crackpot, then she’s probably a crackpot.

      2. It’s only Republicans that act that way. Democrats lose nobly because of their high standards. It’s a shame. The poor girl.

          1. “Preach.”


  14. Not sure how Medicare defines the Dems in 2020 more than raciss witch hunts…

  15. The fundamental logic: health care is vital to human life, therefore government must provide it. And the first-order logical outcome: The provision requires a massive program that co-opts both resources and behavior.

    Then why is this not applicable to other vital human needs? What about food, shelter, and sex? Will presidential debates be focused on these new government programs in 2040, 2060, and 2080?

    1. Section 8 covers shelter. SNAP covers food. If they ever go for sex coverage it will be run out of the DMV.

      1. And “The Federal Emergency Medical Treatment” Act passed in 1985 covers health care. According to your rebuttal (Fats of Fury) – the healthcare dilemma should have ended in 1985.


  16. Obamacare was not some attempt to improve healthcare by tweaking and augmenting the system in place before it. It was specifically designed to make even more control of healthcare by the government more palatable and the new normal to the voting public. It was also designed to suck, increase costs and screw many people who were happy with their insurance and healthcare and designed to buy more democrat votes with other people’s money via subsidized plans for low income. It was just a calculated move to make single payer healthcare politically feasible later (which is unfortunately now). Kudos to Obama and his ilk because it totally worked.

    1. According to Kaiser data the majority approve of Obamacare. By a large majority they approve of the basic provisions such as covering pre existing conditions and extending coverage for children up to age 26. Nine years down the road the market has pretty much stabilized after some issues early on. The worst part, the mandate and fine is gone and it did not fall apart.

      In principle I am opposed to much of it but if they wanted the bridge to collapse much to their surprise it has proven remarkably sturdy.

      I think it is because they incorporated private insurance companies rather than a totally government run system.

      You are right the dems are not about controlling cost or getting quality health care to more people. They just want to control everything. Health care now, then fuel and energy, what we eat, drink, smoke or vape, plastic bags and straws, everything.

      1. If the majority approve of obamacare that would imply they think the healthcare system is working and if that was they case half the country wouldn’t be chomping at the bit for single payer. But people are pretty stupid and pollsters are damn good at phrasing questions in a way to skew the results to the conclusion they want.
        I don’t think the bridge to collapse was as much the key objective as moving the new normal to even more government control in preparation for making outright socialized medicine acceptable. Yet still, obamacare did initially cause price increases to accelerate, many lost the coverage they had and liked, premiums now are still much worse than they were before obamacare and it completely failed the goal of reducing the average family’s premiums by $2500. Only a moron, a SJW or a mooch with an obamacare subsidy would approve.

        1. I don’t think they are chomping at the bit for medicare for all really. People generally have a positive view of Medicare so it is smart to label it that way.

          You may get about half of people when you throw it out there but when you start explaining the details and costs people are less enthusiastic.

          I think it is a loser issue for the dems. That and gun control. It works for their base but not going to attract the independent voters who went with Trump last time.

  17. MedicalNewsToday

    Ever notice how few medical innovations come out of Socialist nations?

    Another huge downside of Socialized medicine is the lack of incentives to create new medical tech.

    1. That’s THE huge downside! We can’t even begin imagine what the cost will end up being…

    2. Depends what you call socialist. If it means countries with some kind of universal health care there are lots of innovations.

      Of the top Pharm companies only a handful are based in the US and all of the big ones have labs and research all around the world. Diagnostic imaging is an area of intense innovation. GE is in the US, the rest of the big ones are all based in what you would call socialized medicine countries Phillips, Seimens, Toshiba, Hitachi.

      Israel has a form of socialized medicine and I won’t even start to list what has come from there.

      Work on cutting edge technologies in the use of AI in medicine, artificial organs, and immunotherapy. If you follow the published articles you will find them from all over including China, S Korea and Japan. The Nobel prize in immunotherapy this year was split between an American and a Japanese scientist. Japan has socialized medicine. One of the three winners of the Nobel prize in medicine this year is from the UK.

      The US is a top, if not the top leader but it is a myth that having some kind of socialized medicine is an impediment to innovation.

      I am not advocating for socialized medicine at all.

  18. Lets see, the left wants to seize the means of production on:

    It’s hard to keep up!

    1. Forgot agriculture

    2. Not so much seize, which would be socialism, but control by being ‘partners’ with the players, which is the definition of fascism.

      1. You say potato….

        1. Hello

  19. Republicans had a chance to develop, propose, and implement a health care plan. They squandered it, neither offering nor accomplishing anything. Then they appeased Trump, excusing themselves from sensible political debates among decent Americans for an undetermined period. During that period, the liberal-libertarian mainstream will, as usual, effect progress against conservatives’ wishes and whining.

    1. The government shouldn’t be planning or controlling much of anything.

    2. I guess you can’t even imagine a universe where government does not manage your life.

    3. They don’t vote in their self-interest. And we will give it to them regardless, and they will pay for it, regardless, because we’re awesome and they’re not.

    4. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

      Really there is no magic plan which is why the republicans couldn’t find one.

      Medicare for all is like doing major surgery for shoulder pain when all you need is a couple days rest, ice and some Advil.

    5. Yes the Republicans wasted a huge opportunity. The rest of your comment is your usual leftwing diatribe.
      IMHO, the biggest problem comes from pretending that it’s still insurance, when actually we are talking about healthcare plans, not insurance.

  20. Somewhat off-topic, but when the democrats trot out their next “common sense gun control” plan, remember this:

    “But many top-tier candidates have made the case for Medicare for All, a single-payer plan that captures elements of the extremes Obama said he wanted to avoid.”

  21. I can’t wait to have my vitals taken by the TSA. Can’t you get my temp from my ear? Shut up, anal only.

    1. “This goes in your mouth, this one goes in your your ear and this one goes in your butt.”


      1. At our current rate, it won’t be long.

    2. Old one.

      A doctor goes to the bank on his lunch hour to make a deposit.

      He gets to the teller and goes to fill out a deposit slip.

      He reaches in his pocket, pulls out a rectal thermometer and says “damn! Some asshole’s got my pen”


  22. “We’re going to give you free healthcare!”

    Then it went to:

    “We’re going to give medicare for all!”

    Instead of free it just went up 135.00 a month for Part B. Are they saying “medicare for all” because they know “free healthcare” isn’t going to work?

    1. Medicare polls consistently well.

      1. Tony
        October.20.2019 at 11:55 pm
        “Medicare polls consistently well.”

        “FREE” shit, paid for by others, always does and fucking lefty ignoramuses like you think that means something.

        1. So according to Tony, as program that does not pay for preventative services, only pays 80%, and you have to load money into the program without getting services for decades, is well liked.

          Part A seems to be liked. Part B not so much, Part D was hated.
          Medicare is much more appealing when you can afford to pay for an Advantage plan.

  23. You do remember that ObamaCare was intended to fail, don’t you?

    The stated (behind closed doors) objective was for ObamaCare to be a bridge to single-payer government healthcare. It was designed to bring down the existing healthcare system so that people would demand a government takeover.

    Sure, they said “you can keep your plan” and “costs will go down”, but that was never the plan. The plan was to cause as much pain as possible until the thing goes insolvent and must be replaced. That’s why nobody wants to fix the systemic problems. Because doing that without implementing single payer would defeat the purpose.

  24. With Good Reason

    As in 2018, the Democrats will push the issue of medical delivery (aka/”healthcare”). Understandably. The feckless, hypocritical Republicans only can say “No!” They offer no alternative except the ludicrous Medical Savings Accounts. Yet, there has been a viable alternative available since 1994, actively ignored by both Democrats and Republicans, given that they would lose power over medicine.

    Consider a scientifically-based, scientifically-driven, detailed plan for delivery of medical care characterized by the following 12 benefits for every citizen:

    01) Universal coverage for basic services;
    02) Optional extended benefits;
    03) Simplicity;
    04) Optional single-payer;
    05) Private Sector with competition;
    06) Straightforwardness;
    07) Affordability;
    08) Freedom from special taxes;
    09) Minimal regulations;
    10) Minimal bureaucracy;
    11) Freedom from fraud at taxpayers’ expense; and
    12) Acceptability by insurance companies.

    As mentioned, one has existed, as presented as far back as 1994 in Healthcare Reform D.O.A. (Nominated for two, national awards by the academic arm of the American insurance-industry.) and currently updated in the novel, Retribution Fever.

    For a discussion of the scientific basis, visit —
    https://www.nationonfire.com/healthcare-reform/ .

    1. Define basic services.


  25. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money tehn come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► payhd.com

  26. And what grand proposal to reform/improve our health insurance system do the smart folks at Reason support? I would remind them that employer-provided coverage – even for those working for Reason, Cato, etc. – has covered pre-existing conditions BY MANDATE for decades, while – until the ACA, individuals routinely had trouble getting coverage on the individual market (and not just the people with cancer, type 1 diabetes, etc.). Employer-provided health insurance – with its tax-code quirks and cost sharing has shielded workers in many ways, and has muted many benefits that free-market forces would provide to keep costs in line for services. Traditional Medicare is a single-payer hybrid – with well known financing problems (what probably won’t cost that much to fix). What’s the plan, Reason? I’ve just identified the two most obvious problems in our system (that, ironically, have helped fund the greatest medical breakthroughs in the world for the last 50 years). Which should we scrap and re-design?

    1. Scrap all Federal plans and let State’s, Cities, and/or Counties who cannot enslave the entirety of operational society create their own majority (Since it’s localized) supported system IF they choose to.

      There’s no decent representation when CA residents are making all the laws on the rest of us about our own healthcare of which they have ZERO interest in.

      1. I lean towards the Switzerland approach, but realize we’re not Switzerland (which is much smaller, wealthier, and culturally cohesive). They don’t have employer provided health insurance, they have a highly regulated individual mandate for a basic plan. Insurance companies compete for customers – and have to accept all citizen applicants – because the companies want to sell them optional upgraded benefits (which is the only way they make profits). Low income citizens get tax payer support for the basic plan. Doctors are in private practice. Switzerland has excellent health care. It’s expensive too – but not as expensive (per capita) as our system. Consumers there have skin in the game – they pay premiums and have deductibles/co-pays.

        1. From your description I would say that the ACA is similar, but not identical, to the Swiss system. There is a mandate to get healthcare and a requirement to provide the healthcare. The government subsidies low income subscribers. The largest difference is that for the very poorest we have a program, Medicaid, that provides government provided healthcare.

        2. “Low income citizens get tax payer support for the basic plan.” — And this couldn’t be implemented by a City, County or even a State governments “Welfare Office” because?????????

  27. Total socialist control of the country begins with government control of 20% of the economy (healthcare). Even Democrats know you eat an elephant one bite at a time.

    1. No, eating elephants is tougher than that. I’ve had elephant and it is tougher than shoe leather. Only a starving person would try to eat it, and would likely use more energy chewing than delivered from the meat.

      1. Donkeys should stick to just eating themselves and just leave the Elephants alone :). Donkey “healthcare for all” anyone?

        Seem they already ate each other all up and are now starving so severely that eating Elephants sounds like a better alternative than getting a job.

  28. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
    pop over to this website …….. Read More

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.