And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[André]

Actually taxes would have to be raised on everyone. Bernie does it with a new federal sales tax and a wealth tax, both of which are problematic in and of themselves. The idea of no premiums and no deductibles can be thought of as campaign promises only the credulous think will come to pass.  But the main problem is that MfA will have to offer lower levels of coverage and lower reimbusements to providers (doctors, hospitals, etc), so people will often find themselves with worse health care than they have now.

The other 200 million would be seniors (now covered by Medicaid) and the poor (mostly covered by Medicaid), two government run insurance systems that might be textbook examples of badly managed, chronically underfunded programs.

So 300 million Americans get some level of coverage, from basic (sometimes inadequate) to comprehensive, and 30 millions get...what?

The Treasury is 1 trillion$ short every year to pay the groceries. How much extra would be needed to provide coverage to 9% of the population? Can't the budget be reapportioned to eventually provide at least basic coverage for all?

In Canada the government is running record deficits (20b$ in USD, or 200b$ relative to the US economy) which will have to be repaid some day. And yet, our medicare system provides no dental, eye or drug coverage (with some exceptions). France is up in arms over a proposed overhaul of unfair, antiquated pension plans, whereas 'special retirement' is available to about half of the workers, while the rest fend for a meager pension. Of course those who will lose some money cry bloody murder. The country is paralyzed by transportation strikes.

Health care and minimum retirement income are two essentials for any modern, advanced country. Unfairness seems to be not just inbred, but seen as an entitlement by those who are on the 'good' side of the scale. Surely some sort of fiscal soundness, economic well-being and social fairness for all would be desirable.

[JBS]

So 300 million Americans get some level of coverage, from basic (sometimes inadequate) to comprehensive, and 30 millions get...what?

The Treasury is 1 trillion$ short every year to pay the groceries. How much extra would be needed to provide coverage to 9% of the population? Can't the budget be reapportioned to eventually provide at least basic coverage for all?

In Canada the government is running record deficits (20b$ in USD, or 200b$ relative to the US economy) which will have to be repaid some day. And yet, our medicare system provides no dental, eye or drug coverage (with some exceptions). France is up in arms over a proposed overhaul of unfair, antiquated pension plans, whereas 'special retirement' is available to about half of the workers, while the rest fend for a meager pension. Of course those who will lose some money cry bloody murder. The country is paralyzed by transportation strikes.

Health care and minimum retirement income are two essentials for any modern, advanced country. Unfairness seems to be not just inbred, but seen as an entitlement by those who are on the 'good' side of the scale. Surely some sort of fiscal soundness, economic well-being and social fairness for all would be desirable.

The 30 million get bupkis at the moment.  Not only is the money not there to cover them, it's not there to give proper funding to Medicare and Medicaid. One of Obamacare's major flaws is that it simply shifts a major portion of the costs onto the states via expanded Medicaid, and leaves the burden of funding all that to the states.  And Social Security is not properly funded, and an aging failing infrastructure that in some instances dates back 100 years or more needs renovating.  But we apparently need a war with Iran more than we need any of that.

[André]

The 30 million get bupkis at the moment.  Not only is the money not there to cover them, it's not there to give proper funding to Medicare and Medicaid. One of Obamacare's major flaws is that it simply shifts a major portion of the costs onto the states via expanded Medicaid, and leaves the burden of funding all that to the states.  And Social Security is not properly funded, and an aging failing infrastructure that in some instances dates back 100 years or more needs renovating.  But we apparently need a war with Iran more than we need any of that.

A fair and honest assessment. Our governments' priorities are not a little responsible for the mess (name your country) is in 

[71 dB]

Not only is the money not there to cover them,

When Trump wants 80 billion increase for military budget the money IS there.
When Wall Streets need to be bailed out the money IS there.
When the rich want a tax cut the money IS there.
:
When the regular people wants something, sorry no money!

It's about political priorities when there is money to cover things and what things. Change the priorities (elect Bernie/progressives) and there's money for different things that before such as healthcare and education. Pretty important and fundamental things if you ask me.

[71 dB]

I will be very blunt.
You are merely channelling propaganda for some very bad policy ideas.

Funny how these "bad ideas" have been successful elsewhere. Why exactly is single payer healthcare a bad idea? If that is bad, then for profit healthcare must be REALLY BAD, because it doeasn't even cover everyone and costs 2 times more.

You can see this as lefty propaganda, but it's just about trying to make the world a better place. If the US was more social democratic the regular people wouldn't be so desperate to elect presidents like Trump.

I've pointed out instances where your sources distort and even outright lie, but they seem to sail right past your head.

You haven't demonstrated that convincingly. My sources have no reason to lie or distort facts. If they do that it's a human error and they are willing to admit and correct the mistake. Their errors are miniscule compared to corporate media which does smear the facts on purpose on daily basis.

You are impressed by all the small donors Sanders get. Did you ever look into the rankings for PAC donations? He does pretty well with them, according to something I saw yesterday.

I have not, but I know Bernie gets union money. That's least harmful and corrupting.

OpenSecrets tells this:

Small Individual Contributions (< $200)    $42,692,961    57.83%
Large Individual Contributions    $18,763,550    25.42%
Other    $12,361,455    16.74%
PAC Contributions*    $5,029    0.00%
Candidate self-financing    $0    0.00%

Medicare For All won't do what it promises.  That's reality.

Who told you that? The problem isn't that Medicare For All won't do what it promises. The problem is getting it implemented in the first place. The rich who benefit from the current mafia system will oppose it fiercely and you are an useful idiot for them.

[SimonNZ]

You haven't demonstrated that convincingly. My sources have no reason to lie or distort facts. If they do that it's a human error and they are willing to admit and correct the mistake. Their errors are miniscule compared to corporate media which does smear the facts on purpose on daily basis.
I have not, but I know Bernie gets union money. That's least harmful and corrupting.

A near hysterical and permanently outraged posture and clickbait headlines attracts more viewers - and advertising dollars - than a calm presentation of data and research.

Please give one example of when your sources admitted they were wrong.

[Karl Henning]

A hysterical and permanently outraged posture attracts more viewers - and advertising dollars - than a calm presentation of data and research.

Please give one example of when your sources admitted they were wrong.

Heck, or when he's admitted he's wrong ....

[71 dB]

Progressives need to compete with corporate media which gets corporate money, a lot of it. So progressive uses clickbait headlines etc. to gain attention. It's not something I love, but what can you do? It's an asymmetric war when one side has the money and the other side can tell the truth.

Please give one example of when your sources admitted they were wrong.

Kyle Kulinski (and some other progressives) thought Kamala Harris will be one of the strongest corporate candidates and in the beginning she was (because she appeared as a progressive and people didn't know her well), but then her campaign imploded (Tulsi Gabbard sank her in the debates, she became less progressive etc.) and we all know what happened. Kyle Kulinski has admitted being wrong about Kamala Harris.

[JBS]

Progressives need to compete with corporate media which gets corporate money, a lot of it. So progressive uses clickbait headlines etc. to gain attention. It's not something I love, but what can you do? It's an asymmetric war when one side has the money and the other side can tell the truth.

Kyle Kulinski (and some other progressives) thought Kamala Harris will be one of the strongest corporate candidates and in the beginning she was (because she appeared as a progressive and people didn't know her well), but then her campaign imploded (Tulsi Gabbard sank her in the debates, she became less progressive etc.) and we all know what happened. Kyle Kulinski has admitted being wrong about Kamala Harris.

Admitting a prediction did not come to pass is not admitting a mistake on one's facts.

As an example, my reference to Bernie's contributions from PACs was based on a mistake in facts. The figure I saw included the money he transferred over from his 2016 campaign fund, and was not merely contributions for the 2020 campaign. So his PAC contributions were much less than I thought they were.

[JBS]

Funny how these "bad ideas" have been successful elsewhere. Why exactly is single payer healthcare a bad idea? If that is bad, then for profit healthcare must be REALLY BAD, because it doeasn't even cover everyone and costs 2 times more.

Single payer health care merely replaces money administered by insurance company bureaucrats with money administered by government bureaucrats under the limits of budgets imposed by politicians.  That in itself should explain why it's a bad idea.  Your own country exhibits some of the problems that come up when you depend on politicians to do the right thing.

And remember it's possible to cover everyone without going all the way to single payer. Several instances exist in Europe.

You can see this as lefty propaganda, but it's just about trying to make the world a better place. If the US was more social democratic the regular people wouldn't be so desperate to elect presidents like Trump.

Much of that desperation comes from the result of living with decades of lefty programs that didn't work nearly as well as promised, and bring other problems in their wake.The whole problem of student debt is one such situation.

You haven't demonstrated that convincingly. My sources have no reason to lie or distort facts. If they do that it's a human error and they are willing to admit and correct the mistake. Their errors are miniscule compared to corporate media which does smear the facts on purpose on daily basis.

Actually, every time I demonstrate their distortions and lies you yell that I'm a useful idiot channelling corporate propaganda.  Perhaps you are yourself  a useful idiot! The Young Turks are propagandists who distort and lie just as much as any other group of propagandists. Just because they advocate ideas you agree with does not give them any extra integrity.

Who told you that? The problem isn't that Medicare For All won't do what it promises. The problem is getting it implemented in the first place. The rich who benefit from the current mafia system will oppose it fiercely and you are an useful idiot for them.

The problem is the 30 million people without insurance and health care access. Medicare for All will get them (barely) minimal care at the price of forcing everyone else to also get (barely) minimal care.  Which means it's not a good solution.

[71 dB]

Medicare for All will get them (barely) minimal care at the price of forcing everyone else to also get (barely) minimal care.  Which means it's not a good solution.

I believe Medicare is the most popular healthcare program in the US, am I mistaken?
Maybe you think Medicare is (barely) minimal care, but if you read Bernies Bill, you'd know by now it EXPANDS from Medicare: IT IS BETTER than Medicare, in fact better than most people have right now!

Anyway, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

[JBS]

I believe Medicare is the most popular healthcare program in the US, am I mistaken?
Maybe you think Medicare is (barely) minimal care, but if you read Bernies Bill, you'd know by now it EXPANDS from Medicare: IT IS BETTER than Medicare, in fact better than most people have right now!

Anyway, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

Medicare covers everyone over 65, so it undoubtedly  is the biggest. But it is far from "favorite", and as a practical matter requires private insurance to supplement the necessities and costs it doesn't cover.

Since Bernie's bill has no realistic chance of becoming law, what it says is simply public relations. Campaign literature. His promises amount to saying that you can see any doctor you want, have care provided by any hospital or facility you want, have any procedure you want, and the federal government will pay for it. Of course he says nothing about how long you will wait to see that doctor or get that procedure done, or how much the doctors and hospitals will get paid.

Saying Medicare for All will be better than Medicare for seniors is campaign fluff, in the league of Trump's easy to win trade wars and big beautiful wall paid for by Mexico.

[71 dB]

Medicare covers everyone over 65, so it undoubtedly  is the biggest. But it is far from "favorite", and as a practical matter requires private insurance to supplement the necessities and costs it doesn't cover.

Since Bernie's bill has no realistic chance of becoming law, what it says is simply public relations. Campaign literature. His promises amount to saying that you can see any doctor you want, have care provided by any hospital or facility you want, have any procedure you want, and the federal government will pay for it. Of course he says nothing about how long you will wait to see that doctor or get that procedure done, or how much the doctors and hospitals will get paid.

Saying Medicare for All will be better than Medicare for seniors is campaign fluff, in the league of Trump's easy to win trade wars and big beautiful wall paid for by Mexico.

Care is rationed in every country. In the US it is rationed based on the size of your wallet. Elsewhere it is rationed based on your need, how serious/acute your illness is. The talk about waiting times is corporate propaganda.

[JBS]

Care is rationed in every country. In the US it is rationed based on the size of your wallet. Elsewhere it is rationed based on your need, how serious/acute your illness is. The talk about waiting times is corporate propaganda.

In single payer systems, it's rationed by the government budget, and what a government bureaucrat thinks "need" is.

Your continued insistence that any facts that don't agree with your biases are simply corporate propaganda says more about you than it does about the facts.

This is from a progressive writer who titles his article "Debunking Republican Myths".  Is he merely reciting corporate propaganda?

Now that we've looked at wait-time data in several different areas, let's see if we can draw some sort of a general conclusion about how certain countries or healthcare systems perform.

The United States has the shortest wait times in two of the four areas: specialist visits and elective surgery. In the other two areas, however—ER visits and regular doctor visits—the United States is outperformed by mixed systems. In the two areas where the United States does best, France, Germany and the Netherlands, with their mixed systems, don't trail too far behind.

The general conclusion we can reach about the United States is that it's not quite as exceptional as right-wingers would lead you to believe: in two areas, it does best, and in the other two areas, it does average. So we can say that the United States is above average in this area—that is to say, it has below average wait times.

How do the public healthcare systems perform? In all four cases, public systems, on average, were outperformed by the United States: in two cases—specialist visits and elective surgery—they were outperformed significantly, and in the other two cases—ER and doctor visits—they were only slightly outperformed.

Finally, the mixed systems, on average, had shorter wait times than the United States in two areas—doctor and ER visits—and longer wait times than the US in the two other areas—non-emergency surgery and specialist visits. And in all four cases, the mixed systems had shorter wait times than the public systems.

To summarize the general conclusions even more briefly, the United States and mixed systems have similar wait times, and public systems have the longest wait times. Obviously wait times are only one component of a healthcare system's quality, but now you and I finally know where the different countries and systems stand in relation to one another in this particular area.

https://askepticalhuman.com/politics/2018/9/10/debunking-right-wing-healthcare-myths-wait-times-rationing

[71 dB]

In single payer systems, it's rationed by the government budget, and what a government bureaucrat thinks "need" is.

Your continued insistence that any facts that don't agree with your biases are simply corporate propaganda says more about you than it does about the facts.

This is from a progressive writer who titles his article "Debunking Republican Myths".  Is he merely reciting corporate propaganda?

https://askepticalhuman.com/politics/2018/9/10/debunking-right-wing-healthcare-myths-wait-times-rationing

Why do insurance companies spend millions for tv adds smearing medicare for all?
Done!

[Karl Henning]

Why do insurance companies spend millions for tv adds smearing medicare for all?
Done!

A single line of bullshit, and a skulking withdrawal. You are one blinkered piece of work.

"insurance companies spend millions for tv adds smearing medicare for all," do they? Where, in Finland? I've never seen one.

So show us one of these TV ads. Just one.   Do take your time.

[JBS]

Why do insurance companies spend millions for tv adds smearing medicare for all?
Done!

What ads are you talking about?

I have yet to see a single TV ad advocating against medicare for all.  In fact, the only ads I have seen are those by Democratic candidates promoting one or another version of  health care reform, and ads from unidentifiable groups wanting to pressure Congress to increase funding for Medicare.

[JBS]

Ah, I see....

He's taking this video seriously
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNGqq6jU8Tk

Notice that the speaker says he is assuming that "One Nation" is funded by insurance companies, even though there is no publicly available information on its sources of money.

And his claims about wait times are not matched by the data.  (And I suspect if his father had to wait for months for heart surgery, he didn't need it very badly.  My father had a heart attack on a Monday, and got a triple bypass on Wednesday.)

And if you do a youtube search for such ads, you get this list
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=political+ads+about+medicare+for+all

The only GOP related videos are two from the Heritage Foundation,, the most recent of which dates from nine months ago, and an interview on Yahoo Finance by a CEO saying MfA would "collapse the system".
The One Nation video--which I have never seen, or heard of before today--does not seem to appear on the list.  (In fact, I've never heard of "One Nation" before today.)

[North Star]

Big Pharma, insurers, hospitals team up to kill Medicare for All

Pharmaceutical manufacturers and health insurance companies don't agree on much these days. As Congress introduces bills to address rising drug prices, insurers and pharmacy benefit managers are engaged in a lobbying and public relations war with drugmakers over who is to blame.
But the giants of the healthcare industry agree on one thing: Medicare for All cannot become law.
Partnership for America's Health Care Future (PAHCF), a group comprised of major drugmakers, insurance companies and private hospitals, has spent the last several months lobbying members of Congress, running online ads and working with the media to drive down popularity of Medicare for All, a single-payer health platform that continues to gain popularity in the Democratic party.
The partnership includes some of the biggest names in the healthcare industry, including the American Medical Association (AMA), Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Federation of American Hospitals (FAH) and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
All told, the members of the partnership have a lot of money and influence to spend on Capitol Hill. They spent a combined $143 million lobbying in 2018 alone, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

...

"When you point a gun at somebody and say 'we're gonna kill you,' don't be surprised when they fight like it's life or death," McDonough said. "The ACA was not life or death for the insurance industry. Medicare for All is a death notice for a large chunk of the U.S. healthcare industry and they know it."
An insurance industry insider told The Hill in 2018 that the group had originally planned to stop Medicare for All from becoming a litmus test for Democrats in 2020. The Intercept obtained an internal document noting its lobbyists were successful in getting congressional Democratic candidates to adopt the partnership's "moderate" position on health care such as improving the Affordable Care Act.

...

PAHCF recently launched efforts to get the public on their side. The group has spent at least $80,594 on Facebook ads since it released its first ads in late January and at least $13,000 on Twitter ads.
According to Twitter's ad transparency database, the partnership is using FP1 Strategies, an Arlington, Virginia consultant that took in $18 million from conservative groups in 2018, to place at least some of its ads.
Though it might be best known for producing ads that helped take down Democrat Randy Bryce in the 2018 Wisconsin 1st District race, FP1 has delved into the healthcare world before.
Among FP1's 2018 clients was New Yorkers for Excellent Health Care, a new super PAC funded by Greater New York Hospital Association management that spent $341,093 in support of former Rep. Dan Donovan (R-N.Y.). The firm also notes it helped the Consumer Healthcare Products Association defeat legislation to require prescriptions for certain medications.
PAHCF isn't the only group working to defeat Medicare for All — its allies began their campaigns long ago and will continue to do so. America's Health Insurance Plans, for example, announced a six-figure ad campaign in June 2018 to spotlight millions of Americans covered by employer-provided health coverage. PAHCF has repeated similar numbers in its public relations push.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851013001759

Fifteen of the 23 countries included in the study monitor and publish national waiting time statistics. The 15 were Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. All those countries also have some form of national waiting time guarantee

It cannot be concluded that if a country does not monitor waiting time that waiting times are not a problem. In countries where waiting times are not registered and reported, accessibility may still be an issue. France's lack of national monitoring is often cited as evidence that the country has no waiting time problems. However, the large regional differences in terms of services provided and number of doctors have led to inequities in access [38]. Greece suffers from long waiting times, and informal payments to "jump the queue" are common [50]. In Germany the debate has revolved around the fact that people who are privately insured have faster access to health care [30], [31], [51]. In Austria, researchers have found that privately insured patients have faster access and they have refuted the notion that the country has no waiting times [52]. In the United States, access to care also varies with socioeconomic status and geographic area [53].

Sweden has repeatedly been mentioned as a country with relatively long waiting times [10], [18], but this cannot be confirmed, as it is not possible to compare to other countries using official national statistics.

[Karl Henning]

Big Pharma, insurers, hospitals team up to kill Medicare for All

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851013001759

Thanks, Karlo. My two notes are: $80,594 is not (quoth Poju) "millions."

And Facebook ads basically feed the confirmation-bias crowd.