Tag Archives: medicare for all

Only money.

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

Sometimes I think my head is going to explode. Every get that way? It sometimes happens over stupid shit, like earlier this week when the MS Office install stopped working on my two-year-old PC, and Bill Gates’ automated tech support tried to trick me into buying a subscription to Office 365 rather than just reinstalling my Office 2016 once-and-done version. Hate when that happens, don’t you?

That’s not what really made my head explode this week. The true culprit was our ridiculous political culture – you know, the one that whines incessantly about how expensive Medicare For All will be (i.e. trillions of dollars less than what we’re spending now) but then turns around and drops two trillion dollars on saving Trump’s political bacon (they wanted to spend six trillion). Suddenly, all this money appeared out of nowhere.

And like the financial crisis, Congress’s piece is just the down payment. As David Dayen explained on Majority Report this past week, the $425 billion fund managed by Steve Mnuchin (the foreclosure king) will serve as initial capital in a Federal Reserve program that will direct more than ten times that amount towards select businesses – big banks, etc. – in the form of low-interest credit. Dayen refers to it as a money cannon, and he’s not wrong. There will be oversight in the form of an inspector general and an oversight board, but the review will be after the fact. It’s deja vu, all over again.

Sure, presumably every worker/taxpayer in America will get some kind of check. But the point is the bailout – the prole checks are just for window dressing. The bishops of austerity in the Senate are already whining about expanded unemployment benefits being too generous to people who are not working, as if there’s some moral hazard in paying people not to spread the Coronavirus. I’m not hearing them complain about trillions in public money being dropped on private enterprise, which will turn around and enrich themselves rather than use it for productive purposes, like hiring people. I’ve heard some vague hand-waving about the American people having a stake in the beneficiary industries, but this isn’t going to happen. Like the Wall Street and Detroit bailouts, there are very few strings attached to this money.

If we hand trillions of dollars out to private companies, we should own those companies. If we own those companies, we should put their workers in charge of managing them. If capitalism requires the government to resuscitate it every ten or so years with massive injections of socialism, we should start to rethink our system and, perhaps, pursue a vision of society that doesn’t entail crash-and-burn collapses every time something goes wrong … a vision that would emphasize social cohesion and a more robust approach to preparedness, involving – I don’t know – an exponentially larger number of, say, ICU beds, respirators, freaking PPE, for when the next plague comes strolling along.

We determine what’s possible. It’s just a question of political will.

luv u,

jp

First in the nation.

What more can be said about the New Hampshire primary? Just this: Bernie won. I’m sure someone has said it, somewhere. It was a bit more than annoying that we had to sit through excruciatingly long third-place and second-place trophy acceptance speeches before hearing from the man himself, but it was worth waiting for. Like any other supporter of the Vermont senator, I would have liked to have seen a more decisive victory, but in a crowded field in a year when most voters are scared, exhausted, and looking for an answer, 26% is okay. That said, we have to do better.

I do mean we. The candidate can only do so much. His surrogates, excellent as they are, can only fight so hard. These primaries and caucuses are instructive in the sense that they demonstrate in stark terms what it would take to achieve the ambitious agenda that Sanders is putting forward. If we want Medicare for all, we’re going to have to do a lot better than we did in Iowa and New Hampshire. Policies like M4A, the Green New Deal, wealth tax, and so on will not come close to passage without massive mobilization. Let’s not kid ourselves: at best, these programs will take years to implement under the best of circumstances. But they won’t even get off the ground without an unprecedented groundswell of popular will, much as Bernie has described in virtually every stump speech. I think he understands what’s needed … but do the rest of us?

Say it loud: Bernie won.

The signs aren’t all bad. There appears to have been strong turnout in New Hampshire. Given how flaccid the 2016 primary participation rate was, it’s good to see things back up around 2008 level. The real test, though, of our strength as a governing coalition is in the level of support for Bernie and other progressive candidates. There’s no way that Sanders is going to get big things done if he just squeaks by in November without any fundamental changes in the complement of Congress. That’s why I would encourage my middle-of-the-road friends not to feel any reluctance about voting for Sanders or Warren. If you’re worried about M4A and the rest, there will be a million ways to put roadblocks in front of anything like that. I know that sounds pessimistic, but understand – I believe change is possible, but possible isn’t easy. Likely policy is going to be shaped by whoever ends up a part of the electorate. The more we vote, show up, etc., the stronger the case for good policy.

I could go on, but probably shouldn’t. Suffice to say that we will get the president we ask for, good or bad. It’s up to us. Latest polls have Bernie ahead in Nevada, ahead in Texas, ahead nationally. Let’s build on this, folks … it’s our last, best chance.

luv u,

jp

Stalking horses.

The Democratic race for president is one candidate smaller today than it was a couple of days ago. Kamala Harris dropped out this week, and it took about five minutes for the talking heads in the corporate media to attribute the failure of her campaign to the push for Medicare for All. By Wednesday morning, Claire McCaskill, failed candidate for senate, was on Morning Joe taking shots at M4A as a far-left government takeover of insurance, amounting to some kind of expropriation from hardworking Americans. They’re taking our corporate insurance away! People from the heartland won’t like this!

Let’s think for a moment of what would be taken away. I have one of those insurance policies people like McCaskill and Scarborough think so highly of. (I’m sure they have nothing like it, by the way.) My plan is what used to be termed a “Cadillac plan”, not because the benefits are so generous but because my employer pays 80% of my premiums. Even so, the plan costs me thousands of dollars a year even when things don’t go wrong. What M4A would take away from me are co-pays, which are considerable, and a $3,600 deductible, plus additional costs associated with out-of-network providers. Would I pay more in taxes than I do currently? Possibly, but when we’re sick, we can go to the doctor, to the hospital, to urgent care, and not even think about cost. That’s a level of liberation I have never experienced.

It’s not hard to work out why shows like Morning Joe make such a determined effort to scuttle any attempt at bringing about M4A. Just look at their advertisers. No, not the military contractor ads – they’re mainly shooting at a more specific target (i.e. lawmakers and congressional staffers). The drug companies, the hospital groups, the medical device manufacturers, and of course, the big insurance firms. They are dropping a lot of coin on advertising and lobbying, as always, but if either Bernie or Warren gets anywhere near the White House, you can bet they will be directing their ample coffers to a concerted comm strategy to kill M4A before it is even drafted. That strategy will include targeted ads, but it will also involve appearances on talk shows, columns, video news releases and inserts on local TV news broadcasts – you name it. We saw some of this during the Obamacare fight. This will be much, much more determined.

I don’t say this to discourage anyone on the left from fighting for M4A. Quite the opposite – with the forces arrayed against us, we are going to need a sustained effort like nothing any of us has experienced before. It’s a fight worth having, so please … be ready both before and after election day.

luv u,

jp

Heavy lift.

I want to open this week with a message to my fellow leftists. I know, some of you right now are probably saying, “Okay, boomer … “, but hear me out. For the more deeply committed among you, the upcoming presidential race is probably not the most important item on the agenda, but for those who plan on participating in the Democratic party primaries and caucuses, I have one modest caution: Don’t rip a new asshole into every candidate other than Bernie (whom I personally support). Many of us who are participating in electoral politics want Bernie to win, but that goal is in the hands of the voters. If we out-organize and out-vote all of the other candidates, we can win … but losing is a possibility, and given that eventuality we would still need to beat Trump in November … regardless of who wins the Democratic party nomination for president.

It's going to take all of us

The fact is, achieving top policy priorities like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal will be tremendously difficult no matter who the next Democratic president turns out to be. Obviously, Bernie Sanders is the best choice, in that we can be confident that we won’t have to convince the president to push for them. This is true of Warren to a lesser extent. But even with a reliable progressive / socialist like Bernie in the White House, M4A and the GND will demand massive organizing and activism outside of government, as well as more progressives in both the Senate and the House. All of that amounts to a heavy lift, and the difference a progressive president would make would be significant but not sufficient in and of itself.

In other words, there is no universe in which we can elect Bernie on a Tuesday in November and have him deliver M4A, for instance, sometime over the following year, all by himself. We need to build momentum for this and other progressive policies now and throughout next year, and when we defeat Trump with whatever candidate gets the most primary votes, we will need to push even harder and keep our eye on the ball. The presidential component of this project, while important, is relatively minor; no Democratic president can pass such sweeping legislation without a movement behind him or her. We will be opposed in all progressive proposals by the richest, most powerful institutions in the world, so it’s going to be a fight no matter who wins.

If we work extremely hard, we will get the nominee – Sanders – that we want and need. And then the real work begins.

luv u,

jp

The utility of experts.

I haven’t been following the Democratic primary contest very much on this blog, as it receives so much coverage elsewhere it seems massively redundant for me to comment on it as well. When it becomes a substantive policy discussion, however, it certainly warrants comment. When Elizabeth Warren released the explanatory document on her version of Medicare for All (M4A), it was greeted with derision by supporters of the more “moderate” candidates. Morning Joe, of course, rolled out their resident fiscal policy expert Steve Rattner, who deployed a series of charts and graphs that demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt the very thing that the recent George Mason University study made clear: health care in America is expensive.

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

Rattner used a pie chart to show what portions of total health care cost would be picked up by M4A, then a line graph to illustrate how much higher federal spending would be if such a plan were implemented. He was attempting to make the point that the federal government would have to spend a third again as much as it currently does, and that …. shudder …. that’s a lot! What of course neither he nor his Morning Joe colleagues mentioned was that this money is being spent by us anyway … and that the current result is more than 80 million people uninsured or under-insured, half a million medical bankruptcies a year, and assorted other disasters. In other words, the current system is a massively costly failure.

M4A, on the other hand, would cover everyone. It would eliminate much of the cost to families and individuals, and decouple health care from employment. There would be no more medical bankruptcies, and (icing on the cake) it would cost less than what we’re currently collectively spending. With the right funding plan, it would cost individuals below a certain income level less than what they’re paying now. We can disagree over how that will play out, but M4A is the only way to ensure that health care is a right, not a privilege. When I hear the middling candidates so beloved of Morning Joe complain about single payer, it reminds me that none of them ever had to deal with inadequate health coverage. I have, and it’s a massive pain in the ass. Even the so-called good plans that people supposedly love so much are massively complicated and involve all kinds of hidden expenses.

This fight for M4A won’t be easy. We need to be ready for it.

luv u,

jp

Issues and non-answers.

A little more off the top of my head. One of these weeks I’m going to take some pains over this posting, but… not this time.

Don’t worry, Kyoto. Canada’s pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol (can you say “tar sands”?) and Durban was a bust. What’s it going to take, people? We had massive tornadic storms this past year. We don’t have the luxury of another decade of inaction and ignorance.  

See you in health. One of the issues that comes up in our perennial presidential campaign is that of health insurance, mostly in the context of so-called “Obama Care”. What doesn’t get discussed so much is, well, the only possible positive solution to the current situation, which is bankrupting individuals, bleeding businesses dry, and threatening to drown the government in red ink. The only constituency the current health insurance system benefits is private health insurers. Seems like we, as a nation, sacrifice a great deal to preserve their profitability. That has got to end. We need a national health insurance system – basically universal Medicare with some enhancements – that covers everybody.

When GOP strategist Ed Gillespie was on the Daily Show the other day, he seemed to suggest that he didn’t have a problem with the notion of insurance exchanges or the idea that veterans, for instance, should have government coverage because they deserve the best. And yet his – and I think most Republicans’ – solution to the ongoing health crisis is to throw everyone into the private market. I can tell you from experience – that is not a good place to be unless you’re very young, very healthy, and can afford very steep premiums. And the employer based system isn’t working either, partly because it’s based on the pool of employees covered by the plan. If there are a lot of illnesses in a given year, that sends the premiums through the roof. The only way to control costs is to a) get everyone in the freaking country into the same pool, and b) cut the profit out of it entirely so that, as with Medicare, practically all of the money goes to patient care. 

Private, employer-based health insurance is an anachronism that should go the way of the typewriter. It was designed for an age of close to full employment, when companies needed to incentivize people to come to work for them. If the GOP wants to reduce “uncertainty” for their friends in business, they might consider making it possible for them to get out of the health insurance business altogether. The only reasonable way to do that is through a national health plan administered by the federal government.

War’s end. The Iraq war is coming to a close, at least with respect to American troops (though many contractors remain). Of course, there are those amongst us who consider withdrawal a mistake, such as Cheney, McCain, and nearly all of the GOP presidential candidates. I know – who cares what Cheney thinks, right? Has a man ever been more consistently wrong (or despised) than he? Still, I don’t think we should be too dismissive of their views. If Cheney, McCain, Lindsey Graham, Michelle Bachman, and other foreign policy super-geniuses want us to stay in Iraq, we should ship them over there. Good place for them. And they can stay as long as they want.

Of course, we could never really allow that to happen. I mean, haven’t the Iraqi people have suffered enough?

luv u,

jp

Do or die.

Short takes again. Damn, I’m lazy! Lie down, dog, you are tired.

Bread heel. We’re always told that it’s better to settle for half a loaf than no bread at all. Well, that may work for bread. I’m not so sure about anything else. I mean, if you need a car, and you ask your spouse to go out and find one for you, and s/he comes back with one axle, a steering wheel, three tires, and a seized engine, you still are not going anywhere. Same deal, it seems to me, with health care. For all the cautionary comments about “not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good,” we really do not have a whole car here, so far as I can see. For one thing, they stripped out the most popular provisions, namely, the public option and Medicare expansion – features that would benefit people immediately, save money, and make for a much more reasonable system.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m for single payer, always have been, always will be. It’s the only thing that makes sense in an enormous, complex society such as ours, contrary to what many have tried to suggest (i.e. that our nation’s complexity somehow makes a Medicare for all type system impractical – it most assuredly doesn’t). But if they can pass an insurance reform bill that provides access to a Medicare-like option (or Medicare itself) to anyone who can’t get decent coverage in the private market, that’s a good first step. Why the hell can’t people have that choice?

Well, let me tell you why. Because too many people would opt for it. That doesn’t work for the money-drenched cretins that the insurance companies have sent to Washington to represent us. I’m afraid I have to include my own congressman, Michael Arcuri, in that number. He has thrown up his hands on health care, and while I wouldn’t blame him for not supporting the Senate bill, he should join with progressives in trying to pass some reasonable version that has a strong public option. They put the scare into him, and the insurance lobby is buying lots of T.V. time in our market telling people to call Arcuri and have him vote against the bill (which, ironically, he has already said he will do).  Don’t just sit there and vote no, Mike – pull together with some of your colleagues and make it better.

Did I say short takes? Maybe I was thinking “shortcakes” – am getting a bit hungry, as well as tired. Oh, well… Here’s my pitch. Call your congressmember and senators and tell them to support a strong public option if they’re going to support the health bill. There were plenty of people who supported it last year when 60 votes were needed in the Senate – they should be able to get 51 now, if people find their spines.

Work the phones. I’m going to bed, damnit.

luv u,

jp