Some serious change in our healthcare system is urgent. M4A is a starting point in negotiations.

that M4A actually resembles very little.

But it's easy for someone to promise anything, no matter how unrealistic, if they they know they will never be tasked with delivering.

They can blame congress/big pharma/the establishment, etc for their inability to have solved that part of it.

Simply promising that the people will rise up if Sanders is elected and DEMAND their M4A, and higher taxes on the wealthy, etc, is also easily made by someone who knows they can simply blame big pharma/big medicine for "convincing people not to rise up."

It will always be... "because I was so pure of purpose, so focused on what is right, so focused on being a moral leader, I was persecuted and thwarted by those in the establishment who saw anyone that dedicated as a threat to their status quo... but for them, EVERYTHING I PROMISED would TOTALLY have happened!!"

If there was an easy answer, the problem would have been solved long ago.
There is the strong big pharma lobby, AMA lobby, Hospital lobby.
And there is the trial lawyers lobby.

All these lobbies make it very difficult to bring cost down. We all want to protect
victims of malpractice, but that raises cost of malpractice insurance, and that
in turn results in higher bills from doctors and hospitals.

Add to that the political lobby! I don't think medical bills will stop being #1 cause
of family bankruptcies until I am 100 years old. But I won't lose sleep over that
because I am already almost 80, and knock on wood, have zero medical issues.

HATE any progress, and you personally have jinxed any possibility of it happening!!!!

We need POSITIVITY!!!!! IF we just WANT it badly enough, IT WILL COME TO BE, but these NEGATIVE things you are saying will RUIN it ALL.

It's SIMPLE, It's SIMPLE, It's SIMPLE, It's SIMPLE, It's SIMPLE...

doubleplusthoughtcrime....

as possible, wherever possible, to prosper.

If you want to see I can post it

But if you believe the title, why do you think Bernie would be in favor of M4A?

When he was talking about the Medicaid system as it existed then? The one totally unrelated to the current M4A bill? You mean that video?

as are Sanders' activities in College and in the MLK march in the 60's.

So there's that.

except the MediCAID program is less expensive per beneficiary because it pays significantly less than Medicare to doctors, hospitals, etc.

If everyone carrying a Medicaid card would bankrupt the country, everyone carrying a Medicare-for-All card will make it even worse.

Point is, universal healthcare is needed, but Medicare-for-All (essentially a more expensive Medicaid-for-All) ain't the model we should be pursuing.

But a lot of people do NOT want to hear that.

and let Congress decide on what the best path forward is, because they are the representatives of the people.

I have no need to walk lockstep with every policy or enforce a manifesto of a candidate in order to support them.

Elizabeth has the ability to listen to experts, and understands that reliable new data that doesn't support your position isn't an 'attack,' but rather an opportunity to learn and make one's policies more effective.

Why do you ask a question that has nothing to do with my post?

I don't derail easily.

It sounds like you either weren't aware that the vast majority of the developed world that has UHC does not use single payer to achieve it, or it made you anxious enough to try to get me on the defensive.

Which is it?

Are you saying she's secretly against it even though she says shes for it in every debate, rally, and on her website?

Because your responses make a lot more sense if they address what's in my post..

Yes, she's moving away from going for Single Payer on day one, and focusing on fixing the ACA in order to get more people health care quicker.

You should listen to her interview on NPR this morning.

I supported her even when she was all in for M4A upon taking office, because there were other things about her that would make her a good POTUS - emotional intelligence, the deep respect of her peers in the Senate, her ability to listen and not just wait for the other person to quit talking so she can dismiss them with a "Now look..." lecture, and her major accomplishments in her short career on Capitol Hill. Big ideas are useless if you irritate people so much they don't want to work with you...

I predicted that once she talked to experts in health care policy and got a real education on the issues, she's move more towards what Hillary was planning. And indeed she's doing exactly that - she's incredibly intelligent and perceptive.

Like she discussed this morning - getting all kids 18 and under covered to begin with, while shoring up the ACA, and letting the people make that decision to move forward with something other than the ACA. Incremental steps to expand in order to get the most care to the most people quickly.

But your reaction tells me that you were either upset with me because I pointed out that the vast majority of other countries with UHC don't use single payer, or you were upset to learn that. Which is it?

It's right there on her website. This is a weird thing to try to deny. Yes, she did backtrack a bit, now she's for some incremental thing first and M4A later, but still, she's definitely pro-single-payer, it's one of her defining issues.

Incidentally, her backtracking on M4A coincided with the start of her drop in the polls. I guess you were right about M4A being good branding.

have rejected single payer as the way to do it?

I guess you didn't listen to that NPR interview from this morning, did you? Nervous to learn something?

Nor did you read the part where I stated that she was going to concentrate on "restoring the ACA first" then let the people decide on MFA. How does that mean she has stopped supporting M4A? She just isn't promising it by 2023, like others are.



So if altering one's position is "backtracking" and indicates craven pandering to poll results....

Bernie Sanders Retracts Endorsement of Young Turks Founder Cenk Uygur After Backlash


How Bernie Sanders Evolved on Gay Marriage

And how about going from promising M4A in just 8 short years in 2016, to "Did I say 8 years? I mean TWO YEARS" when there are other M4A fans running against him in 2020.....

Bernie is no Liz Warren, by any stretch. One doesn't just look at one's issues, one looks at the basic skills one needs to do the job of POTUS. If one has no people skills, and imediately views anyone who disagrees with them as WRONG at best, CORRUPT at worst, then it doesn't matter how lofty one's ideals are, one is never going to get them into existence. Let alone handle diplomacy with world leaders...

I posted why I support Liz in my last post. But since you seem skittish when it comes to actually reading my posts before firing off in another direction - here it is again:



And what do you think of Bernie's response to being in a race with other people who are talking about M4A, by going from promising it in 8 years in his 2016 plan, to "did I say 8 years?? No, I'll do it in TWO!"

Response to polls?



And yes, putting MEDICARE in the title of your plan, no matter how unlike Medicare it actually is, is brilliant marketing.

Not terribly accurate, but goes over well.

Honey, you need some sleep or something. You are clearly not up for debating on this or any other topic that I comment on.

So many facts coming at someone who is not prepared for the truth can just shut one down.

Be careful of your blood pressure, sweetie. I'm worried about you.

Career politicians are known for making promises to get elected.

and one can promise anything if one knows they can simply blame the nefarious "establishment" for thwarting them out of fear of their power and purity?

And it's a good brand because the American public doesn't know very much about the very complicated issue of health care policy and health care reform, and wants someone to promise a simple solution.

I disagree with you that Bernie secretly opposes M4A, but we both agree that M4A, like the rest of his progressive agenda, is indeed a good brand. Which is why he's surging.

Like I said in my other post below, "IF WE DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD, WE WILL END ABORTION!" is also a very effective political brand.

But as to that poor straw man... I never said that Bernie "secretly opposes" M4A. In fact think he's convinced that whatever he thinks or says is by definition "progressive truth" and thererfore must be based on facts. I think that no amount of analysis by experts of any flaws in his M4A will convince him that he is mistaken, or not under attack. M4A is something that he's determined is part of his political identity.

So actually, I think quite the opposite. So there's that.



But if that helps you feel like that you're more "right" and people who disagree with you have no basis in reality, and they just "hate" Bernie, carry on....

Again, one's credibility is not helped by setting up legions of strawmen that one expects others to defend.

Pro Tip: If your point requires that you misrepresent someone else, then maybe your point needs to be re-examined.

Sorry I misinterpreted your comments about Bernie. I agree with you about that also. Of course he believes in single payer, that's what makes it so silly that people are trying to use that out-of-context video to pretend he secretly thinks its a bad idea.

Just like "IF WE DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD, WE WILL END ABORTION!" is good marketing for GOP candidates, but is based on, and fuels a false premise of a simple solution to a complex problem by attacking a single entity that can be portrayed as the root of all evil.

No one said that the video shows that he secretly thinks anything currently.

It just shows that his talking points have been different over the years concerning M4A, despite all claims that he never changes.

So there's that.

You completely misrepresented what I thought about Bernie's belief in his M4A brand.

I definitely do not agree that ending planned parenthood is good branding.

to use it year after year, despite all evidence from health care providers and other neutral experts, who are simply dismissed as "shills for the abortion industry."



In fact the MAIN reason that evangelicals look the other way at Trump's clear avarice, greed, hubris, lechery and cruelty is that he will install judges that are willing to overturn Roe. Abortion. The same thing that propels the Planned Parenthood demonization brand.

It works. It's good branding that relies on a false and harmful premise, and the lack of understanding - and eve rejection of any attempts to educate them - on the part of their supporters of the facts.

It's not a healthy or good thing for the public, but it's very, very good branding for their candidates.

Is that clearer?

Because it's something that galvanizes their supporters against a huge dragon, that if slayed, would solve the problem once and for all.

It's actually the opposite of what would reduce abortion, but they know that their supporters have little understanding of the complexity of the issue, and their supporters are who are donating and keeping them in office.

Of course there are some politicians who have convinced themselves that Planned Parenthood is really "promoting abortions" and is the cause of women not keeping their knees closed, but they are bullshitters, rather than liars. Liars know what the truth is, but bullshtters
- like Trump and televangelists, they don't care what's fact or fiction, truth or lies. They are convinced that whatever is good for them is therefore good for the country. They think they are what the crowds believe them to be. They are "high on their own supply" as the saying goes.

Those cheering crowds convince them of their own infallibiilty, and the crowds lap it up as gospel, secure in this infallible man looking out for them.

It becomes about him, and his gospel, not the issues, not the facts, and anyone who disagrees in any way is therefore shunned as a heretic.

But if one never really thinks they will be called upon to make it happen, then one can always tell themselves and others, "Well, if I HAD been in charge Rainbows and unicorns..."

a new economic system.

Mostly white males, who historically aren't the ones who bear the full brunt of the collapse of institutions and order.

Yeah, at first people will get their health issues looked at. Later they will be healthier. Instead of paying thousands for health insurance we'll be paying hundreds more in taxes.

Although I suppose it could bankrupt the country if Trump ran it.

take money out of a consumer driven economy like our look out...then come the deductibles and the rationing...and the long waits...not to mention it will never pass...never forgive Sanders for abandoning the only healthcare we are likely to keep the ACA...truly shows how little he cares about the people affected by his big plans.

bankrupting the country