r/politics • u/Quirkie The Netherlands • 15h ago
If the Dems Want to Beat Trump, They Should Embrace Medicare for All
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/dems-push-medicare-for-all506
u/Negative_Gravitas 15h ago
"'We can't pay for it!!!"
"We can if we actually tax millionaires and billionaires."
"But then they'll leave!"
"Right. Absolutely no downside."
256
u/SeparateSpend1542 15h ago
“It’s actually cheaper for everyone than the system we have now. You included.”
49
u/Carl-99999 America 14h ago
If we spent as much as Germany did per person we'd be able to pay back the national debt
55
u/Retaining-Wall Canada 15h ago
"Hi Bayer, my name is Single Payer. Give us these drugs at a competitive rate and we'll buy fucktonnes of them, and it'll be convenient for you cause, well, it's right in my name."
41
u/thistimelineisweird Pennsylvania 15h ago
How dare the government force companies to be competitive! - Free market Republicans who want the government to pay asinine prices to their buddies.
13
u/Mysterious_Sport_731 14h ago
If they could, they would already be doing it - $100K soap dispenser for a plane.
9
u/thistimelineisweird Pennsylvania 14h ago
Worked for private corporate job that would charge 3x to 5x more to friendly govt contracts. Meanwhile if the govt just said "this is our budget" they still would've done the job.
7
u/ANordWalksIntoABar I voted 11h ago
They only believe in the market’s ability to make their donor’s money, they have never actually cared about it being functional or good for consumers.
•
u/DrusTheAxe 5h ago
Dick Jones: I had a guaranteed military sale with ED209! Renovation program! Spare parts for 25 years! Who cares if it worked or not!
•
u/oliversurpless Massachusetts 4h ago
One of the lines that flew over my head as a teenager:
“You have access to military weaponry?
We practically are the military now…” - To Clarence Boddicker
5
u/Steeltooth493 Indiana 8h ago
Free Market Republicans who just cheered when ~the federal government~ Trump just bought a 10% stake in Intel.
6
u/Artistic_Humor1805 9h ago
Except congress already has a (great, btw) government healthcare plan. I don’t understand why, whenever they say things like ‘you don’t want govt healthcare, it’ll be awful compared to private insurance’ people don’t reply with ‘great, well start by cancelling your awesome govt healthcare plan, senator’!
17
u/minerunderground 11h ago
USA spends 12k per person now on health and your system sucks, Australia spends 6k per person and has pretty much everyone covered including a PBS that keeps medicine at affordable prices. Where does your other 6k go, into the pockets of insurance companies with absolutely no health outcome. Have a Quick Look at this tube video https://youtu.be/xGtNzTYfd0o?si=fkjOgtoJvYzMZT0Z
→ More replies (6)•
u/around_the_clock 2h ago
Cheeper yes but they have unlimited funds they don't want cheeper. They want short lines and to feel more important than the peasant.
→ More replies (15)0
u/pickledplumber 13h ago
You can't just get the system. You need to do the work to solve the problems. That's one thing that makes people skittish.
There's only so many doctors and other medical professionals.
Most Americans want that type of system. Most people aren't going to vote to their own detriment.
15
u/AllTheyEatIsLettuce California 12h ago
"'We can't pay for it!!!"
We can if we stop paying payers to pay other payers to pay payers to turn a profit on processing payments.
"But then they'll leave!"
And go where exactly? Point to the spots on the big globe where they're gonna go.
43
u/TehNubCake9 15h ago edited 14h ago
Tax the billionaires until there are no billionaires.
Then billionaires won't be a direct threat to the societies around them.
You'd think that this wouldn't be a difficult concept to explain, but an alarming amount of people keep getting convinced by the never ending propaganda machine, that taxing billionaires actually hurts the average American instead of help them.
The only way any of this can get fixed for good is to bring an end to the machine of "alternative facts" before they become real facts, in the eyes of history.
→ More replies (33)11
u/Polkawillneverdie17 14h ago
No billionaire or multi millionaire is going to leave the US. That's absolutely bullshit.
8
u/klavin1 10h ago
Even if that were true.
Do we really want our "captains of industry" to be so disloyal? Is their patriotism truly that transactional?
2
u/Benedictus_The_II Europe 10h ago
MAGA is satisfied with a red hat, and harassing brown and LGBTQ people. They don’t know how modern economical nationalism should work.
12
u/thistimelineisweird Pennsylvania 15h ago
Trump's military spending can pay for it. Otherwise Trump personally can pay for it.
18
u/Dr_DoesNothing 15h ago
We could cut our military budget in half and still have the highest in the world.
•
u/Gurlllllllll- 4h ago
It would cost an estimated 40 billion dollars a year to end homelessness in America. The annual military budget is roughly "20 end homelessness in America"s. Just a really cool and normal thing for a country to do.
1
u/Negative_Gravitas 15h ago
Yeah, at about a trillion a year, I figure we could pay for medicare for all and have quite a bit left over to by as many tanks, boats, planes as we could conceivably need and still hire a shitload of prosecutors.
→ More replies (15)3
3
u/JahoclaveS 11h ago
We already pay enough in insurance premiums and taxes and out of pocket to already pay for it and then some. We could likely deliver it fucking cheaper than what we’re already paying in this country for substandard shit with shit access.
1
u/semideclared 9h ago
KFF found Total health care spending for the privately insured population would be an estimated $352 billion lower in 2021 if employers and other insurers reimbursed health care providers at Medicare rates. This represents a 41% decrease from the $859 billion that is projected to be spent in 2021.
or
In 2023, preferred provider organizations’ (PPOs’) payment rates for clinician services were, on average, 140 percent of Medicare’s payment rates—up from 136 percent in 2022.
- A 2022 survey by the American Medical Association suggests that providers are increasingly consolidating into larger organizations to improve their ability to negotiate higher payment rates from private insurers (and to gain access to costly resources and help complying with payers’ regulatory and administrative requirements).
Berenson and colleagues (133) concluded that if physician compensation was based on the Medicare fee schedule instead of the multipayer mix, median annual compensation would decline by 12%, with large variations by category and specialty. Primary care internists would see their mean annual compensation drop by about 8%. The impact of uniform Medicare rates and increased billable hours would vary for different specialties.
- Some nonsurgical, nonprocedural practices (such as endocrinologists and nephrologists) may experience higher incomes, whereas surgeons and radiologists may see lower compensation.
More work and lower pay
Nothing wrong with that, thats how you save money. Its just thats also the same for all healthcare staff. Lower Compensation plus more work
Today you have (50 Medicare patients * $100)+(50 Private Insurance Patients * $140)
you see 100 patients and have 10 hours of paperwork for a 50 hour week
- 50 on Medicare pay you $100 + 50 on private Insurance pay you $140
- Pay you $12,000 a week
Tomorrow in single Medicare for All you see 105 patients and have 2 hours of paperwork for a 50 hour week
- 105 on Medicare pay you $100
- Pay you $10,500 a week
6
u/PixelatedFrogDotGif 13h ago
“We cant pay for it “ is so insulting. We don’t even NEED to tax billionaires. We need to stop being a turbomilitary with a country as a front.
→ More replies (26)2
u/I_Am_No_One_123 9h ago
The tax rate during Eisenhower’s presidency was 90% and 40% during Clinton’s term. Yet very few of these greedy whiners left.
1
u/semideclared 8h ago
They were
20.0% was the base tax rate on income of $0 to $2,000 in 1954
In 1954, the standard deduction for income tax purposes was equal to 10% of adjusted gross income, so someone making $1,000 had 20% tax bracket
- 21.0% $2,000 - $4,000
- 26.0% $4,000 - $6,000
- 71,946.69 in 2025
- 30.0% $6,000 - $8,000
- 34.0% $8,000 - $10,000
- $119,911.15 in 2025
- 38.0% $10,000 - $12,000
- 43.0% $12,000 - $14,000
- 47.0% $14,000 - $16,000
- 50.0% $16,000 - $18,000
- 53.0% $18,000 $20,000
- $239,822.30 in 2025
Yes taxes were high for everyone
Go and check out those taxes compared to today, the standard deduction for income tax purposes has far increased for the lower incomes and tax rates at the bottom are 0%
•
•
u/Ohrwurm89 4h ago
And no, they won't leave, despite them threatening to do so for decades. Also, Europe taxes its citizens at higher rates than the US. And I'm sure other English-speaking nations, like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, tax their wealthiest citizens and residents at higher rates than they do here.
•
u/finndego 3h ago
You do realize that the US pays way more taxes towards healthcare than any of countries you named. Not only is the healthcare then subsidized but so are the minimum 4 weeks annual holidays, subsidized education, minimum 6 months paid maternity leave, government funded superannuation, housing, welfare etc. The list goes. Good infrastructure, Public Transport that runs on time, low crime and clean streets.
For low to medium earners in those countries you've named the tax rate is low and similar to the tax rates found in the US but it's the inverse there that is the opposite. In those countries the progressive tax rate means that the more you earn the more tax you pay whereas in the States the more you earn the less you pay. Warren Buffet pays less tax than his secretary.
•
2
u/More_of_the-same-bs 13h ago
If you don’t want to pay your share, leave. Leave now. Don’t let the gate at Donnie’ wall hit you in the arse.
1
1
1
u/Taako_Cross 10h ago
I’m betting it would actually be cheaper than the current one even if there is a new tax to pay for it.
1
u/Valuable_Sea_4709 8h ago
Them: "But then they'll leave!"
*Me, after instituting a 95% tax on personal wealth and business assets over $10m, upon either surrendering citizenship or moving out of the country, and also capping capital loss rollover at $10m per lifetime*: "That's the best part :)"
•
u/jgoble15 7h ago
Also leave where? Europe has much higher taxes and enforces them. Some private island is nice but you can’t do a lot of business there. Also lots of places are already cheaper than where they live now. If they wanted a cheap place, they would have moved to another state. For now they live in LA and NYC, some of the most expensive places in the US
•
u/MillionMilesPerHour 6h ago
And remember the “how will we pay for it?” question only comes up when it’s something that could benefit the citizens.
•
u/oliversurpless Massachusetts 4h ago
And it’s not like most have any helpful skills, given in recent decades, the lion’s share inherited their money.
•
•
u/SnooRobots6491 3h ago
It's been proven time and again that millionaires and billionaires won't actually leave. It never happens.
•
u/TheGroinOfTheFace 2h ago
Capital flight can be used as an argument for basically anywhere BUT the USA lol. Not only do they tax on citizenship, the fact that all USD flows the the country basically means they CAN'T leave.
•
u/Fatticusss 45m ago
Also, they won't. Some might, but taxing the wealthy is absolutely a viable solution
→ More replies (8)1
u/mps1729 8h ago edited 4h ago
“We can if we actually tax millionaires and billionaires”
What makes you think this is anywhere close to true. A conservative estimate of the budgetary cost of M4A is $3T/yr while Elizabeth Warren’s proposed ultra-millionaire tax, for example, claims to raise $375B/yr. How will you raise the other 87.5%? It’s not like any of the other proposed millionaire taxes do any better, so nearly all of the cost will need to be covered by taxes on the middle class. Claim I’m wrong? I’d love to be. Show me the math
(BTW, the article inanely dismisses this by saying “First, we need to remember that the actual constraint to the government’s spending is not revenue,” which would more than double our already irresponsible-to-our-children budget deficit)
81
u/Ok-Bunch2258 15h ago
There already are large numbers of immigrants working in healthcare in the United States.
I have a female Chinese immigrant doctor who is the sweetest thing. I grew up with American male doctors who were arrogant assholes who didn't listen to me.
And not in the article, but I hear this bullshit that "Medicare for all means Medicare for none."
Bull-fucking-shit.
There are countries that have basic healthcare for everyone. AND one can in fact buy additional insurance under those programs. It's not all or nothing.
Until things change, I wish potential employees would ask employers about healthcare. What are the benefits? That shitty? Well, I'll go somewhere else.
That doesn't happen because they go after the young people who don't think about it because they're healthy. It promotes ageism. Get'em young and no healthcare!
It's sick and twisted here that healthcare is mostly tied to employment. The ACA and exchanges (Obamacare) was a good start but we need more.
24
u/mightcommentsometime California 15h ago
There are countries that have basic healthcare for everyone. AND one can in fact buy additional insurance under those programs. It's not all or nothing.
It depends on the country, but Sanders plan did outlaw private insurance.
One of the biggest issues is that people on the left don’t agree on the exact form that universal healthcare should take. Should it be done via a public option that’s opt-in and undercuts the market (Buttigieg’s Medicare for anyone who wants it), should it be forced on everyone (a la Sander’s plan), should it be Warren’s phase in plan?
People want UHC, but definitely don’t always agree on how to get there.
18
u/Ok-Bunch2258 15h ago
I agree with what you're saying.
I'm in the camp that everyone gets it. No opt-in or opt-out. You got it. Because shit happens and if one were to opt-out and then something happens and then they're uninsured.
I think we can all agree that healthcare in the USA is fucked up - unless you have money.
4
u/mightcommentsometime California 12h ago
Opt in meant opting into public insurance over private insurance. Not being insured at all.
14
u/SerfTint 13h ago
I am in a lot of Leftist circles that don't otherwise interact with one another. I don't know of ANYONE that wanted Buttigieg's plan, nor thought it was a real plan. By letting people opt into it, only the sick will do so and then it will be tremendously expensive, to the point where it becomes resented by the rest of the taxpayers and then subsequently defunded piece by piece. It was a poison pill from the beginning. In order for it to be cheap, everyone has to be signed into it, under the guise that "sorry, it covers you when you get sick also, so grin and bear it during your healthy years, and you and everyone else will usually save money."
If there was actual momentum for M4A within the party, I have no doubt that Bernie's idea and Warren's idea could get reconciled into something workable. The problem was never "we're paralyzed, there are so many good options," it was that most of the party doesn't want it at all, so this is a nice excuse for them--"it's the Left's fault for not having their act together, and what could we do, we were confused by seeing too many plans, so we were powerless." The party got together to finalize the ACA, which was much messier, but in that case they actually wanted to do it.
4
u/mightcommentsometime California 13h ago
Opt in means opt in to the public insurance option. That doesn’t mean opt in to health insurance all together. It means some people like their private insurance.
Many countries have multipayer systems. Single payer isn’t the only form of universal healthcare. Outlawing private insurance is what’s not popular about M4A. Well, that and the taxes, because Americans have an extreme hatred of taxes even if the taxes are cheaper than other fees would be (like the taxes being cheaper than your health insurance premium)
→ More replies (2)5
u/Better-Community-187 11h ago
Many countries have multipayer systems but the comparison would be closer to what m4a is, granted with the caveat that private insurance wouldn't necessarily be abolished but just that it would be rare. Upwards of 90% of Germans are on the public option in Germany. In Switzerland, the government mandates a health plan and forces insurance companies to offer it and to make no profit from it. Point being that it doesn't matter what route we take, to get comparable results with the rest of the world, our current system of private insurance will need to be nearly completely obliterated.
3
u/mightcommentsometime California 11h ago
I never said anything contrary to that. I said getting rid of private insurance isn’t something that’s widely supported.
Like I pointed out in my original post, universal healthcare in theory is popular in the US. How to do it is not an agreed upon thing. No one implementation is as popular as the idea. And none of them has massive widespread support.
1
u/DaraParsavand 10h ago
I have always thought a "public option" was the dumbest idea ever and it always made me furious Biden (or Buttigieg) was allowed to drop the phrase without hardly any pushback. Not only do you have the problem that sick people will use the plan as a last resort, and so healthy people will avoid it if they can pay less elsewhere but given no government plan makes any sense with a flat fee (rich have to pay more) then rich people (healthy or not) are not idiots and they will all opt out making it that much more impossible for the program to pay for itself and it will be killed later.
Speaking of Buttigieg (who was getting a lot coverage recently for his unbelievably pathetic, equivocating answer to a simple question on Israel funding by one of the Pod Save America guys) I was at first puzzled how he could be polling less than 0.5% among black voters (so rounds to 0) and then the Due Dissidence guys explained it for me. I had forgotten the underhanded methods that guy used to claim he had black support in 2020 - they were really over the top. It makes sense that black voters haven't forgotten that like I did. (I hate the guy for screwing over Sanders, a guy he supposedly looked up to - I would never in a million years support Buttigieg for dog catcher).
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 2h ago
Im guessing you just haven’t researched it very far.
Not only do you have the problem that sick people will use the plan as a last resort, and so healthy people will avoid it if they can pay less elsewhere
You’re assuming that there will be places that it will cost less elsewhere, and that it won’t set the market rates by being the floor that companies have to beat by offering additional services.
It also wouldn’t be used as a plan of last resort if it were a good plan. Plenty of older people can get other insurance along with their Medicaid but choose not to. This isn’t a problem the way you’re thinking it is. Having something that people have to sign on for unless they have other health insurance can lower costs overall, and gives massive negotiating power to the government on payment rates.
given no government plan makes any sense with a flat fee (rich have to pay more) then rich people (healthy or not) are not idiots and they will all opt out making it that much more impossible for the program to pay for itself and it will be killed later.
Many countries have a flat fee for baseline coverage. Someone who is rich in Switzerland doesn’t pay higher premiums than someone who is middle class.
In Germany, the income cap is around €65k for progressive taxation and subsidies. That means someone making €100k and someone making €10 million are paying the same.
In both cases, the richer people usually to add on supplemental health insurance, which can give them access to higher quality care, but it doesn’t mean they’re actually paying a higher insurance premium.
We can afford to pay for universal healthcare without actually changing who pays what percentage in taxes (aside from low income people who can’t afford it). The US spends around 17% of our GDP on healthcare. Almost every other country spends around 10%. We can get a universal system, which is one of the ways we can help cut that cost down. Moving the money from the private market to the public sphere would generate the revenue we need.
Currently, the main type of price discrimination allowed for health insurance is for smoking you pay extra. A rich person (making $10 million) wouldn’t pay more for a marketplace plan than someone making $100k. Subsidies kick in for lower incomes, but the rich don’t pay substantially more for healthcare unless they’re buying extra things.
Universal healthcare isn’t about taxing the rich. It’s about reallocating our money to a more efficient system that provides better care to everyone.
2
u/skyspirits 13h ago
People want UHC
I know what you mean, but this is not the acronym you're looking for...
2
u/imtheproof 10h ago
One of the biggest issues is that people on the left don’t agree on the exact form that universal healthcare should take. Should it be done via a public option that’s opt-in and undercuts the market (Buttigieg’s Medicare for anyone who wants it)
This falls apart when the Biden wing of moderates completely stopped talking about health care after they won the election. Biden literally didn't talk about his "public option" plan once during the entire time he was in office.
Progressives differ on the specific non-profit system they want. Some want a UK-style single payer, some want a non-profit market system like Germany, some want a two-tier system like Australia, etc.
There is a sliver of moderates who filter into the above.
The rest of moderates, and the conservative democrats, either want to stick with the current system or they don't care enough about the issue to begin with and thus won't do anything about it.
→ More replies (1)6
u/mightcommentsometime California 9h ago
This falls apart when the Biden wing of moderates completely stopped talking about health care after they won the election. Biden literally didn't talk about his "public option" plan once during the entire time he was in office.
Biden never had the votes to pass it. You’re not going to get that through reconciliation.
Biden focused on things that actually had a chance of working or passing.
He also did things like cap insulin.
Progressives differ on the specific non-profit system they want. Some want a UK-style single payer, some want a non-profit market system like Germany, some want a two-tier system like Australia, etc.
Progressives almost exclusively advocate for M4A as a single payer system. I haven’t seen any prominent progressives advocating for other systems except different versions of M4A (like Warren).
Moderates were a big part of passing the ACA, which was the first step towards universal healthcare.
It got neutered by Lieberman (an independent), and then got gutted by SCOTUS.
Moderates haven’t been pushing for it because healthcare reform is a losing policy electorally, and they’ve never had the numbers to push the ACA further
→ More replies (8)1
u/semideclared 9h ago
Just as another issue
This falls apart when
It falls apart because the people you want to enroll in it don't
When given a public option it will not be used until its required and then that s just a new tax on people and thats going to lose you the election
7 Percent of NYC is uninsured even though a Pubic Option exists
MetroPlusHealth has offered low-cost, quality health care for New Yorkers for more than 35 years as a Public Option
- owned by NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION
- A Component Unit of The City of New York.
MetroPlus (Public Option/NYC's Insurance Provider) has $1.2 Billion in Revenue from Public Option payments
New Yorkers who are eligible for health insurance will be directed to the city’s public choice health plan MetroPlus.
- MetroPlus enrollment reached a record high of 670,915, an increase of 159,284 members (31 percent) between February 2020 and June 2022
And on top of that
MetroPlus Gold is available to all NYC employees, non-Medicare eligible retirees, their spouses or qualified domestic partners, and eligible dependents. With $0 premiums, $0 copays, and $0 deductibles, MetroPlus Gold's basic plan is offered at no cost to the employee.
MetroPlus enrollment reached a record high of 670,915
Out of more than 10 Million People in the Region that can sign up, 6.7 percent are on a Public option, and 7 Percent of NYC is uninsured even though a Pubic Option exists
2
u/mightcommentsometime California 9h ago
That’s why SCOTUS killing the individual mandate effectively gutted the price controls in the ACA
3
u/semideclared 9h ago
oooo yea, but it was seen as a tax and it was what the population wanted.
Of course NY could pass its own policy to require insurance, and force that same enroll or pay a fee. But no new taxes
1
u/Stringtone 10h ago
Another problem with discourse around universal healthcare in the US is that there's basically zero discussion of what other policy changes would be needed to make such a system more cost-effective. Other public policy points, such as walkable towns and cities that can be navigated without having to drive, stricter regulations on food quality (e.g. less sugar/HFCS in everything), taxes on ultra-processed foods, and many others are all non-medical and non-economic policy-level interventions that play a nonnegligible role in population health. To keep costs down, a universal healthcare system has to prevent as much illness as it can - a lot of that begins outside the clinic, but that part is relatively underdiscussed. I understand that universal healthcare would be cheaper regardless, but explaining how we can make a proposed system less expensive would probably help get people on board or at least more open to the idea.
1
u/semideclared 9h ago
Another problem with discourse around universal healthcare in the US is that there's basically zero discussion of what other policy changes would be needed to make such a system more cost-effective.
Sure,
To keep costs down, a universal healthcare system has to prevent as much illness as it can - a lot of that begins outside the clinic
Walter White Treatment comes at a cost
Cutting the Spending of the Top 10% in half saves $1 Trillion
Spenders Average per Person Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population Total Personal Healthcare Spending in 2017 Percent paid by Medicare and Medicaid Top 1% $259,331.20 2,603,270 $675,109,140,000.00 42.60% Next 4% $78,766.17 10,413,080 $820,198,385,000.00 Next 5% $35,714.91 13,016,350 $464,877,785,000.00 47.10%
For the Top 10%
Over the past decade hospitals and health care systems across the country have been developing models of care to address the needs of vulnerable patients with multiple chronic conditions who frequently use the ED or hospital.
Drawing upon strategies that have worked for several other health systems, Regional One has built a model of care that, among a set of high utilizers, reduced uninsured ED visits by 68.8 percent, inpatient admissions by 75.4 percent, and lengths-of-stay by 78.6 percent—averting $7.49 million in medical costs over a fifteen month period (personal communication, Regional One Health, July 8, 2019). ONE Health staff find people that might qualify for the program through a daily report driven by an algorithm for eligibility for services. Any uninsured or Medicaid patient with more than 10 ED visits in the Last 12 months is added to the list. The team uses this report daily to engage people in the ED or inpatient and also reach out by phone to offer the program. There is no charge for the services and the team collaborates with the patient’s current care team if they have one.
About 80 percent of eligible patients agree to the service, and about 20 percent dis-enroll without completing the program. ONE Health served 101 people from April - December of 2018. Seventy-six participants remain active as of December 2018 and 25 people had graduated from the program. Since 2018, the population of the program has grown to more than 700 patients and the team continues to monitor clients even after graduation to re-engage if a new pattern of instability or crisis emerges.
But its voluntary and The process of moving people toward independence is time-consuming.
Sometimes patients keep using the ED.
One of these was Eugene Harris, age forty-five. Harris was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was thirteen and dropped out of school. He never went back. Because he never graduated from high school and because of his illness, Harris hasn’t had a steady job. Different family members cared for him for decades, and then a number of them became sick or died. Harris became homeless.
He used the Regional One ED thirteen times in the period March–August 2018.
Then he enrolled in ONE Health. The hospital secured housing for him, but Harris increased his use of the ED. He said he liked going to the hospital’s ED because “I could always get care.” From September 2018 until June 2019 Harris went to the ED fifty-three times, mostly in the evenings and on weekends, because he was still struggling with his diabetes and was looking for a social connection, Williams says.
- Then in June 2019, after many attempts, a social worker on the ONE Health team was able to convince Harris to connect with a behavioral health provider. He began attending a therapy group several times a week. He has stopped using the ED and is on a path to becoming a peer support counselor.
In Camden NJ, A large nursing home called Abigail House and a low-income housing tower called Northgate II between January of 2002 and June of 2008 nine hundred people in the two buildings accounted for more than 4,000 hospital visits and about $200 Million in health-care bills.
Pharmaceuticals
The Top 0.05%
- Why is the us spending so much more on cancer patients?
Researchers at Prime Therapeutics analyzed drug costs incurred by more than 17 million participants in commercial insurance plans.
- So-called “super spenders;” are people that accumulate more than $250,000 in drug costs per year.
- Elite super-spenders—who accrue at least $750,000 in drug costs per year
In 2016, just under 3,000 people were Super Spenders
- By the end of 2018, that figure had grown to nearly 5,000.
In 2016, 256 people were Elite super-spenders
- By the end of 2018, that figure had grown to 354
Most of the drugs responsible for the rise in costs treat cancer and orphan conditions, and more treatments are on the horizon—along with gene therapies and other expensive options that target more common conditions, he said. “The number of super-spenders is likely to increase substantially—and indefinitely,” said Dr. Dehnel, who did not participate in the study.
5,200 people (0.0015% of Population) represent 0.43% of Prescription Spending
Now, expand it to the whole US
((5,254/17,000,000)*300,000,000)
92,717 People
- 93.6% are Super Spenders at least Spending $250,000
- $21,695,778,000
- 6.4% are Elite Super Spenders at least Spending $750,000
- $4,450,416,000
$26 Billion in Spending
Thats an under estimate
~92,717 People out of 300 Million Americans have 8 Percent of all Drug Spending
3
u/European_guy_1 15h ago
I am living in country with social healthcare and it's also tied to employment (central Europe).
6
u/Ok-Bunch2258 15h ago
Explain - please.
How does it work?
Do you lose benefits if you're not employed?
Or have to pay a LOT to keep those benefits if not employed?
And lastly, could you name the country so that I can be better informed?
6
u/Benedictus_The_II Europe 9h ago
He is from Slovakia.
There healthcare is funded through mandatory insurance. If you’re employed, you and your employer pay into it. If you’re unemployed but registered (like on jobseekers lists), the state covers you. So no, you don’t lose coverage.
Even if you’re self employed or paying voluntarily, it’s like €70–80 a month for full coverage, way cheaper than U.S. premiums. The system’s built to make sure everyone gets care, not just those with a job.
6
u/life_is_a_show 10h ago
Not OP but I moved to Italy from california. Italy has full universal healthcare.
First few months I wasn’t working and paid 3k for the whole year for me and my then wife. Once I started working both of us were covered.
You can also go to private practices if you don’t want to go through the health system. I do this for such things like quick blood tests or vision/dental.
My work also includes supplemental insurance as part of my work package.
I pay nothing for general care or diagnostics. I pay out of pocket for prescriptions that go beyond standard care (still 1/7 the cost of the states). Examples would be like anti depressants or birth control.
I pay nothing for surgery or ambulatory travel.
The wait times are triaged based on severity of case, but I will tell you…people saying you’ll die waiting for care are absolutely talking out their rear end.
Even though I am not with my wife anymore, I made a decision to stay here mainly because of the lack of stress over healthcare and inflation.
In the states every job I had except for one (apple corp) had inferior health insurance. And the best insurance I had was still miles more expensive than I pay now.
I would find it insanely hard to go back from universal healthcare, and that’s exactly why they spend so much to convince people in the states against it. Once you get a taste, there is no going back.
2
u/semideclared 10h ago
In the states every job I had except for one (apple corp) had inferior health insurance.
Assuming but that sounds like high income, so one differance and the question
What percent of the country’s population should receive free needs based healthcare free of any taxes or fees?
In the United States in Feb 2020 there were 71,446,354 on Medicaid. By March of 2023 at its peak of Medicaid Expansion for COVID it hit 94,349,705 and as of Dec 2024 it is now 78,532,341
And of course 30 million unisured also paying $0
2
u/starliteburnsbrite 11h ago
To be fair, most people on the job market don't have the ability to turn down a job for bad insurance benefits. And if you are privileged enough to do that, you're probably not applying for jobs with shitty benefits.
12
u/Straight-Range-3566 14h ago
The republican rationale is "I shouldn't pay to pay for someone else's problem" as their taxes go to millionaires and billionaires who take loans from banks until they're dead so they can declare 0 income on a trillion dollar company.
And then they start a GoFundMe when they inevitably need aid and wonder why people dont help them
1
u/semideclared 11h ago
Not exactly
True Republicans TM
Making Medicaid Work for the Most Vulnerable
Which is the Same name as the
Testimony before Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health United States House of Representatives
- July 8, 2013
Nina Owcharenko Director, Center for Health Policy Studies
- The Heritage Foundation
And to the Guiding Principles
Four fundamental principles should guide efforts to address the key challenges facing Medicaid.
- Meet current obligations. Rather than expanding to new populations, attention should be given to ensuring that Medicaid is meeting the needs of existing Medicaid beneficiaries. Moreover, populations should be prioritized based on need.
- The program serves a very diverse group of low-income people: children, pregnant women, disabled, and elderly. In some states, Medicaid has expanded beyond these traditional groups to include others, such as parents and, in a few cases, even childless adults. The traditional program and incremental changes have resulted in Medicaid serving on average over 57 million people (and over 70 million at some point) in 2012 at a combined federal–state cost that was expected to reach over $430 billion.
- Return Medicaid to a true safety net. Medicaid should not be the first option for coverage but a safety net for those who cannot obtain coverage on their own. For those who can afford their own coverage, careful attention should be given to transitioning them into the private market.
- Integrate patient-centered, market-based reforms. Efforts to shift from traditional fee for service to managed care have accelerated, but more should be done. Empowering patients with choice and spurring competition will help to deliver better quality at lower cost.
- Ensure fiscal sustainability. Similar to other entitlement reform efforts, the open-ended federal financing model in Medicaid needs reform. Budgeting at the federal and state levels will provide a predictable and sustainable path.
In the United States in Feb 2020 there were 71,446,354 on Medicaid. By March of 2023 at its peak of Medicaid Expansion for COVID it hit 94,349,705 and as of Dec 2024 it is now 78,532,341
The problem is Dems dont want to increase taxes like everyone else to have the programs.
And Republicans dont want to increase the taxes because they dont want to have the programs.
Easy fix, either Dems own the programs and the Taxes, or Republicans own the non existance of the programs
57
u/ChopperChange 15h ago
If Republican voters actually want their taxes to go towards things that benefit them as taxpayers, they should stop voting for Republicans.
43
u/The_B_Wolf 15h ago
Problem is, a lot of them just want to be mean to women and brown people.
7
u/VanceKelley Washington 14h ago
What made them driven so much by hatred toward other groups of people?
14
u/The_B_Wolf 14h ago
They prefer a social hierarchy that has been being eroded for fifty-plus years. The Civil Rights Act, the women's liberation movement. These were huge social changes and some didn't like it. Many still don't. The modern Republican Party is nothing more than a backlash against those changes (and others like gay marriage). MAGA is nothing more than a desire to return to a time when straight white men were in control, women and people of color knew their places, and gay people were invisible. That's all it's ever been.
3
u/TrueClue9740 9h ago
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
― Lyndon B. Johnson
3
3
u/SimonVpK Texas 13h ago
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” - LBJ
The hatred was created by the culture war.
1
u/SerfTint 13h ago
Powerlessness, which both parties have given them for decades. When someone is winning at the poker table, the jokes roll off their back and everything is cool. When they're losing, suddenly the guy grinding his teeth 12 feet away is the most annoying fucking bastard on the planet.
Republicans have been left behind by their government, so they cling to the myths of what they think it means to be a valued citizen, because they can't let go of the promised American Dream, and so they just have to dig in harder. So God, guns, USA #1, "law and order," fighting 'Communism,' etc. And as they get more and more angry that these things aren't delivering for them, it morphs into greed, intimidation of dissent and WASP Supremacy.
This, plus the inherent inclination in Conservatism to find subversion of the Natural Order / God's Plan to be disgusting and immoral. If they were taught at age 2 that Man was Above Woman because Eve came from Adam's Rib, and then women want equality, they're going to find this an affront to their identity as worshippers of God.
→ More replies (6)2
u/TubercuLicious-OO- 13h ago
Problem is, a lot of them just want to be mean to women and brown people.
So sooo many of them voted for Trump because they thought he would hurt the people they hate. My Trumpy sister was so so upset when she realized they were going to take her disabled sons healthcare away and now she'd be the one paying for it. Turns out they have plenty of hurt for everybody.
2
u/Mysterious_Sport_731 14h ago
Your assumption is wrong, they don’t want government benefits or to pay taxes.
2
u/spikychristiansen 14h ago
nobody has to pay taxes right now. they declared the official language of the government to be english, but they still haven't released any guidance on "official english." it's therefore impossible to communicate with the federal government.
•
u/fiction8 5h ago
True, but also a contradictory stance on their part. Since the existence of a stable currency for them to earn through labor in the first place is a government benefit.
Hell, without a sovereign government in place to ensure peace and lawful behavior, they wouldn't even be able to leave their shelter to work without risking losing it to a gang more powerful and violent than theirs.
Taxes are inherently justified to ensure the existence of civilized society.
•
u/Mysterious_Sport_731 4h ago
The world currency is managed and handled by an independent bank (the word federal, in federal reserve is similar to it in federal express).
And much like everything else, if you give any responsibility to a government organization - it costs significantly more and is far less effective than the private cost alternative (the reason the fed express exists in the first place). Though, the argument can be made, that with a significantly smaller government without any debt it could (and should) charge for some services as they are rendered (ie: toll roads that cut between 2 places that are already connected), and invest in businesses (benefit for both government and the people).
The only thing that taxes do, as we use them, is syphon work product out of the economy into the hands of the wealthy. It does not ensure a civil society (look at Chicago).
•
u/fiction8 4h ago
Your view of these terms is very myopic and it's causing you to completely miss the actual underlying structure that defines them.
Zoom out, my point is not the specific rules of the Fed's structure or the US Federal Government, it's about the concept of government itself. You perform labor, someone hands you a piece of paper in exchange. Why is that fair? Because the piece of paper says "this note is legal tender" and is backed by a government's sovereign power.
What sovereign power? In its most basic form sovereign power means the legal monopoly of force (and really the authority to define what the word legal means at all). This is what ensures the person who you performed labor for will compensate you at all. Without a higher authority ("government") they could simply use violence to extract your labor for free. Your only recourse in that situation would be to counter with your own violence.
Because the existence of government prevents these situations, a society can do more and be more secure than what the individuals within it could accomplish on their own. This is a desirable outcome for everyone, and thus the concept of "tax" as payment for the system's existence is easily justified.
→ More replies (1)1
u/therationaltroll 12h ago
The republican party is also why I'm afraid of single payor systems. Say we have a single payor system in place, and then we get another Elon Musk type on a DOGE kick. No doubt they'll slash health care funding indiscriminately only to be covered by ND, chiropractors, holistic wellness people, and APC's who don't know their limits.
21
u/gexckodude 15h ago
Dems need to step up for sure but….
1/3 of our population are greedy, selfish, racists, that are morally bankrupt and child raping enablers.
→ More replies (7)•
u/versusgorilla New York 5h ago
Yeah, I don't think people understand that simply adopting Medicare for All to your party platform isn't going to dig us out of this. Kamala didn't lose because she didn't phrase her healthcare policy correctly.
She lost because this country is sick from misinformation, you can talk to MAGA people and they literally can't tell you honestly what gas prices look like. Presumably they're filling up their cars, and will tell you with a straight face that gas is much much much cheaper than it was in 2024. I had someone online tell me that the US is currently in "disinflation" which isn't a thing and even if you correct his insane grammar choice to "deflation", still isn't true in any sense.
Half this country isn't living in reality. They can't accurately report on what's going on in the world around them. They will not be swayed by "Medicare for All", which doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but we need to stop believing we can policy write our way out of where we are.
32
u/Darth_Chili_Dog 15h ago
If the news was faithful in its reporting a lot of Americans would be shocked to discover that Democrats support the overwhelming majority of things they like.
→ More replies (54)10
u/Unctuous_Robot 13h ago
A great many Dem politicians do support it, you just ignore them. And ignore the bit where you’d need a greater set of majorities than even Obama had for all of a month to pass Medicare in the first place by the skin of its teeth.
→ More replies (9)
19
u/Snoo61755 15h ago
What the dems need to do to win: revamp the entire medicare system, find an agreement with drug companies to bring insulin costs down, refund public education, erase $37 trillion in debt, and make peace with both the Middle East and Russia.
What the reps need to do to win: Gerrymander the states again, make sure the polling booths are an hour away from anyone who votes blue, and then talk about building a wall.
11
u/mightcommentsometime California 15h ago
Didn’t the Biden admin cap insulin costs?
9
u/AmrokMC 15h ago
Yes. And most Dems have been for Medicare for all. Most of what people are saying “Dems need to do” to win, most Dems are already trying to do and have been for a long time. Granted, there are always those stand out assholes Dems who sabotage such efforts, but they are not in the majority of the Dem party. They are just enough to side with Republicans and block good things.
8
u/3pointshoot3r 14h ago
People need to stop thinking in terms of "deliverism". Yes, the Dems should enact Medicare for All, but not because it's a cheat code to win elections, but because it's the right thing to do. There's not a ton of evidence that voters respond to good policies by rewarding the party that enacted them, and in fact some of the evidence suggests the opposite.
There's a common trope called the Pundit's Fallacy, whereby the pundit says in order to win, X Party needs to do Y. But inevitably, it turns out Y is simply the pundit's preferred policy views. And by presenting it as an election strategy, the author avoids having to engage with the merits of the policy. Usually, this is a centrist trope - Thomas Friedman is a regular employer of this. But in this case, the author is engaging in the same trope but from the left.
It is almost surely not the case that there's any policy that's a surefire electoral winner. Parties should enact policies that are good, but without expectation of reward. After all, the GOP is doing all kinds of shitty, unpopular crap, and nobody is telling them they have to moderate. They just do what they want then run elections based on vibes.
→ More replies (4)3
u/SerfTint 12h ago
I wish this were true but it is not. Pelosi, who "had a Single Payer poster in her basement all the way back in the 80s," never proposed it one time in 18 years of leadership. Where was the blowback from her "party that was mostly for M4A"? They still mostly treat her like she is a demigod. Jeffries hasn't proposed it and never will. Schumer has never indicated support for it (the Baileys would find it too Leftwing). Steny Hoyer doesn't want it. Clyburn doesn't. Durbin doesn't. Biden didn't. Obama actually had the opportunity to get something bold passed--he had giant majorities in both Houses. Never even tried. Hillary didn't support it. Harris never mentioned it once. Of the 21 Democrats that made it onto the debate stage in 2019-2020, only Bernie and Warren supported it throughout their candidacies, unless you count that clownish "Medicare for All Who Want It" ruse from Buttigieg, which is not Medicare for All. Even Marianne was only swayed to a M4A position later in her campaign.
The stand out a**holes are the excuse so that the party is never forced to take an inconvenient vote on things like this, a vote that either exposes them as a liar or rankles their corporate donors. Basically every person that the party honestly thinks is a real M4A supporter gets smeared, marginalized and demagogued against by the party. Ilhan Omar, Bernie, Zohran, Ro Khanna, first-year AOC, Tlaib.... The party actually hates Medicare for All, which is why when the lies start ("it adds 32 trillion to the debt / people love their private insurance / you're undercutting the ACA! / Socialism has never worked anywhere in the world!!!"), there's almost no pushback from anyone in the party except Bernie on the Sunday shows.
1
u/gatsby712 14h ago
I can trust republicans will try to break thing, I can’t trust democrats will try fix them. I’m voting for the ones trying to fix things, but the reason Obama won and Trump won was they trusted for hope and change from both people. Now the change is for very different things. But people just don’t trust democrats will follow through on it.
•
u/Belkroe 7h ago
I’m going to go on a lunatic rant so feel free to ignore me or down vote me to oblivion. Neither republicans nor democrats actually give two shits about their average constituent. They cater to the billionaire class and they always have.
If there is one thing Trump has done is show us exactly how easy it would be to implement actual beneficial changes to our society. Trumps and the republicans have forced through all sorts of hugely unpopular shit and honestly they have made it look easy. Imagine for just a second if democrats had put half that effort into passing Medicare for all, increasing the minimum wage or fully funding education. The fact that that the average worker is worse off now than they were thirty years ago only proves that we are governed by the rich for the rich. For the last four decades we, the average citizen of this country, have been frogs placed in water which has slowly been brought to a boil. The upper, upper class is squeezing every drop they can from us and it’s not happening on accident. It’s all part of the plan.
Even the emergence of Trump and the MAGA movement feels like an orchestrated move. The fact is once he has been removed, everyone, myself included, will feel nothing but relief, gratitude and goodwill to our next corporate overload as this goodwill will allow them to crank up that heat just few more degrees to our already boiling hot pot.
4
u/BigMikeInAustin 8h ago
I wish this would work. But there are still so many racist people who will spite themselves if it means a non-white person will suffer.
These racist people desire so much to have someone to look down on that if a program helps themselves an a "lesser" person equally, that ruins their fantasy.
They would rather do without it because they will ignore their own pain while they can focus on the same pain the non-white person has and feel happy about it happening to a "lesser" person.
6
7
u/Grandpa_No 15h ago
What if they don't commondreams? You gonna just keep enabling fascists?
5
u/mightcommentsometime California 12h ago
Even if they did commondreams would continue to enable fascists
3
3
u/lucasjkr 11h ago
they should embrace reversing every single one of Trumps executive orders on day one.
Then we they should announce that if they get the majorities in congress they’ll enshrine everything they can into law so that it’s not so easy to be signed away in the future
And yes, Medicare for all. Higher education for all. Trade school education for all. Plans to help elevate everyone that wants to do so.
Disband ICE altogether. If we need an organization like it, then it should report to a bipartisan congressional committee, not a partisan president
Really, we need to move a lot of governing over to congress. Having a madman or an amnesiac at the helm clearly isn’t beneficial to th country at all.
But end of the day, anyone that says I’m not Trump and I’ll stomp the breaks on his madness and start repairing the damage he’s caused, and who has large scale support; that’s who I’m voting for. It’s great to have wishlists of what we want out our leaders, but really first order of business needs to be unseating all these traitors.
3
3
3
3
u/StanDaMan1 9h ago
Democrats should restore the social contract vis-a-vis entitlements. Tax people, use that to lower the cost of living by providing a common baseline for support with affordable housing, affordable food, affordable utilities, affordable healthcare, and affordable education.
3
u/YakiVegas Washington 8h ago
We would save SO Much money and I don't give a flying fuck about the insurance companies going out of business.
•
•
u/aslan_is_on_the_move 3h ago
A Medicare For All Who Want It policy is better and more popular, especially since a significant amount of people think "Medicare for all" is actually a public option proposal, not a single payer system.
5
4
u/No-Kings-2025 14h ago
And literally hand republicans all control over health care when they win the presidency again? Is Common Dreams completely fucking brain dead? Empowering the next RFK Jr is insane.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/4Mag4num 13h ago
You know that there are still premiums for Medicare and it certainly doesn’t cover everything. The drug plans suck and there is zero dental coverage.
4
u/it-was-justathought 11h ago
There is also no long term care coverage. No home care assistance w/ ADLs, or chores, or home maintenance- meaning people will not be able to remain in their homes. This includes for recovery from injury or illness or disabilities, or to age in place in their homes.
Medication options are very limited.
Mental/Behavioral health coverage is minimal.
The focus is on maintenance during end of life or onset of severe disability.
It is expensive to pay the premiums plus the extra 'plans' you need to make Medicare actual care affordable. This is especially difficult for those younger than 65 who are disabled.
This is not the model of many countries that offer single payer style tax funded health care.
This is not comparable to Medicaid.
For those using UHC- please make sure people understand that you are not talking about United Health Care- they make most who know about health care cringe.
1
u/mottledmussel 9h ago
There are good Part D plans out there but they're expensive. My mother pays about $600/month in Part B, Part D, and MedGap plans and still has $2,000 out of pocket in Rx bills
2
u/Horror-Layer-8178 13h ago
They try to say the private insurance system keeps costs down. Yet the American healthcare system has the highest costs in the world
→ More replies (26)
2
u/iritchie001 12h ago
I'm a federal employee with 'good' coverage. I'm working full time but my medical debt keeps climbing. I shouldn't have to quit my good paying job where i contribute to society in order to stay human/alive. Chronic conditions are so much more stressful when you have to worry about insurance and paying.
2
u/starliteburnsbrite 11h ago
The mainline Democratic party leadership has repeatedly shown they will prioritize their allies over Americans and American democracy.
They lost 2 out of 3 contests against him and both losses the writing on the wall was there, the voters were loud and clear.
If they wanted to embrace the electorate to save the nation they would have had ample opportunity. While protests were erupting around the county, they plowed forward with their policies. I don't think they're going to suddenly break with their donors now.
2
u/baldylove57 10h ago
SPELL OUT EXACTLY WHY IT WILL BENEFIT EVERYONE AT A SIXTH GRADE READING LEVEL OR BELOW. Illustrate it clearly. Medicare has its faults but overall a good program. Society in general has many misconceptions of how healthcare really works. Explain EMTALA.
2
u/OddArmory 10h ago
Dems need to do more then that. Dems need to coalesce as one party and stop shooting themselves in the foot.
2
u/codacoda74 10h ago
I feel like someone who's unapologetically for Medicare4All, a $20 minimum wage and free universal prek/community college would be an easy win. Simple, strong message across the board win.
Later, sneak in all the pro democracy fixes like SCOTUS, voting, campaign finance, finance/consuner regs, climate, personal rights, immigration, etc. But win on sticking to triple the minimum wage, Med and Ed.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 2h ago
And what are you basing these feelings on? Your social bubble? Because the US electorate at large just voted to cut healthcare and give tax cuts to billionaires. Which is basically the opposite of what you’re saying would be an easy win
2
u/VirtuaFighter6 10h ago
Working folks need help. It’s that simple. Working folks need help. Not from corporate democrats. They’re done with them.
2
u/bonjarno65 10h ago
YES PLZ.
I am so SICK and TIRED of having to go to the doctor and constantly think about how much XYZ costs. It's super annoying. Plus there is no centralized database of my healthcare anywhere, so each time I have to request info from one insurance company to the next! Super obnoxious.
I also hate how private insurance through my employer keeps my wages lower, cause the insurance costs keep increasing. It needs to stop!
2
u/FlavorBlaster42 8h ago
Show comparisons between us and european countries where they're not financially destroyed because they get sick.
2
•
•
•
6
u/relapse_account 14h ago
Medicare for all needs to be the end goal, not the first step.
→ More replies (2)3
u/ikonet Florida 13h ago
Why not?
3
u/Our1TrueGodApophis 12h ago
I've worked across the spectrum in the various Medicare programs for 20 years now and genuinely we just don't have the infrastructure or setup for this. We should do it, but it would involve an overhaul bigger than the ACA even to get there.
→ More replies (5)4
u/relapse_account 13h ago
It’s too big a change done too quickly and without proper structural support.
You wouldn’t build a skyscraper penthouse first without any kind of scaffolding would you?
6
u/DrRealName 15h ago
Omg this is tone deaf. This is just something that should automatically be on the platform but this is NOT what will beat Trump. Democrats need to stop being a bunch weak pansies and show some damn strength. People need to beleive that democrats are strong enough to beat back the fascists and look at this party right now. Does anyone out there have any faith in THIS version of the democratic party when the only two people truly fighting against Trump are 83 year old independent Bernie Sanders and AOC, who has been ostracized by the old guard party leadership? That's pathetic.
What are the rest even doing? Some are voting with and capitulating to the fascists while most are just throwing their hands up and saying "what can we even do?".. I watched republicans use their minorities to block everything meaningful for four years yet democrats could have filibustered Trump's power grab and shut down the government but gave him everything on a fucking silver platter instead. And shame on the voters for seeing these weak pieces of shit fail us for over a decade now and STILL keep voting in the same old useless assholes.
I'll say this to the dem voting base for 2026. If you rubes still just vote in the same old people, by again NOT participating in primaries to make better choices, the you all deserve this Trump takeover. I want to see 70% of dems in the house replaced next year and do your homework to make sure they are actually decent people and not just someone who was a republican a year ago, switched their party for the election, and they change back to republican once in power because that has happened TOO many times in recent memory with no recourse on holding the liars accountable.
So if the dems want to beat Trump, the voters have to pick newer and better dems because right now 90% of the party are useless sorry sacks of shit. We move on from them or we get what we deserve. Period.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Green_Tomato_7444 15h ago
They should, but they won’t. They are more likely to continue moving to the center. Cant lose out on those big pharmaceutical dollars
They should be running on -
Medicare for all
Remove citizens united
Wealth Tax on Billionaires
Living wages
Childcare
Anti Corruption Laws
Fund Social Security
Those are issues everyone can get behind if they get the messaging correct.
6
u/ShrimpieAC 15h ago edited 15h ago
100%
But every single one of those things will make billionaires sad, so current Democrat leadership will never endorse them.
These people need to pass the fucking torch already. I’ve spent my entire adult life watching these fossils cling to power to keep up a status quo I don’t agree with. It’s time the younger generations take the party from the current leadership because it’s become apparent they will never let us have it. Futurama probably wasn’t far off, I’m sure Schumer would put his head in a jar if he could park his useless ass in the senate for another 100 years to keep impeding progress.
These people are a fucking cancer squeezing out what little life and enthusiasm is left in the Democratic Party. They need to go, now.
3
u/thetensor 15h ago
They are more likely to continue moving to the center.
"Progressives" stayed home when the Constitution was on the ballot in 2024, so they can't really complain if Democrats look elsewhere for voters who might want to save the Republic in the midterms.
4
u/inputwtf 14h ago
How'd campaigning with Liz Cheyney and all those ads from The Lincoln Project turn out?
Who are you trying to convince with these stunts? No Republican is going to vote for a Democrat, and every election hinges on turning out your base. You are telling your base to fuck off and then you lose and then have the gall to claim "oh we don't need our base, we can just convince Republicans to vote for us"
Delusional
4
u/thetensor 14h ago
every election hinges on turning out your base
And "progressives" demonstrated conclusively they're not the Democratic base. You should be celebrating! You took your brave moral stand, refused to hold you nose and vote against fascism, and helped elect Trump. Take your victory lap.
→ More replies (7)1
4
u/Herbivoreselector 15h ago
Democratic leadership would rather lose elections than endorse highly popular policies that the donor class doesn’t like. Democratic candidates who run on these policies, like AOC and Mamdani, are relegated to the fringe. Schumer, Jeffries, and the like need to go.
5
u/Bxk__ 14h ago
They pressured the DFL to rescind their endorsement of Omar Fateh for Minneapolis mayor last week. Those are your 'medicare for all' candidates getting bullied by democrat leadership to the point that they apparently would rather have every local news outlet paint them as dysfunctional than ruffle the feathers of corporate megadonors
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 32m ago
Who is “they” here specifically?
And do you not believe in actually counting all of the votes correctly?
2
u/ts_wrathchild 15h ago
Get in. Ram that shit through. Let Americans experience no medical debt or medical bankruptcy for 4 years and it becomes political suicide to suggest it's removal in the next admin.
There is no excuse for the next Democratic administration for not getting this done.
You only have to do it once.
2
u/ChocolateGoldenPuffs 14h ago edited 14h ago
This would be a guaranteed loss. There are an absurd amount of people who are against it. Usually because "socialism" but there is also the cost.
Edit: There's also the dip in quality and timeliness of Healthcare that will come with it.
→ More replies (14)
2
u/obelix_dogmatix 12h ago
yeah, no. Please, we can’t be headed from one extreme to another. We need to move towards the Germany or Australia model of healthcare, not the “let’s wait for 6 months to see an ENT specialist”
1
1
u/BabyYodaX 14h ago
I am terrified of what my health insurance premiums are going to be for next year.
I would be better off dropping dead.
1
u/gatsby712 14h ago edited 14h ago
Yes, but dumb down the rhetoric. “Republicans can’t give you healthcare like we can! They are so sad, nasty people that want to take it away. L” Huge groups of people have no idea what Medicare is, what it matters to them, and see it as a government inefficiency.
1
u/SimonVpK Texas 13h ago
Well they should be embracing it anyway because it would actually help people instead of the garbage system with now that’s designed to extract as much wealth as possible from the working class.
1
u/carbonatedshark55 12h ago
Maybe, but this isn't 2016 anymore. Liberals are not exactly in the mood for policy discussions; they more interested in seeing Donald Trump and every supporter go to jail. Now since the capital class is aligned with fascism, there is commonality between Medicare for All and stopping fascism. There is definitely a way to tie leftist policies with antifascist sentiment. Really, people on the left have to message to everyone that capitalism itself is aligned with Donald Trump and in order to fight Trump, you have to fight capitalism.
1
u/it-was-justathought 11h ago
You are going to lose those who are on Medicare and/or those who help them navigate their coverage (and what's not covered). Medicare sucks, especially if you are disabled and younger than 65. You need a better model.
I'm not going to want to spend energy for MFA over Comprehensive Health Care for All.
1
u/IServeSatan 11h ago
A lot of people are going to die in the next 4 or 5 years minimum who otherwise likely would be alive with ObamaCare.
US elections are hopelessly rigged. Time to move to a new country.
1
1
1
u/SharpCookie232 11h ago
Do they want to win more than they want to suck up to their corporate overlords, though?
1
1
1
u/Samsquanch-Sr 9h ago
If Republicans want to win an honest popular vote for the next fifty years, they should embrace Medicare for All, because it will make American healthier and save money compared to the nightmare of insurance middlemen we have today.
And in the way Nixon could go to China, Republicans could actually get this done.
1
1
u/Fragmentia 9h ago
Actually, they need to rename M4A to something more flashy and sell it aggressively. Jon Stewart could do it. Democratic politicians cant really sell. Obama was an absolute political force. They haven't had anyone since who can sell. I love Bernie, but he cant sell.
1
u/Ornery_1004 9h ago
You mean "healthcare" for all. But it is not enough to be behind it. Dems need a plan for paying for it. They may want to start with free healthcare for all citizens.
1
1
•
•
u/MrEatsYourLeftovers 6h ago
They should focus less on just talking all the time about hating the current government and more on creating a new platform that’s going to win back the moderate swing voters.
•
u/Famous-Tumbleweed-66 3h ago
The dem establishment does not want to beat trump. At no point have their actions demonstrated so. They only covet power for themselves and if you don’t recall trump was once a establishment dem.
•
•
u/around_the_clock 2h ago
They won't because corporations control your government. They have no power to do anything. They probably have contract to these corporations unlike to the citizens that they took an oath to
•
u/No-Monk-1935 59m ago
Medicare for All could be the Democrats’ strongest card healthcare unites voters across party lines. The question is, do they have the courage to back it fully?
•
u/The_Pandalorian California 44m ago
They should embrace universal health care for people under 25. That would be the beginning and a safer way to ease people into it.
•
u/AutoModerator 15h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.