• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top Nancy Pelosi Aide Privately Tells Insurance Executives Not To Worry About Democrats Pushing MFA

Except that's not the case, (I mean, asking someone if they're in support of MFA without any qualifiers is not 'lying') and you haven't really proven anything. We don't for example have poll results that demonstrate support levels when both arguments for and against are provided to the same taker (just one or the other).

I further just provided a poll where baseline support was 54% after assuming tax increases, nevermind the abnormally low baseline support of the Kaiser poll vs every other poll currently out there.

I provided a poll that said you were wrong and when you tell people the truth it drops to 30% or so.
why are you so against telling people the truth?

ol yea because you can't pass your fantasy healthcare without lying to people.

ol you won't have to spend a dime. just ignore that 30-40% increase in your payroll tax.
ol yea by the way medicare doesn't cover everything so you need a suppliment insurance plan to cover the stuff that medicare doesn't.
those plans will cost you an extra 200-300 a month.

Your doctor that you have been with for the past 20 years? ol yea he doesn't accept it because well he isn't going to work for 40% less.
the hospital might take it.

get out of your pie in the sky view and you find people don't want to be worse off.

ol yea if you can see your doctor he will see you next year.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/02/nhs-hospitals-ordered-cancel-routine-operations-january/
cheers for medicare for all.
 
Last edited:
I provided a poll that said you were wrong and when you tell people the truth it drops to 30% or so.
why are you so against telling people the truth?

ol yea because you can't pass your fantasy healthcare without lying to people.

You provided a poll that, after establishing whether the taker supports or opposes MFA, then presents either an argument for or against it.

It does not gauge support after exposure to both arguments which would be the best way of measuring true support; assuming of course you can control for how each argument is presented. Moreover, the Kaiser baseline support, before presentation of arguments for or against, is just above 50% contrasting starkly with the ~70% levels featured by just about every other contemporary poll on the matter within the past year; i.e. it is an outlier. There is a reason any serious political analyst leans on aggregate polls rather than individual polling. If you were to average baseline support, then apply the modifiers featured here, that both add and subtract support, you would see that the majority supports MFA.

In your fantasy world however, apparently only arguments that stand against MFA count, and arguments for it are 'lies', so I suppose you would simply discard any such analysis off-hand.

ol you won't have to spend a dime. just ignore that 30-40% increase in your payroll tax.
ol yea by the way medicare doesn't cover everything so you need a suppliment insurance plan to cover the stuff that medicare doesn't.
those plans will cost you an extra 200-300 a month.

Actually, every version of MFA I'm aware of is comprehensive to the point that no supplemental coverage is required. Again, in Canada as an example, supplemental covers only niche things like glasses, dental, cosmetic surgery and certain prescriptions. Aside from facelifts and the like (obviously) current MFA proposals address these gaps as well. Thus, private supplemental health insurance still exists in Canada, but it is A: not necessary, and B: the coverage is marginal. In the case of MFA, the market for this would be even smaller per capita, and said coverage even less compelling due to the superiority of MFA coverage vs Canadian SP.

Moreover there are many ways to raise taxes for MFA; not all of the burden has to fall upon payroll, nor have I heard of any plan that purports to distribute tax burden in this way. That said, again, there is polling that explicitly features majority support, even assuming tax increases; since you apparently missed it: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/cnn-poll-healthcare-taxes/index.html

Your doctor that you have been with for the past 20 years? ol yea he doesn't accept it because well he isn't going to work for 40% less.
the hospital might take it.

Again, MFA purports to dramatically lower the cost of all inputs to the healthcare system, which includes education/training and the cost of supplies for private practices; two major financial pressures which demand high doctor salaries, thus helping to offset any salary haircut (which is not going to be nearly as high as 40%).

get out of your pie in the sky view and you find people don't want to be worse off.

ol yea if you can see your doctor he will see you next year.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/02/nhs-hospitals-ordered-cancel-routine-operations-january/
cheers for medicare for all.

You'll have to provide a better example of the failings of SP than a surge during flu season in the midst of one of the worst austerity programmes that has ever faced the NHS per a Conservative party that wants to systemically dismantle and privatize it. As mentioned, you'll want to provide evidence of systemic failings relative to US healthcare.

But sure, if you want to talk about 'being worse off', allow me to counterpoint:

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...e-health-care-among-comparable-oecd-countries

https://www.iflscience.com/health-a...ry-global-ranking-nations-healthcare-systems/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30994-2/fulltext

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...7-international-comparison-reflects-flaws-and

Wow, that sure is worth paying 2.5x as much as the rest of the OECD per capita; really getting our bang for the buck there; these also show that countries with SP/UHC systems, including the UK typically have better doctor appointment wait times, while the US has the highest rate of deaths amenable to health care, etc, and consistently features one of the lowest performing health care systems among wealthy countries.
 
Last edited:
I anticipated and expected nothing less from a career donor courtesan like Pelosi who spends more time on her knees courting monied interests (and perversely insisting that this qualifies her to lead the House) than legislating and getting the business of the country done.

Hard to figure out why Bernie Bros are widely regarded as gross and sexist.

Anyway, looks like someone got hold of a deck that:

  1. Asserts Dem commitment to universal coverage (that's good!)
  2. Envisions advancing last session's 5155 and related legislation to expand and improve coverage, not to mention mapping out critical state-level steps to protect Medicaid and the ACA (that's good!)
  3. Contemplates fixing traditional Medicare's benefit design (that's good!)
  4. Identifies several key policy issues that have pretty wide support to tackle, from prescription drug pricing to surprise medical billing (that's good!)
  5. Acknowledges that single-payer (1) has costs associated with it, (2) creates winners and losers, engendering organized stakeholder opposition, and (3) poses significant implementation challenges (all true!)

Scandal of the century.
 
I will start Medicare in about a week, which will cost me about $1,600/year. What I have now is no insurance and pay $350 to $400/year cash for my medical care at Austin Regional Clinic in Kyle, TX.

That's because you're probably still healthy.
 
That's because you're probably still healthy.

Not in too bad of shape for age 64. After 2020, when Medicare For All passes, then I get covered automagically and can rely on having free medical care of the highest quality.
 
Not in too bad of shape for age 64. After 2020, when Medicare For All passes, then I get covered automagically and can rely on having free medical care of the highest quality.

You keep repeating that word. Why?
All medical coverage costs one way or the other, either through purchase of private sector premiums from profit driven insurance companies or through taxes paid into a fund, or some combination of several systems tiered or not, with an overlay of private sector, or not, profit oriented operating alongside nonprofit, or not.
Every country that operates any kind of public health care has pursued research into how it could be best implemented in their own country.
Clearly, any effort here will require the same level of research, and what we wind up hammering out may not be identical to any other system.
But it won't be "free", nor has anybody ever said it would be.

Everybody, or nearly everybody, who runs around talking about so called "free stuff" knows that the phrase is nonsense, and they know that no one on the left has ever promoted the thought that anything is free.
So, you surely cannot be so ignorant.
The joke is weak and tired, so how about you knock it off if you want to talk seriously about the subject.
 
You keep repeating that word. Why?
All medical coverage costs one way or the other, either through purchase of private sector premiums from profit driven insurance companies or through taxes paid into a fund, or some combination of several systems tiered or not, with an overlay of private sector, or not, profit oriented operating alongside nonprofit, or not.
Every country that operates any kind of public health care has pursued research into how it could be best implemented in their own country.
Clearly, any effort here will require the same level of research, and what we wind up hammering out may not be identical to any other system.
But it won't be "free", nor has anybody ever said it would be.

Everybody, or nearly everybody, who runs around talking about so called "free stuff" knows that the phrase is nonsense, and they know that no one on the left has ever promoted the thought that anything is free.
So, you surely cannot be so ignorant.
The joke is weak and tired, so how about you knock it off if you want to talk seriously about the subject.

Yep, reality will likely continue to exist, but with wondrous bills like this then utopia may be right around the corner.

This bill establishes the Medicare for All Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676
 
Hard to figure out why Bernie Bros are widely regarded as gross and sexist.

If she were a man, I wouldn't hesitate to use similar language. A prostitute is a prostitute regardless of gender; try again.

Besides, Bernie's supporters now consist more of women and minorities than men; the 'Bernie Bros' smear was so 2016: https://boingboing.net/2018/01/22/a-future-to-believe-in.html

Anyway, looks like someone got hold of a deck that:

  1. Asserts Dem commitment to universal coverage (that's good!)
  2. Envisions advancing last session's 5155 and related legislation to expand and improve coverage, not to mention mapping out critical state-level steps to protect Medicaid and the ACA (that's good!)
  3. Contemplates fixing traditional Medicare's benefit design (that's good!)
  4. Identifies several key policy issues that have pretty wide support to tackle, from prescription drug pricing to surprise medical billing (that's good!)
  5. Acknowledges that single-payer (1) has costs associated with it, (2) creates winners and losers, engendering organized stakeholder opposition, and (3) poses significant implementation challenges (all true!)

Scandal of the century.

Your typically disingenuous sugar coating aside, the whole bit where Wendell Primus said that the Democrats would be 'allies to the insurance industry in the fight against single-payer healthcare' isn't a scandal to you? How he told them 'not to worry about' MFA? The ridiculous inversion of roles as he took up the mantle of lobbyist against MFA in preaching to the choir every excuse he could muster against it, essentially trash talking the movement in order to reassure a nervous industry to keep their donor dolleros coming, going starkly against the overwhelming majoritarian opinion of his own party, as though the collective views of rank and file Democrats meant nothing?

I understand you think private insurers making bank at the expense of Americans is awesome and should continue pretty much indefinitely, but you could stand to be a bit less transparent about it... or just fess up and say that's where you're at.

I personally wouldn't mind nearly as much if Pelosi and her cronies were just frank about their position that she's with health insurers, she vehemently opposes MFA, and feels that their industry should be preserved at the cost of MFA and other similar legislation primarily because they're such great donors to Democratic coffers. Sure there'll be a steep political price to pay, and the backlash would likely be immense, but that's exactly what they deserve.
 
Last edited:
And what is your point? You pretending that a bill like that will move through any legislative body, even possibly a Democratic supermajority in both chambers, with no alterations and no discussion or hearings?

I'm far from the only one doing such pretending (H.R. 676 has 124 cosponsors) - the 2020 POTUS race is already underway and all manner of utopian plans are being offered as campaign "promises" by extremely trustworthy demorats. I already have my first "free" appointment scheduled under Medicare at the clinic.
 
Your typically disingenuous sugar coating aside, the whole bit where Wendell Primus said that the Democrats would be 'allies to the insurance industry in the fight against single-payer healthcare' isn't a scandal to you?

That's not a quote from Pelosi's camp, that's the usual over-the-top rhetoric used by the Intercept in the opinion pieces they pretend are journalism. Talk about disingenuous.

The ridiculous inversion of roles as he took up the mantle of lobbyist against MFA in preaching to the choir every excuse he could muster against it, essentially trash talking the movement in order to reassure a nervous industry to keep their donor dolleros coming, going starkly against the overwhelming majoritarian opinion of his own party, as though the collective views of rank and file Democrats meant nothing?

It's five bullets taking up half a slide in a 15-slide deck (all of which are 100% true). Get a grip.
 
I'm far from the only one doing such pretending (H.R. 676 has 124 cosponsors) - the 2020 POTUS race is already underway and all manner of utopian plans are being offered as campaign "promises" by extremely trustworthy demorats. I already have my first "free" appointment scheduled under Medicare at the clinic.

I get the growing impression that you're really only here on this thread to pimp and gimp this "free stuff" nonsense and accuse liberals of promoting it.

open-borders-straw-man.jpg


By the way, nobody is holding a gun to your head. If you find Medicare so objectionable, don't use it.
 
That's not a quote from Pelosi's camp, that's the usual over-the-top rhetoric used by the Intercept in the opinion pieces they pretend are journalism. Talk about disingenuous.

You would know disingenuous per your first hand experience, I will grant you that. As to opinion pieces pretending at journalism, there's plenty more on NYT, MSNBC and the like RE: progressive politicos, candidates and policy.

It's five bullets taking up half a slide in a 15-slide deck (all of which are 100% true). Get a grip.

Ridiculous. The fundamental core truth about the presentation is that it is an attempt to mollify the insurance industry per their concerns about the meteoric rise of MFA's popularity and zeitgeist. It should be painfully obvious that:

A: The presentation denigrates MFA in favour of alternative incremental proposals it stridently pushes where the health insurance industry continues to play a big role.

AND

B: The fundamental motive underlying this is to keep health insurance donations onside with Dems (what else would it be?).

This about as black and white an example as you can get of donor moneys or the promise thereof purchasing influence and causing policy to deviate from the popular will short of money explicitly changing hands per a contractual or verbal agreement.

Now, I understand that you're obviously not going to go present to health insurers talking up MFA as it will largely obliterate their role if passed, but Primus, and Pelosi by extension, have no business being there and courting them in the first place. Doing so is a big middle finger to the overwhelming plurality of rank and file Dems who have repeatedly made their views crystal clear with now upwards of 80% of the party supporting MFA: https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-con...ation-Priorities-for-New-Congress-in-2019.pdf

Bottom line, if they want to side with health insurers, and work with them to undermine the movement towards MFA in favour of alternatives despite and in contradiction to the overwhelming view of the party they presumably represent, they should be explicit and direct about it... and then see how that works out for them.
 
Last edited:
You would know disingenuous per your first hand experience, I will grant you that. As to opinion pieces pretending at journalism, there's plenty more on NYT, MSNBC and the like RE: progressive politicos, candidates and policy.

You falsely attributed a quote to Pelosi's camp.

Ridiculous. The fundamental core truth about the presentation is that it is an attempt to mollify the insurance industry per their concerns about the meteoric rise of MFA's popularity and zeitgeist. It should be painfully obvious that:

There's literally nothing offensive or objectionable in that deck.
 
That (bolded above) is rather pointless since I must pay monthly Medicare premiums regardless.

https://blog.bernardhealth.com/bid/200111/Can-I-opt-out-of-Medicare-Part-A

So you admit that continually pimping that "free" thing is just a joke.
Because it is!

It is doubtful that healthcare reform in this country, even single payer in any form, will be presented as having no costs, i.e. "free".
And most likely we might end up with a two-tier system where private sector care continues alongside some kind of public option system which can be opted into for qualified applicants.

We aren't going to build a fully socialized government operated system because the system already exists right now and has been fully built out for eons, so there is no point in building something all over again which already exists. The issue is, how to make sure that health care can be offered to almost everyone who is supposed to be here.

Yes, that leaves the question of the illegals and I think that conservatives make some good points. We can't allow illegals to just die en masse but we can't finance their health care unless they're paying into it somehow. So we're going to be forced by necessity to handle those issues better than we are right now. And that does indeed mean better enforcement and more deportations, because we can't hold out a magnet for them.

The point is, however, that while there are anti-government types who don't want anything from Uncle Sam, there just isn't that many when the rubber hits the road. I mean really, 1935 called, and they said that they want their revanchism back.
 
From the Intercept:

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/05...OtpJvVDaG5Y41qExbdUBF-O2klDgYV0c_ZBhVP927170I



Disappointed but entirely unsurprising; I anticipated and expected nothing less from a career donor courtesan like Pelosi who spends more time on her knees courting monied interests (and perversely insisting that this qualifies her to lead the House) than legislating and getting the business of the country done. Pelosi trying to argue that "the comfort level with a broader base of the American people is not there yet" despite upwards of 70% polled popular support and solid majoritarian support amongst Republicans is beyond laughable; please. She knows damn well that MFA is opposed about exclusively by committed ideological opposition across the aisle, wealthier individuals who have no need of it, Dem megadonors, and their steadfast shills in the Dem party leadership.

Again, Cenk Uygur on point:



No one who pays attention is surprised by this. Nor am I surprised that Kamala Harris, despite her loud protestations during her establishment-gifted town hall, is already walking back MFA.
 
So you admit that continually pimping that "free" thing is just a joke.
Because it is!

It is doubtful that healthcare reform in this country, even single payer in any form, will be presented as having no costs, i.e. "free".
And most likely we might end up with a two-tier system where private sector care continues alongside some kind of public option system which can be opted into for qualified applicants.

We aren't going to build a fully socialized government operated system because the system already exists right now and has been fully built out for eons, so there is no point in building something all over again which already exists. The issue is, how to make sure that health care can be offered to almost everyone who is supposed to be here.

Yes, that leaves the question of the illegals and I think that conservatives make some good points. We can't allow illegals to just die en masse but we can't finance their health care unless they're paying into it somehow. So we're going to be forced by necessity to handle those issues better than we are right now. And that does indeed mean better enforcement and more deportations, because we can't hold out a magnet for them.

The point is, however, that while there are anti-government types who don't want anything from Uncle Sam, there just isn't that many when the rubber hits the road. I mean really, 1935 called, and they said that they want their revanchism back.

I agree with you that "free" is a joke or, more aptly put, a vote buying scheme to promote taxing "the rich" minority to afford the much larger "poorer" majority some new government subsidized medical care benefits. What I did, in numerous posts, was to show you demorat initiated legislation which purports to do just that - never implying that I supported such nonsense. Why you call that pimping rather than providing links to back up my assertions is puzzling.
 
I agree with you that "free" is a joke or, more aptly put, a vote buying scheme to promote taxing "the rich" minority to afford the much larger "poorer" majority some new government subsidized medical care benefits. What I did, in numerous posts, was to show you demorat initiated legislation which purports to do just that - never implying that I supported such nonsense. Why you call that pimping rather than providing links to back up my assertions is puzzling.

It's nothing of the kind, any more than saying that "America is a democracy" somehow implies that it is not a constitutional republic.
When people say "democracy" it is understood that the democracy is representative democracy functioning in the framework of a constitutional republic.
When the word "free" is used in health care reform, it is understood that it means that patients will not be slammed with bills in the hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars.

By the way, when you see one of these, it is understood that the word "YOU" is implied and understood.

R1-1_Stop_Sign_firstsign-com.jpg


Get it? YOU STOP, do we need to go back and paint the word "you" on every stop sign on the planet now?

What you did, in numerous posts, was to apply a political McGuffin so ridiculously literalist that no one in their right mind would accept it as serious. And if you are serious, you should be working for Frank Luntz, the father of the "free stuff" trope.

He's also the father of numerous other right wing tropes designed to derail serious discussion, like "government takeover of healthcare", "death panels", "death tax", and "unplugging Grandma".

So I am going to conclude that further discussion with you at this particular time is going to continue sounding like a discussion with a paid political guru who uses focus group curated emotional hooks instead of honest research and data. What's the point?
Healthcare reform in the USA is too important to leave to guys like Luntz, who already screwed it up last time, which is partly why the ACA wound up being as flawed as it was, and also partly why a large number of states wouldn't even consider full participation.

The focus groups, many led by Luntz, sounded like flocks of trained parrots, all regurgitating his talking points back to him.

Had the ACA been able to include a public option, and had the Frank Luntz brigade been viewed as what it was, the ACA would have been a lot better than it is.

I know it's not "free", you know it's not "free", anyone with common sense knows it's not "free" but we're still batting this nonsense back and forth and there's just no point in it.
 
You falsely attributed a quote to Pelosi's camp.

I will admit I ****ed up and made an assumption based on the use of quotation marks; that's definitely my bad.

But you are also the last person to lecture people on being disingenuous per your posting history (and present).

There's literally nothing offensive or objectionable in that deck.

Willful ignorance on full display folks: Pelosi's top health aide goes off to health insurance donors pushing an audience friendly agenda that is mutually exclusive with policy backed by a vast super majority of the party he's supposed to be representing while simultaneously talking smack about it for the evident sake of donor dollars, and there is, according to Greenbeard, absolutely nothing objectionable about that whatsoever; sure thing.
 
Last edited:
No one who pays attention is surprised by this. Nor am I surprised that Kamala Harris, despite her loud protestations during her establishment-gifted town hall, is already walking back MFA.

I'm certainly not as stated.

Also Warren seems to be edging off of MFA during one of her recent interviews so I'm starting to get a bit leery of her too; it wasn't an explicit distancing to be fair, but I certainly have my eye on her more closely.
 
From the Intercept:

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/05...OtpJvVDaG5Y41qExbdUBF-O2klDgYV0c_ZBhVP927170I



Disappointed but entirely unsurprising; I anticipated and expected nothing less from a career donor courtesan like Pelosi who spends more time on her knees courting monied interests (and perversely insisting that this qualifies her to lead the House) than legislating and getting the business of the country done. Pelosi trying to argue that "the comfort level with a broader base of the American people is not there yet" despite upwards of 70% polled popular support and solid majoritarian support amongst Republicans is beyond laughable; please. She knows damn well that MFA is opposed about exclusively by committed ideological opposition across the aisle, wealthier individuals who have no need of it, Dem megadonors, and their steadfast shills in the Dem party leadership.

Again, Cenk Uygur on point:



Pelosi's been on most peoples **** list, ever since the whole Credit card, stock exchange scandal reared it's ugly head.

She had so much promise, only for her to end up being just another crony that inhabits an already stuffed to the brim party.
 
Willful ignorance on full display folks: Pelosi's top health aide goes off to health insurance donors pushing an audience friendly agenda that is mutually exclusive with policy backed by a vast super majority of the party he's supposed to be representing while simultaneously talking smack about it for the evident sake of donor dollars, and there is, according to Greenbeard, absolutely nothing objectionable about that whatsoever; sure thing.

Once again, the policy agenda presented in that deck is:

  1. Dem commitment to universal coverage (that's good!)
  2. Advancing last session's 5155 and related legislation to expand and improve coverage, not to mention mapping out critical state-level steps to protect Medicaid and the ACA (that's good!)
  3. Fixing traditional Medicare's benefit design (that's good!)
  4. Tackling several key policy issues whose time has come, from prescription drug pricing to surprise medical billing (that's good!)

No, there's nothing objectionable about any of those. Progress of any single one of them would benefit millions of people.
 
Once again, the policy agenda presented in that deck is:

  1. Dem commitment to universal coverage (that's good!)
  2. Advancing last session's 5155 and related legislation to expand and improve coverage, not to mention mapping out critical state-level steps to protect Medicaid and the ACA (that's good!)
  3. Fixing traditional Medicare's benefit design (that's good!)
  4. Tackling several key policy issues whose time has come, from prescription drug pricing to surprise medical billing (that's good!)

No, there's nothing objectionable about any of those. Progress of any single one of them would benefit millions of people.

Look, virtually anything is better than the status quo, which is literally the worst health care system in the industrialized world barring for the uber rich; you can cite just about any kind of policy that expands coverage or improves affordability, and it would be an improvement on what exists.

The point is that they're blatantly kowtowing to an interest group, and explicitly deviating from the will of the party to mollify the concerns and interests of a select group of donors with an obvious vested interest at stake; this isn't difficult stuff.
 
The point is that they're blatantly kowtowing to an interest group, and explicitly deviating from the will of the party to mollify the concerns and interests of a select group of donors with an obvious vested interest at stake; this isn't difficult stuff.

They're doing exactly what most of the party wants them to be doing: building on and improving the ACA.

9273-figure-10.png


You can make up all the phony quotes you want to feed your bogus "kowtowing" narrative, Dems are pushing good policy that their voters do in fact support.
 
Back
Top Bottom