Type to search

Sanders’ Single-Payer Plan Is A Distraction

Featured Post Memo Pad Politics Top News

Sanders’ Single-Payer Plan Is A Distraction

Bernie Sanders

If you’ve successfully landed on the beaches, but your forces are still taking heavy fire, what do you do? Do you concentrate on trying to hold the line and make further advances or do you sit in a circle and design a better landing craft?

The problem with Bernie Sanders’ health care vision isn’t the vision. His raw outline for a greatly simplified and less expensive health-care system is excellent in theory. The problem is the politics — the reality of which battle-scarred Hillary Clinton clearly has the better grasp.

This was the message Clinton tried to convey in the Sunday Democratic debate. Her most potent point on health-care reform centered on recalling the “public option” fiasco during the fight for the Affordable Care Act.

The public option was to be a government-run health plan competing with the private offerings in the health-care exchanges. It was a no-brainer to keep the insurance companies on a shorter leash. But, as Clinton noted, “even when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn’t get the votes for that.”

John E. McDonough, a health policy expert at Harvard, has also been through the health-care wars. As a Massachusetts state legislator, McDonough led an unsuccessful campaign to bring single-payer to his liberal state. In a recent New England Journal of Medicine article, he explained why a similar effort in Sanders’ own state of Vermont failed.

Vermont was the great hope for we fans of single-payer. (I was waving pompoms.) The state is progressive and one footstep from Canada. Gov. Peter Shumlin was totally onboard. He spent four years trying to make a single-payer plan happen. Three major-league studies showed that it was economically feasible.

But even in Vermont, a clear public mandate for single payer never materialized. A rebellion against it almost cost Shumlin the governor’s job.

Asked about this on Sunday, Sanders took a swipe at Shumlin (who has endorsed Clinton).

“Let me just say that you might want to ask the governor of the state of Vermont why he could not do it,” Sanders responded. “I’m not the governor. I’m the senator from the state of Vermont.”
Yes, and as senator from Vermont, Sanders introduced several single-payer bills that went nowhere. The most recent one, the 2013 American Health Security Act, attracted not a single co-sponsor.

The plan Sanders released two hours before the debate remains too sketchy for a reliable independent analysis, according to McDonough. But lack of detail isn’t his biggest concern. It’s opening a new front in the battle to defend Obamacare.

“Republicans sent a bill to the President’s desk last week that would eliminate health insurance for 22 million Americans by 2018,” McDonough wrote me. “This is not beanbag. It’s the real deal, and we have to focus where it matters the most.”

“Bernie wants to lead us on a distraction tour while Republicans want to kill the progress we have made.”

How far have we come? Thanks to Obamacare, almost 18 million formerly uninsured Americans now have health coverage. A report just out of Georgetown University has the rate of uninsured Hispanic children falling to a historic low.

Insurers can no longer turn down people with pre-existing conditions. And important politically, Obamacare has demonstrated that universal coverage is doable without creating mass unemployment or “exploding” deficits. On the contrary.

Making Obamacare more Medicare-like through incremental steps may not feed the romantic urge to reinvent health-care reform from scratch, but there’s no other road, not in the America of 2016. Finally, let’s not forget that vanguard of reform is still on the beaches and taking fire.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com.

Correction: The health policy expert at Harvard is John E. McDonough, not Thomas. We regret the error. This article has been updated to reflect that change.

Photo: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders listens to a question during the Democratic presidential candidates debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire December 19, 2015. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Froma Harrop

Froma Harrop’s nationally syndicated column appears in over 150 newspapers. Media Matters ranks her column 20th nationally in total readership and 14th in large newspaper concentration. Harrop has been a guest on PBS, MSNBC, Fox News and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and is a frequent voice on NPR and talk radio stations in every time zone as well.

A Loeb Award finalist for economic commentary in 2004 and again in 2011, Harrop was also a Scripps Howard Award finalist for commentary in 2010. She has been honored by the National Society of Newspaper Columnists and the New England Associated Press News Executives Association has given her five awards.

  • 1


  1. dtgraham January 19, 2016

    There are three things to say in rebuttal here:

    i) Sanders will obviously not be killing the ACA, while in the White House, as he’s trying to negotiate something better. He’s not going to be signing off on any Republican bills to repeal the ACA. If the miracle of Lourdes happens and the GOP agrees to single payer, then the ACA can go. Until then, he’ll try and build on the ACA while seeking single payer; neither of which is likely to happen with Republicans controlling Congress.

    ii) As mentioned in i), any attempt to build on the ACA [Hillary] with a possible public option (or something else) is no more achievable, given a GOP House, than would be a full court press on single payer. So, why not go for the latter? May as well shoot for the moon.

    iii) There are about 29 million people who still can’t afford health insurance, and there are countless millions more who are under insured and/or face having their insurance be revealed as effectively worthless because they can’t afford the deductibles. Those people would love to have a “distraction” to the ACA.

    1. RED January 19, 2016

      Amen Brother!! I can’t believe this purely contrived political attack by the Clinton campaign has caught on. Its disgusting as it appears that Hillary threw out the marching orders and now the good little media followers are pushing the story. Single Payer has always been the goal, ALWAYS!! Any other system will be lacking. Of course, the ACA is better than nothing but it’s only a Clinton designed attack that suggests one choice destroys the other. Failure to pass single payer does not end ACA. But this is what we get with Hillary, not bold progressive leadership to address and fix the solvable problems but instead more collusion with the Cons and their continuing to hold the rest of the country hostage and increasingly poor. I don’t want a leader who says, “I know it sux but it’s the best we can do.” I want a leader that says “we are gonna do this, we are going to fight for what is right and what is best for all of us.” We have settled for years for the former. And yes we may have made some progress on social issues and even the ACA but still Americans are poorer now than at any other time in my life time. So I’m absolutely thrilled that same sex couples can marry and have the same rights as everyone else, rights they deserve but that’s a long way from real justice, economic justice. Incremental change has adults and children in Flint poisoned, literally poisoned!!! I’m guessing those folks don’t want incrementally change? Maybe they will poison just a few less children this year? That’s an improvement, right? Ridiculous!! The people rotting in the largest prison system in the world probably don’t want incremental change. Hey maybe we’ll let you out of the our human warehouse in a few years? You’ll still be poor and likely have to commit crime or become a real criminal to survive. But hey incremental change. To h$ll with incremental change, they’ve incrementally changed us in 1/3 of the nation officially in poverty and much more than that on the edge and unable to provide basics to their family. The right wing scum has complained about women working and leaving the home while at the same time making it nearly impossible for a single income to support a family.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

        This isn’t NOT a “Clinton” attack…Not when the Sanders attack dogs are growing ever more rabid in their demand that their choice for president be ours as well.

        1. Kathy Langan January 20, 2016

          Listen to the pot call the kettle black!

      2. @HawaiianTater January 19, 2016

        Bravo, Red. Excellent post. Go big or go home. No more baby steps. Incremental changes are designed to keep the poor masses happy while constantly screwing them over. Our country needs a massive overhaul and Bernie is the man to do it.

        1. RED January 19, 2016

          Absolutely!! It frustrates the hell out of me that there are so many problems that are easily solvable yet continue to drag us down. And many times it’s as simple as 99 people gotta starve so that one guy gets to horde everything. Or better known as American Democracy, bought and paid for. Personally I don’t believe in communism, I don’t think it can work. But I do believe we can do way better than what we have now.

          1. dtgraham January 20, 2016

            Well, I am a democratic socialist and both you and HawaiianTater are after my own heart. You both talk like I do. What’s the difference?

      3. Kathy Langan January 20, 2016

        My thoughts exactly! Thanks so much for your post!

    2. mike January 19, 2016

      i think you need to work on the 29 million who can’t afford health insurance. But what the heck, whatever it takes to try and make a point no matter the distortion of facts.

      1. Transmuter January 19, 2016

        A single-payer plan takes care of all uninsured people. Why? Because there will not be insurance. Everyone has a medicare card. You’re employer pays part, you pay part. If you don’t have a job, you still get care. If you are wealthy, there will still be expensive private options for you.

        1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

          Okay..I have three friends who live in Canada. They have single payer there. First..they pay about $500 a year for “insurance.” The doctors, hospitals and diagnosticians all file claims for any services performed. It then goes to a subcontracted insurance company who determines whether or not the claim is valid and the government will pay for it.

          1. dtgraham January 20, 2016

            That’s only in BC. They’re the last Province to still have monthly premiums, and I’m not sure about that any more.

            I’ve never heard of any private intermediaries between the hospitals, provinces, and federal government, with regards to health care funding.

            You’re talking about whether claims are paid, based on being valid or not. I’ve never heard of that. You’re thinking of the American private insurance system. If a Canadian hospital submits a claim based on treatment of any Canadian citizen, it’s going to be paid by that citizen’s provincial government. They will then submit the bill to the federal government in Ottawa for partial reimbursement. There are no private insurance companies involved who might argue the claims. The Canada Health Act actually precludes private health care for profit.

        2. mike January 19, 2016

          Really! No insurance? The devil is the details of Bernie’s plan.
          My post to dtgraham was to point out he was wrong on his initial statement. When you take illegals out that drops it to 22 million. When you take out the people that say they don’ need it it drops below 19 million. Actually only about 14 million claim they can’t afford it, even when at least on in family is full time, unemployed.

          1. Transmuter January 19, 2016

            Yea. If we had Medicare for All, we would not have to pay for insurance, and instead pay a tax. I don’t get what you’re saying, could you clarify?

            The way I see it, is is that private insurance is the same as any other social program, its just privately owned. So where the Medicare systems would not need to pay it’s investors, marketing fees, and administrative costs, all of those savings would be passed on to U.S. citizens.


          2. mike January 19, 2016

            I have no idea nor do you know for sure what it really entails. The devil is in the details of his plan. So private insurance disappears, right?? So how much are those marketing fees? Administrative costs goes away, I don’t think so. How many new federal employees(union members) will be required? How many incompetent/corrupt workers will be added that can’t be fired.
            But you thnk things will be hunky-dory. Interesting.

      2. JPHALL January 19, 2016

        You should know this position quite well since it is your modus operendi.

        1. mike January 19, 2016

          And you are posting your ignorance once again. No surprise! You continue to act and post like a mental midget.
          Show the world where 29 million can’t afford health insurance. It doesn’t exist.

          1. dtgraham January 20, 2016

            You think that every single person in the United States has full health insurance. Why?

          2. mike January 20, 2016

            Show the world where 29 million can’t afford health insurance. It doesn’t exist. The 29 is another left wing lie, much like war on women. There are individuals that who can’t afford, even thought IT IS CALLED “AFFORDABE CARE ACT” but nothing even close to the numbers you quote.

            Every American has access to healthcare. No one is being turned away.

          3. dtgraham January 20, 2016

            Here’s a few links on the matter. I could have provided 15 or 20. You can’t look this up? You say that “there are individuals who can’t afford”, and then say that “every American has access to healthcare.” Which is it Mr. Cognitive dissonance? You’re counting begging at the ER as proper healthcare? Many of those healthcare beggars also get turned away, or get battlefield medic stabilization before being shown the door; and some of them get harassed for life from bill collectors.

            Lower wage employees whose companies don’t provide health insurance (the norm for that group) will obviously not be able to afford private health insurance, even with the ACA subsidies. You can’t figure that out? Some of them may or may not be eligible for the ACA medicaid expansion coverage in blue states, but Republican Governors have stopped the expansion in red states.

            There are others that are uninsured or under insured. I took the 29 million figure from Bernie Sanders at Sunday’s debate, but internet data on this reveal a significantly higher figure than that.



          4. mike January 20, 2016

            Thanks for nothing When I clicked on CBS it said “Page not found.”

            Then you give me an NPR from 2012. What a joke you are.

            Are you really this big an idiot?

            So whatever Bernie say you believe? He’s a effin politician.

            Even when Americans don’t sign up they still have access to healthcare thru ER’s dips_ _ t and no one is ever turned away because it is a Federal law, you effin imbecile.

            So if you take Bernie’s 29 million as face value you will see from this study about half CLAIM they can’t afford ACA.Go read “why do people stay uninsured”.

            Here’s another that claims 33 million uninsured and shows about 14 find it unaffordable.


          5. dtgraham January 21, 2016

            I’d love to respond and put you in your place, but can’t. This website has become crazy unstable no matter what computer I use. I don’t know if I can comment here any more. Surprised it let me type this much.

          6. mike January 21, 2016

            Whatever!! Works fine for me. What I do know both links prove that 29 million are not getting insurance because they can’t afford it.

          7. dtgraham January 21, 2016

            Re-read your last sentence. It says that 29 million are not getting insurance because they can’t afford it. Exactly. It’s just that the problem is even worse than that.

          8. mike January 21, 2016

            Now, now you have all those links that show there are 29 million that are uninsured because they can’t afford ACA.
            Proofs in the pudding!

          9. dtgraham January 21, 2016

            Here’s something to chew on my man. I saw the 15% figure on other websites, even with ACA exchange subsidies. 15% of the U.S. population is 48.45 million people who are uninsured because they can’t afford it. The ACA has helped some people be able to afford coverage who wouldn’t otherwise have it, but not nearly enough.



          10. mike January 21, 2016

            Are you really as dense as you post?
            You give me a pre-ACA article and then one about describing concerns of American with costs after ACA.
            The 15%(48 million uninsured)was before ACA but now you are saying after the 20-+ millions enrolled in ACA it is still 48 million. Is that right? Even after Bernie said 29 million, he was wrong it is now 48. Right?

          11. dtgraham January 22, 2016

            From Kaiser:

            “Why do people remain uninsured?

            Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2014, 48% of uninsured adults said the main reason they were uninsured was because the cost was too high. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for public coverage. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage.

            Who are the remaining uninsured?

            Most uninsured people are in low-income working families. In 2014, over 8 in 10 were in a family with a worker, and over 5 in 10 have family income below 200% of poverty. Reflecting the more limited availability of public coverage in some states, adults are more likely to be uninsured than children. People of color are at higher risk of being uninsured than non-Hispanic Whites.”

            This tells me precisely sweet fu*k all. So 48% of the uninsured can’t afford it, and the other 52% are poor. Thank-you Kaiser.

          12. mike January 22, 2016

            Your orignial statement was 29 million are uninsured because of cost, Right?
            You also said that before ACA there were 48 million uninsure. Right?
            You said Bernie said 29 million and NYT’s said 33 million are uninsured after ACA. Right?
            White House claims 19 million insured under ACA. Right?
            So lets use Bernies math since that is who you quoted to me. So 48-19=29. Right?

            And you agree that Kaiser said 48% do not have insurance because of cost. Right??
            So 48% of 29 million people without insurance makes just under 14 million people without health insurance because they can’t afford it.
            So your original statement is wrong like I said.

          13. dtgraham January 23, 2016

            That’s not what Kaiser said at all. They said that 48% of the uninsured were uninsured because they can’t afford it. The other 52%, they gave no reason for being uninsured except to strongly imply that they were uninsured because they were too poor, which is pretty fuc*ing redundant.

          14. mike January 23, 2016

            You really are an idiot.

            Here is what Kaiser said.

            “Cost still poses a major barrier to coverage for the uninsured. In 2014, 48% of uninsured adults said that the main reason they lacked coverage was because it was too expensive.”

            You claim, using Bernies numbers, 29 million are not insured because they can’t afford(too expensive) healthcare coverage. Which is wrong. 48% of the 29 million uninsured don’t have insurance because it’s too expensive.

            You really are an imbecile.

          15. mike January 21, 2016

            Now Now you said “29 million people are uninsured because they can’t afford health insurance.” Which is bull!
            The links show two different studies showing it is not just only affordability but much more.

          16. dtgraham January 21, 2016

            Who would rather go without health insurance when they could easily afford it? OK, so 19 million of the 48 million can afford health insurance with no problem at all, but are simply insane (I’m being very generous here). That leaves you with 29 million who can’t afford it.

            Like the Donald would say, you know the numbers are H-U-G-E, and you know it’s a huge issue whatever the exact figure is. The private patchwork health insurance system is a mess and you know that there are lots and lots of Americans without health insurance because they can’t afford it. Why don’t you care about that? Begging at the ER is not the answer.

          17. mike January 21, 2016

            Are you really this dense?
            Kaiser and the other source showed of those Not INSURED, 48%, opted out claiming of cost. The other 52% had various reasons other than cost. Duh!!!
            You are just wrong again.

          18. dtgraham January 22, 2016

            That’s not what it said at all! You carry on as though a handful of high income earners who’ve chosen to go without health insurance (supposedly) somehow justifies all of the insured.

            I’m mostly pretty serene when debating here because I’m aware of the infantilism of the American political right. Occasionally though, even a know nothing like you gets under my skin.

          19. mike January 22, 2016

            Here is your original comment 4 days agao

            iii) There are about 29 million people who still can’t afford health insurance, and there are countless millions more who are under insured and/or face having their insurance be revealed as effectively worthless because they can’t afford the deductibles. Those people would love to have a “distraction” to the ACA.

            Here what you posted a day ago.

            Who would rather go without health insurance when they could easily afford it? OK, so 19 million of the 48 million can afford health insurance with no problem at all, but are simply insane (I’m being very generous here). That leaves you with 29 million who can’t afford it.

            Then you said.

            “Cost still poses a major barrier to coverage for the uninsured. In 2014, 48% of uninsured adults said that the main reason they lacked coverage was because it was too expensive. Eligibility is also a barrier: 12% of uninsured adults mentioned work-related reasons, such as being unemployed or not having an offer through work, and 13% said they were told they were ineligible or could not get coverage due to their immigration status. Few uninsured adults said they were uninsured because they do not need coverage, oppose the ACA, or would rather pay the penalty (Figure 4).”

            So you do the math

            48 million-19 million=29 million

            48%(Kaiser) of 29 million =13.9 million

            So how can you say there are 29 million people uninsured because of affordability?

          20. dtgraham January 23, 2016

            Some of “my posts” were just copying your own link back to you to show your incorrect interpretations.

            I just threw that 19 million figure out for the sake of argument (which was clearly implied) to get the pre-subsidy figure down to 29 million uninsured. That was Bernie’s number, not mine. He also didn’t say that necessarily 100% of the 29 million were uninsured due to cost. There are always going to be a handful of invincible millennials and rich guys who choose to go without insurance.

          21. mike January 23, 2016

            You effin idiot.

            You said in your 3rd point:

            iii) There are about 29 million people who still can’t afford health insurance, and there are countless millions more who are under insured and/or face having their insurance be revealed as effectively worthless because they can’t afford the deductibles. Those people would love to have a “distraction” to the ACA.

            I used the 19 from the WH dipsh*t.

            Get over it you misspoke, live with it.

          22. dtgraham January 23, 2016

            Like I’ve said numerous times now, the 29 million figure was from Bernie, but so what? You want to argue minutiae, and angels on the head of a pin. I would too if I were you because you’ve got nothing of substance here. I didn’t use the 19 from the White House. It was just pure math at the time, for the sake of argument. Again, who fuc*ing cares? I don’t even know where you’re coming from at this point. You’re all over the place.

            You’re now, amazingly, an Obamacare supporter…until you start posting on Stormfront later that is.

          23. mike January 23, 2016

            You’re an idiot!
            You were wrong then, as now, the 29 million uninsured are not insured because of expense.

          24. dtgraham January 23, 2016

            The primary reason given for lack of health insurance coverage in 2005
            was cost (more than 50%), lost job or a change in employment (24%),
            Medicaid benefits stopped (10%), ineligibility for family insurance
            coverage due to age or leaving school (8%). Source: National Center for
            Health Statistics

            This is 92% cost as a factor expressed in different ways, you stupid a$$hole. The number of insured will have changed from this report due to Obamacare, but the reasons for being uninsured will have remained the same.

          25. mike January 23, 2016

            2005!! What the hell is wrong with you?
            This is 2016 and everything I have posted is about ACA and the fact that about 14 million of 29 million of those not enrolled was because it was too expensive. Not all 29 million not enrolled because it was too expensive as you stated.

            No question you are certifiable nuts!

          26. dtgraham January 24, 2016

            Yes cost, you stupid a$$hole. While Obamacare has allowed more low income people to access healthcare, and has disallowed insurance companies from cutting off health care from others, cost has nevertheless been a huge issue in too many Americans still not being able to access healthcare despite the ACA. Do you understand that, you stupid a$$hole?

          27. mike January 24, 2016

            You said: 29 million are without insurance because it is to expensive. Which is wrong! Give it up, you didn’t know what you were talking about.

            Hey dipsh*t! What I know is you didn’t answer the question.

            Yes, more did gain access but the same % of people walked away from being insured because of expense back then as now under ACA. Yet it is called Affordable Care Act!

          28. dtgraham January 24, 2016

            I just repeated Bernie’s number of 29 million who didn’t have insurance, regardless of reason…period.

            So now you’re actually saying that over half of the uninsured can easily afford the coverage, but don’t have it for some other reason. Over half! What would be the reason? Clinical insanity? Notwithstanding that this makes no logical sense at all, what thin air did you snap that out of? Kaiser didn’t say that. Who’s saying that, you stupid a$$hole?

            I’d refer you back to the National Center for Health Statistics, but I know you have problems with reading comprehension and basic human reasoning, so let me guide you:

            i) We’re dealing with private health insurance companies, so cost can still be a barrier for the uninsured in 2016 despite the subsidies. They don’t apply to everybody and they don’t always help. That’s more than 50% of the uninsured. ii) Amazingly, people still lose their jobs in 2016 or have some change in employment that lessens their ability to access insurance in some way. That’s 24% of the uninsured (cost related). iii) People still lose their medicaid benefits in 2016. That’s 10% of the uninsured (cost related). iv) People still have to leave their family insurance plan (later now) or leave school at some point in 2016. That’s 8% of the uninsured (cost related). v) That leaves somewhere between 0-8% of the uninsured who MIGHT be uninsured by choice. Might.

            The total number of uninsured will have dropped from 2005 due to the ACA, but the reasons for being uninsured should roughly be in the same proportion as 2005, with the exception of being uninsured due to pre-existing conditions. Is this becoming any clearer?

            Tell me when you’ve finally had enough of being humiliated. You’re a bear for punishment.

          29. mike January 24, 2016

            You said “29 million people are without health insurance because of expense” you misspoke live with it
            “Humiliated” only in your mental midget head.

          30. dtgraham January 24, 2016

            Provide full documentation that over half of the uninsured are that way by choice. Prove it.

            You’re a stereotyped Republican. You won’t acknowledge facts put right in front of you and you have bizarre beliefs. At least you’re not part of the Sarah Palin brigade. You seem to be able to string together coherent sentences. I see the Palin Republicans here all the time.

          31. mike January 24, 2016

            Mental midget, I gave you the links dipsh*t.

          32. dtgraham January 24, 2016

            The links that showed me that 48% of the uninsured couldn’t afford it, and the other 52% were marginalized financially. Great stat. Very informative.

          33. mike January 24, 2016

            Try this on for size.

          34. dtgraham January 24, 2016

            That’s another Kaiser link that simply showed the ESI participation in the country and the effects of the ACA medicaid expansion, and denial of that expansion.

            That doesn’t break down the uninsured. I read fast, but I’ll take some time later to go over it again. I have to go.

          35. mike January 24, 2016

            Get a life!
            Those were the same link/links I gave you days ago. Your 52% is your pure bull ?.

          36. dtgraham January 25, 2016

            From your highly informative link:

            Why do people remain uninsured?

            Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2014, 48% of uninsured adults said the main reason they were uninsured was because the cost was too high. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for public coverage. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage.

            Who are the remaining uninsured?

            Most uninsured people are in low-income working families. In 2014, over 8 in 10 were in a family with a worker, and over 5 in 10 have family income below 200% of poverty. Reflecting the more limited availability of public coverage in some states, adults are more likely to be uninsured than children. People of color are at higher risk of being uninsured than non-Hispanic Whites.

            So, 48% cite the high cost of coverage for being uninsured, and the rest are in low income working families. That tells me that it’s all cost.

          37. dtgraham January 22, 2016

            A NY Times article had the uninsured dropping to about 36 million a year after the ACA subsidies went into effect.


            Patients treated under EMTALA may not be able to pay or have insurance or other programs pay for the associated costs but are legally responsible for any costs incurred as a result of their care under civil law.

            Not all medical conditions qualify for uncompensated mandated services imposed by EMTALA, which is contrary to the misperception that
            many individuals assume that if they are ill, they will be treated, regardless of their ability to pay.

            Do you still think that all hospitals must accept everyone, and no one is ever denied care, you stupid a$$hole?

          38. mike January 22, 2016

            I know you can document all those people denied treatment. Proof again is in the pudding.
            BTW. Read and weep.it is a federal law that any hospital that takes Medicare, which means about every hospital, must take patients no matter what. Read below and learn.
            You really are a dipsh*t.
            Produce all those denied, it must be millions in your world.

          39. Leftout January 23, 2016

            Mike you are very good

          40. mike January 23, 2016

            Trying to educate.?

          41. dtgraham January 23, 2016

            Very good at being a stupid a$$hole.

          42. Leftout January 23, 2016

            But , Mike is right , there are still people low income that can not afford it, ACA still has high deductibles w low premiums. People are working 2 -3 par time jobs instead of one good job. Due to rules of engagement of providing ACA. Where has all the money of several trillion dollars gone in the past 7years. It could have paid for everyone’s voucher to get any healthcare pkg that they needed, for free as Bernie says. There is also a big mark up to keep insurance companies solvent and paying investors. The mechanism for healthcare is already in place….Medicare . This can be paid for by a social care sales tax where EVERYONE , essentially contributed , eliminating any one class of worker from paying for the sloths of society.

          43. dtgraham January 24, 2016

            Yes, Medicare for all. However, the stupid a$$hole that you’re referring to is a far right ideologue who only wants private insurance companies.

          44. dtgraham January 23, 2016

            Any individual who comes and requests must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists.

            If an emergency medical condition exists, treatment must be provided until the emergency medical condition is resolved or stabilized.

            “WHETHER an EMERGENCY medical condition exists.”

            “IF an EMERGENCY medical condition exists.”

            They define what an emergency is, and you apparently have to be damn near on death’s door, or else they don’t have to treat you, you stupid a$$hole.

          45. mike January 23, 2016

            Really, produce the wording from the federal law or govt agency expressing those exact words.
            Produce evidence that Americans are being denied treatment.

            As usual you have your head up your a$$.

          46. dtgraham January 23, 2016

            Non-covered medical conditions:

            Not all medical conditions qualify for uncompensated mandated services imposed by EMTALA, which is contrary to the misperception that many individuals assume that if they are ill, they will be treated, regardless of their ability to pay.

            The sole purpose for the EMTALA mandated MSE is to require Emergency Departments to make a determination whether an emergency medical condition does or does not exist, using their normal assessment and diagnostic protocols.

            There you go, you stupid a$$hole.

          47. mike January 23, 2016

            Produce the link
            One more time, document all those denied medical care at an ER.

          48. dtgraham January 23, 2016

            It should be clearly obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub against that there are undoubtedly going to be patients denied treatment who aren’t considered to be enough of an emergency. What is wrong with you? Can you not read English?

            Give me documentation that all non-emergency patients have always been given full treatment at ER’s, no exceptions. The fact that many uninsured ER patients are later financially ruined by bill collectors is a separate argument.

          49. mike January 23, 2016

            Just produce patients that have been denied service, don’t play the semantic game. Document all that have been denied service in a ER.

          50. dtgraham January 23, 2016



            Here’s some stats on why people are uninsured: (hint, it’s virtually all cost related)

            The primary reason given for lack of health insurance coverage in 2005
            was cost (more than 50%), lost job or a change in employment (24%),
            Medicaid benefits stopped (10%), ineligibility for family insurance
            coverage due to age or leaving school (8%). Source: National Center for
            Health Statistics

          51. mike January 24, 2016

            This thread is about your incorrect statement that all 29 million people are uninsured because ACA insurance is in their opinion too expensive. It has been proven wrong. Live with it.

            Then you try to use two far left sites to try and make your point that ER’s are denying treatment which is against Federal Law. Both articles were bascally talking health care denial not by ER’s but by Insurance companies. Which by the way pre-existing conditions would be the only part of ACA I would keep. Mother kept looking for dentist for 12 year boy but never went to ER. Cancer victim didn’t go to hospital that would have been required to treat. As to others examples, which looked like duplications, more detail is needed.
            You made a false statement on ACA, that all uninsured was because of expense. Not true!
            Quit wasting my time trying to say you never said it.


          52. dtgraham January 24, 2016

            “It was an odyssey that would take her to five hospitals, two clinics, two charitable organizations and two nursing homes in two states. She was DENIED ASSISTANCE OR CARE at least six times along the way, for reasons that ranged from not being poor enough to not being sick enough.”

            “Her insurance carrier precertified her for a double mastectomy and hospital stay. But three days before the operation, the insurance
            company called and told her they had red-flagged her chart and she would NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE HER SURGERY.”

            “Five Thousand Americans Die Every Year Due To Lack Of Insurance. In September 2009, a Harvard Medical School study found that a “lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States,” The New York Times reported. The paper explained:”

            Aren’t you forgetting something? No one should be dying from lack of insurance right? Just show up at the ER in mike’s world right?

          53. mike January 24, 2016

            Remember, you said ” 29 million people have no insurance after ACA because it’s to expensive. Not true! You were wrong.
            Produce all the documentation showing all the specifics. There is much more to the story. No lawsuit?
            Federal law says all must be treated.
            Time for you to get back in the real world. Today we have ACA, costing more than Obama promised, can’t keep hospital or Doctor as promised, less choice. Young not enrolling to level needed to finance. Redistribution of wealth nothing more.
            29 million are not insured because of expense.

          54. dtgraham January 24, 2016

            From common old Wikipedia:

            “For-profit hospitals were more likely to provide profitable medical services and less likely to provide medical services that were
            relatively unprofitable.”

            You caught the “less likely thing?”

            Insurance companies don’t treat anyone. Those hospitals stopped treatment after the insurance kicked out. No tickie, no washie.

            I gave you the EMTLA mandated treatment law. It’s for emergencies only at private hospitals.

          55. mike January 24, 2016

            Keep trying, you are wasting your time.
            Federal Law states any hospital that takes Medicare patients has to treat anyone with or without insurance.
            Why you keep beating a dead horse is beyond me. We live with ACA and all its faults.

            Remember what you said about the 29 million not insured because of expense. It was wrong then as it is now.

          56. dtgraham January 25, 2016

            No, federal law doesn’t say that at all— and I showed you what federal law actually says.

            Of course, facts don’t matter to you. You just keep repeating your mantra that the right wing media has taught you.

            You’re just a wind-up far right Chatty Cathy doll. Pull your string and you repeat the same bullsh!t, no matter what facts are presented to you.

          57. mike January 25, 2016

            Bull ?!
            “29 million uninsured because ACA insurance being too high”, your words. WRONG!
            Get a life!

          58. dtgraham January 26, 2016

            If the NY Times article on the uninsured is correct, then it would be more than 29 million uninsured due to cost. No one knows precisely what the uninsured number is with that kind of specificity. What is known is that the total number of uninsured, and the number uninsured due to cost, would be extremely close to one another as evidenced by the Center for Health Statistics data.

            You stupid a$$hole.

          59. mike January 26, 2016

            I gave two sources that proved you wrong. Look at the pie chart from Kaiser.
            A person with half a brain would understand it.

          60. dtgraham January 26, 2016

            Kaiser said nothing of the kind. The Center for Health Statistics were detailed and precise. Kaiser was vague in the extreme. I know I’m not likely to see anything useful, but send me the pie chart again. Did you ever once consider reading these links before you send them to me? They all blow up in your face.

          61. mike January 26, 2016

            I guess you also have reading comprehension problem. Kaiser as well as the other source were quite specific.
            I have sent them twice, so get off your duff and look up my post on thread.

          62. dtgraham January 27, 2016

            I’ve copied Kaiser back to you. There’s no excuse for this. You send me information that essentially says nothing in support of your claims, and in fact contains contradictory data, and then you prance around like a peacock as though you’ve won the day.

            In contrast, I send you solid government facts and you just deny them. I send you black, and you tell me it’s white.

            At this point, you’re like the Monty Python knight who’s both legless and armless but still wants to continue the battle because he’s convinced that it’s just a flesh wound, and he can still bite his opponent to death.

          63. mike January 27, 2016

            “I’ve copied back”, really!
            You haven’t sent crap.

          64. dtgraham January 28, 2016

            I copied and pasted the only portion of the Kaiser report that began like it was going to break down the uninsured, but then ended in some vague meaninglessness.

          65. mike January 27, 2016
          66. dtgraham January 28, 2016

            ~ 48% too expensive.
            ~ 7% immigration status — may as well be too expensive.
            ~ 3% don’t know to get it — if they did, would it be too expensive?
            ~ 6% told they were ineligible — may as well be too expensive.
            ~ 12% work doesn’t offer/not eligible at work/unemployed — may as well be too expensive.
            ~ 4% don’t know/refused — if they did know, would it be too expensive?
            ~ 12% other reason — related to too expensive?

            Don’t you understand that this doesn’t really say anything; and the precious little that it is saying is not what you’re portraying?

          67. mike January 28, 2016

            You just confirmed that you didn’t know what you were talking about then and now. You said: ” 29 million people are without health insurance because too expensive.”
            Your first point-48% too expensive
            NOT 100% as you claimed.
            Only in your pea brain it doesn’t say anything.

          68. dtgraham January 28, 2016

            My list wasn’t quite 100% of the uninsured. It was 92% of the uninsured from the Kaiser pie chart, which was exactly where the Center for Health Statistics cut off—at 92%.

            The remainder from the pie chart is 6% who don’t need it, and 3% who are opposed to the ACA. The chart shows cost related factors being 73%. The rest is not known due to the sloppiness of the research, except that we know there are only 9% uninsured by choice. One third of that number (opposed to ACA) may truly need the insurance, but their political dogma and ideology is worth more to them than their health.

            Immigration status is really cost, because private health insurance companies will sell to anybody who can afford it.

            You see mike, I know how to reason, think, analyze, and break things down. Basic human reasoning is one of the things that separates you and I.

          69. mike January 28, 2016

            LOL! You are an idiot.

            You don’t know squat.
            You have admitted 48% of the 29 million(your #) are uninsured because it is too expensive.
            You said “29 million(100 %) are uninsured because ACA is too expensive”. Statics/results show just 48% haven’t bought because of expense.

          70. dtgraham January 29, 2016

            If you could read English properly, you’d know that I admitted to nothing like that. If you had reading comprehension skills and basic human reasoning, you’d understand that there were several other reasons given in both breakdowns that were obviously expense or cost as well.

            Unemployed. What the hell is that, if not insurance is now too expensive? Another way of saying it, right? Lost Medicaid benefits. What is that, if not another way of saying that health insurance is now unaffordable. Right? Work doesn’t offer. What is that, if not another way of saying that I can’t afford it on my own. Right? Drop in income from change in employment. What is that, if not another way of saying that insurance is now too expensive. Right? Etc, etc, etc, etc……

            You don’t know how stupid you sound, and for you that’s probably a blessing. I’m done here. Enough of holding your hand and carefully explaining things to you. You just keep repeating the same sh!t anyway. A guy like you kills me. You’re a true know nothing who’s not exactly a deep thinker to put it mildly, but you really think you’ve got it going on.

            Now go ahead and repeat your same brainless sh!t back to me. Your grade school teachers must remember you well. “Mike, for the 89th time…2+2=4, not 3, and here’s why.” mike replies—“No it’s 3.” “I know it is.” “I know it.” “I just know it.”

          71. mike January 29, 2016

            Don’t worry, I will continue to repeat your claim back to you.
            You said “29 million are uninsured because it is too expensive.” Stats show that is wrong.
            48% of uninsured say ACA is too expensive, not 100% of uninsured saying too expensive.
            Keep trying to say you didn’t say or mean it.
            My response to you will be the same. You said “29 million are uninsured because it’s too expensive.” You said it. It was wrong. Live with it
            Just like your ignorance claiming the KWA water supply entered water plant on push of the button by mayor in Flint. Pipeline still 6 months away from completion. Wrong again doofus.

          72. dtgraham January 30, 2016

            Fu*k you, you simple minded goof. I’m done with you.

          73. mike January 30, 2016

            Thanks for the chuckle.
            BTW, 48% of Americans say ACA too expensive. Not the 100% you claim.
            TA TA

          74. dtgraham January 27, 2016

            Hey a$$hole, have a look at these EMTALA ER articles. I can find more now that I have a better idea on how to word the search.



          75. mike January 27, 2016

            You really are delusional.
            7 days ago I said you were wrong on 29 million uninsured because of cost. JPHALL responded to me. You then responed to me with question: “You think that every single person in the United States has full health insurance. Why?
            I responded to you by saying 29 million are not uninsured because of costs. I ended the post “EVERY AMERICAN HAS ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE. NO ONE IS BEING TURNED AWAY.”
            You then gave me CBS 2014 article which said “42% said it was too expensive”, then you gave me a NPR aricle from 2012 pre-ACA. I gave you two 2015 excellent sources that disproved you accusations of 29 million without insurance because of high expense. Since then you have been on this thing with ER’s before ACA.
            I said several times we now have ACA. Every American has access to healthcare, if you don’t enroll, you still have access, generally speaking it depends on income if the IRS will come after you. If they don’t enroll and should get sick then they still pay the piper at some point. By percentage of income or per person. It’s called Individual shared responsibility fee. Everyone has access. Duh!
            Get out of the past. We now have ACA, which BTW is imploding. Exchanges closing, premiums higher, deductibles and co-pay forcing patients not to go to doctors or treatment.

            You can waste your time in the past, have at it.
            29 million are without insurance NOT BECAUSE OF EXPENSE.

          76. dtgraham January 28, 2016

            The individual shared responsibility portion of the ACA is just a shared responsibility payment (based on income) that you send in when you file your income tax return, if you haven’t acquired minimum essential coverage as defined by the ACA. It’s just a fine. That’s all it is, you stupid a$$hole.


            “Exchanges closing, premiums higher, deductibles and co-pay forcing patients not to go to doctors or treatment”, says mike.

            Which is it, you stupid a$$hole?

          77. mike January 28, 2016

            Those that don’t sign up for ACA pay a TAX not a fine/penalty when they receive treatment. SCOTUS
            So one more time, in 2016 under ACA, when a sick person presents oneself to a ER, he is refused treatment when uninsured? Yes!

          78. dtgraham January 28, 2016

            No, not when they receive treatment—when they file their tax return.

            No, not every sick person. The ones who can be dumped/denied are EMTALA defined non-emergencies…supposedly. The American University Law Review and other reports have outlined examples of true emergencies who were denied treatment though. Patient dumping is still a big problem even under the ACA.

            There has been no strengthening of the EMTALA law under the ACA. It focuses on insurance, not hospitals.

          79. mike January 28, 2016

            Let me state it so even you understand. Once a person not enrolled receives treatment he will be forced to pay a tax, not at the moment but at time of filing his taxes. Once receiving treatment he is in the system, and obligationed to what ever plan/program that fits.It’s a tax, doofus. When do the majority of Americans pay taxes? Before April of next year.

          80. dtgraham January 29, 2016

            Then call it a tax. That was the debate at the time. It’s paid for not acquiring minimum essential coverage unless you have an exemption, not for receiving treatment. If you don’t have insurance, you’re not in any system.

          81. mike January 25, 2016

            Here you go dipsh*t.
            Go read “Does EMTALA apply to all Hospitals?
            Any hospital who takes medicare has to treat.

            Here’s another.

            Don’t forget your incorrect statement “29 million do not have health care insurance because it is too expensive.”

          82. dtgraham January 26, 2016

            “The hospital does not have an obligation under EMTALA to treat the patient if after the MSE the hospital determines there is no EMC. – See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/hospital-liability-the-federal-emergency-medical-treatment-and-l.html#sthash.M4tZAWet.dpuf

            That sentence was from your own statelaws link. It has to be an emergency, you stupid a$$hole. Your link restates what the EMTALA guidelines are for an emergency. You have to be very, very sick or injured or the hospital has no obligation to treat you.

            You stupid basta*d.

          83. mike January 26, 2016

            The ER is not a doctors office. Show me all the patients that have died from the ER refusing them when they were ill. Anyone with half a brain knows the meaning of “Emergency Room”.
            BTW, you said ’29 million didn’t buy ACA insurance because it was too expensive”. WRONG AGAIN!

          84. dtgraham January 26, 2016

            This is getting too easy. No office without an ER has an obligation to treat anyone. Private settings with an ER do not have an obligation under EMTALA to treat the patient if, after the MSE, the hospital determines there is no EMC. EMTLA guidelines determine what an EMC is.

            Show you all the patients? What, like bring them to your house? I gave you links on patient horror stories regarding denial of care, and there would obviously be plenty more. You also have the info on the number of deaths per year due to lack of insurance. They wouldn’t have died if they could just show up to an ER. Many get turned away because their condition is not yet bad enough and they can’t pay. They’ll then come back when it finally is bad enough…too late.

            Now show me documentation which clearly demonstrates that ALL non-emergency patients as defined by EMTALA rules, get treated at an ER in every case. No exceptions.

            You stupid a$$hole.

          85. mike January 26, 2016

            Again, anyone even with a quarter of a brain knows that a person SICk, INJURED, with LIFE THREATING condition can not be refused treatment at ER.The point was to keep patients without insurance from being transferred to another hospital, or denied service. An ER is not a clinic.
            Keep trying, wrong again, soooo sad.

          86. dtgraham January 27, 2016

            Exactly. Life threatening. Precisely. Anything less, no matter how serious, and the hospital with an ER is allowed to deny treatment.

            By god, you may be finally getting this.

          87. dtgraham January 21, 2016

            One last crack at this. Your own link shows the problem with accessibility due to cost.

            “Cost still poses a major barrier to coverage for the uninsured. In 2014, 48% of uninsured adults said that the main reason they lacked coverage was because it was too expensive. Eligibility is also a barrier: 12% of uninsured adults mentioned work-related reasons, such as being unemployed or not having an offer through work, and 13% said they were told they were ineligible or could not get coverage due to their immigration status. Few uninsured adults said they were uninsured because they do not need coverage, oppose the ACA, or would rather pay the penalty (Figure 4).”

            A couple of points. The Hill-Burton Act removed the imposition of charity care requirements imposed on private hospitals. They must only treat you if it’s a dire life threatening emergency, and they can get creative about what that is. Public hospitals must still treat you but there may not be a public hospital anywhere near where you are. Even if there is, long term treatment for serious things like cancer is not likely in the cards without insurance.

            The page not found problem is extremely common and momentary. It’s caused by a lot of things. Click on it again and it will probably be displayed. That CBS link worked for me just fine when I tried it again.

    3. FT66 January 19, 2016

      No way GOP can agree to single payer. They cut off food assistance and still you have hope on this!

  2. Theodora30 January 19, 2016

    Countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Japan have a system – the Bismarck model – which mandates people and employers by insurance from private companies. A public option is also available. It is not a government run single payer system.
    Most Americans would be a lot more comfortable with that kind of system that gives them choices and the experience of the countries above prove that model can be very effective. All those countries spend a lot less than we do with as good as or even better outcomes. So yes, single payer is a distraction and seems extreme to a lot of people.

    1. dtgraham January 19, 2016

      I’ll take your word for it Theodora, but I still don’t understand it. Health care isn’t like buying a laptop or a pair of shoes. Free market dynamics don’t really work in health care and when you’re really sick, all you want are medical doctors and other professional staff, in a qualified hospital, to get you better.

      When your appendix is rupturing or you’ve had a bad accident, nobody is shopping around for anything at that point. Nor does the average person have any idea what surgeon they might prefer or what hospital has the best anesthetists. The concept of choice in health care escapes me. You assume that they’re highly qualified medical professionals for a reason. You just want to be able to afford it.

      1. Theodora30 January 19, 2016

        This is not about shopping around in an emergency. People have to sign up for insurance under these systems – France, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands to name a few. All these systems are very popular and they are all public/private blends with a choice among different private insurance plans.
        I agree that shopping around for specific health care needs is ridiculous, especially in an emergency, but clearly shopping for insurance plans is not. France’s health care system is considered the gold standard by many – something the French people brag about – so clearly they do not find having a choice of insurance plans to be a burden.

        Sadly Americans have no clue about what other countries have found successful because our media has done nothing for years and years to inform us about it. As a result a lot of people have been led to believe that other wealthy countries have health insurance that is completely government provided. The countries I have above follow Germany’s blended public-private system, the “Bismarck Model”. England adopted the Beveridge model after WWII. It is a totally government run system – not only does the government pay the bills directly, they own the hospitals and doctors are government employees. That is the system our VA is run.
        Canada has a blend of those two systems. The government pays the bills directly but the providers of health care are not owned or employed by the government. That is the way our standard Medicare system worked but we have added a choice of private “Medicare Advantage” plans in recent years so it is now like the Bismarck model.

        I have been paying close attention to this issue since the 60’s when my father was involved in setting up standards of practice for Medicare. In the early 90’s I sat on a committee for a citizens group that studied all the health card options that have been successful in order to decide which our organization would support. Believe it or not back then Republicans agreed that our system was broken – the ACA is similar to a model one of their think tanks recommended. But once Clinton was elected the always-wrong Bill Kristol sent out an infamous memo telling Republicans to deny Clinton any improvements to health care so they could use that failure to win the midterms. Bob Dole, the Senate Republican leader, who had been saying they would offer their own proposal then declared that our health care system was not broken and he would not support anything Clinton proposed. The media blamed the Clintons for the failure even though it was well known that Republicans had vowed to defeat anything. That is exactly what happened to Obama in recent years yet the mainstream media likes to blame him for not reaching out. Sadly a lot of rank and file Dems have been bamboozled by all the spin. It drives me crazy.

        1. dtgraham January 20, 2016

          I’d like to respond but can’t. Maybe later. This website has become so unstable it’s ridiculous. I’m surprised I could type this much.

    2. plc97477 January 19, 2016

      Too many people in this country do not understand that in order for a bill to become law it needs to go through the house, senate and the presidential veto pen. Unless Bernie can magically make all that happen he can’t promise what he is trying to promise.

      1. FT66 January 19, 2016

        Exactly. People must ask themselves why has it taken decades to reform HealthCare.

        1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

          Actually, though you will never get a single Sanders supporter to admit it, it WAS Hillary Clinton who battled the Gingrichians with her plan of healthcare reform. Now, the Sanders attack dogs say Sanders was first…what a bunch of immature childish big babies..especially when the documentation makes them liars.

  3. greenlantern1 January 19, 2016

    Remember the Walter Reed scandal?
    Who was president?
    Who was Secretary of the VA?
    Our ONLY, convicted, Secretary of the Veteran’s Bureau was Charles Forbes!
    Harding was president!
    Wasn’t he a REPUBLICAN?

    1. CrankyToo January 19, 2016

      Aren’t you tiresome?

      1. greenlantern1 January 20, 2016

        Don’t you find CRIMINAL lies tiresome?

        1. CrankyToo January 20, 2016

          What I find tiresome are your staccato bursts of disjointed, esoteric musings. You’re like the e.e. cummings of political commentary. You don’t seem to understand that the rightie wingdings you’re aiming at are too fundamentally ignorant (or, if you prefer, stupid) to comprehend your arcane one-liners.

          It’s important that your voice be heard, but likewise important that your words be understood. So, if you’ve got a point to make, try stringing a few sentences together into a coherent paragraph – and leave out the esoterica.

          I’m just saying…

  4. FT66 January 19, 2016

    I agree Sanders’s plan is a distraction. He can’t come up with something new while the original ACA is still shaky. His plan is the recipe for letting whatever have been achieved dwindle and later vanish completely. Showing at the White House doesn’t mean everything in his mind will abruptly change. He should also know, it is very bad to promise people something which he can’t deliver as incase he is elected, time won’t be on his side (am talking about only one term).

  5. Jerry Schull January 19, 2016

    I disagree, there is a single payer system in the US today. It’s called Medicare. Of course you have to be disabled or over 65 to qualify, but it exists and it does work just fine. My problem is the Republicans are trying to dismantle it, a little piece at a time. The recent increase in premiums (15%) and the legislated certainty of another 35% increase when Obama gets out of office makes me want a fighter in office. Bernie is that fighter. I believe Hillary would just roll with the punches and agree like Obama did. The fact that she has taken a “lets see” position with Medical Cannabis tells alot about her willingness to make the tough decision. Her indecisiveness is blatant. And as for controlling the too big to fail on wall street. Never gonna see it. Again that’s a tough road.

    1. Susan McGraw Keber January 19, 2016

      I completely agree with you! 1,000%

      1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

        Keber you’d agree with Hitler if it meant not having to admit Sanders is all wrong for the advancement this country is already seeing under Obama.

        Sanders socialism is not going to make the US a communist state. Read your history. Communism failed miserably and brought about mass hunger and starvation in Russia. North Korea since the Korean War has had millions die from starvation for the same socialist ideology. And now that the sanctions have been lifted from Iran, Israel is next.

    2. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

      Here are the facts of Medicare in 2016. I’m semi-retired. Before I receive theSS I paid into for 45 years, $104 is taken for Medicare which I also paid for 30 years (it wasn’t established when I first was employed.).

      But that $104 only covers 80% of your medical costs and NONE of your prescriptions. So I have to pay another $121/mo for the other 20% and that doesn’t include the $580 annual deductible or the $20 doctor or diagnostic copays. Then, I pay another $50 a month for supplemental coverage for precriptions which also has $180 deductible and depending on the Tier the prescription drug is in up to $40 copay for each drug…According to the .gov Medicare site, the plan I have is in the top 3…Do the math.

      Oh and I forgot..when I file my taxes? SS is taxable and I am still paying into SS and Medicare as a 1099 employee.

      1. Jerry Schull January 20, 2016

        Yea, I have the same dilemma, I’m on SS and Medicare too. Hopefully, Bernie will FIX the inequities in both SS and Medicare with his one-payer plan. Maybe he can shut down war-making by the CIA and the Industrial Military Complex, and the enormous budget given to the DoD. Redirection of much of that budget to supporting infrastructure, jobs creation, and education would help put more people to work. He could also repay the $$’s taken from the SS fund to make war. Or at least the latest war, Bush’s IRAQ WAR.

    3. @HawaiianTater January 19, 2016

      The big banks know Hillary isn’t serious about taking them on. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be giving her money. Oh, hey, yeah, here’s some money so you can be tough with us! What’s so sad about it is how many people believe her lies.

  6. itsfun January 19, 2016

    Single payer plan is just another way for complete government control of our health.

    1. Böcker January 19, 2016

      It’s Medicare for all, and it does work just as it does now for seniors.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

        Then be prepared to pay about $350 a month for your healthcare. I should know…that’s what I pay on average to Medicare I already paid 45 years for.

        1. Böcker January 19, 2016

          Bullsh*t that’s not what my husband pays, I just checked his stub, it’s $188 a month.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

            BS…your husband isn’t on Medicare then. He would automatically have $104 removed from his retirement SS check…nice try though at lying…Gotcha

          2. Böcker January 20, 2016

            you didn’t get anything. BTW you are not paying $350 for Medicare

        2. JPHALL January 19, 2016

          And I pay $500 a month through a private pension fund.

        3. dtgraham January 20, 2016

          I pay zero a month for my healthcare insurance. I also have a guarantee of no co-pays or deductibles…ever. That’s true government single payer. However, I’ve also paid more in taxes every month than you have. It was a good trade-off.

      2. itsfun January 19, 2016

        I have to wonder how many people would lose their jobs and how many insurance companies would go out of business with a completely ran health care system.

    2. Carolyn1520 January 19, 2016

      That from a dichotomous thinker if I ever heard one. 🙂

    3. Transmuter January 19, 2016

      So you prefer to pool your money under a private insurer, and pay extra administrative fees and marketing? You must be a republican, where the free market is ALWAYS better, and facts have no bearing on being a “patriot”.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

        There are NO government workers who are insurance agents. Now, you want some undereducated government worker to process claims when doctors and their staff are already screaming about the difficult HMO medical coding and the time it takes to process insurance claims? Are you mad?

        1. Transmuter January 19, 2016

          The hospital does the medical coding, not a government agency. How silly. There wont BE any “insurance claims” lol. You really do not understand single payer. May I educate you?

          1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

            Really? So you want to tell a friend of mine who works in a doctor’s office and does the medical coding of her patients insurance coverage? Wow…I’m beginning to see just “who” is voting for Sanders…There are always claims if you use a service. Do you not file a claim when you have an auto accident? Or when your house is damaged?

            And as for your superiority act ..NO I WILL educate you…your post is stupid and makes no sense. By the way, many tech schools teach medical coding to students who work in medical and dental offices…but a genius like you knew that right?

          2. Transmuter January 19, 2016

            My entire family is in the medical field. A doctor. A couple nurses. Phys Rehab. They are well traveled. We have friends all over the world. They ALL support single payer. Coding is so completely out of whack BECAUSE of the private health industry, that now they HAVE to have a class to teach it to you! You are looking at the symptoms, not the cause.

          3. JPHALL January 19, 2016

            Who established the codes?

      2. itsfun January 19, 2016

        How many private industry jobs will be lost with a single payer system? Why not let insurance companies sell their product over state lines. The increased competition would help lower rates. I also have to wonder if some of the profits could go to research to help eliminate cancer, Parkinson’s, MS, MD. etc.

        1. Transmuter January 19, 2016

          I’m supportive of these little incremental steps for competition, but I am far more supportive of a single payer system, because it’s proven to be cheaper. #1 cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is medical bills. Citizens of the rest of the world think this is insane. From a moral standpoint, we have companies profiting off of illness, with an incentive to keep people sick in some cases. We’re all running around trying to fix symptoms, and not paying enough attention to preventative medicine. When someone gets cancer, the first thought in many people’s mind is “omg how much is this going to cost”.

          So yea, we’ve made some ground with ACA, but we are still paying out the ass, and bowing down to lobbyists from pharma and insurance. The government is currently planning a huge funding push for cancer research. I’m convinced some of the Pharma research is actually preventing this from happening, so they can keep monopolies on treatment drugs. You might think i’ve got my tin foil hat on, but my buddies down at the VT research labs would beg to differ.

          1. itsfun January 19, 2016

            I don’t want the government completely in charge of my health. They will just cite large costs and let seniors die while keeping them doped up. Remember Obama talking about his grandmother. How many programs has the government screwed up. Look at the VA. The government can’t even give proper health care to our veterans. How are they going to give proper health care to over 300 million. Social Security is going broke because of bad management by the government. The US is the most successful nation ever and now some want to model us after other nations. Maybe they should model their selves after us, instead of us having to send money, food, health supplies to just about every other nation. If companies are keeping us from discovering cures, then maybe the companies should be dissolved and fined instead of screwing with my health. The government should not be in charge of our individual lives. We should be in charge of our lives. Our politicians that bow down to lobbyists should be removed from office.

  7. yabbed January 19, 2016

    Sanders is a unicorn salesman, not a policy wonk. He hasn’t a clue. He looks at reality and sees naught. Hillary is right about this issue. The ACA was a great achievement and can be improved and moved forward to greater ends, but for Sanders to think he can magically impose a universal health care system on the Congress and the public is idiotic. Now we see clearly that Sanders is not a Democrat not only on gun control issues but on the ACA legislation. The guy just does not connect to reality – or to Democrats – whatsoever. He should be running on the Socialist Party ticket.

    1. CrankyToo January 19, 2016

      You do know that Bernie Sanders is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, don’t you?

    2. Carolyn1520 January 19, 2016

      Aren’t we all a little bit of both?

      1. Susan McGraw Keber January 19, 2016

        We should not be both. We are meant to be a democracy. We are not meant to be an oligarchy. That is what is wrong today. Billionaires are pulling the puppet strings so they can profit. Remember serfs? Knaves? Slaves?

        1. Carolyn1520 January 19, 2016

          We’re a democracy with socialist programs in place.

    3. Susan McGraw Keber January 19, 2016

      Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that is focused on reality and he is exposing the government and it’s failures as they truly are. He is a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist…those are not “evil” words. If you took a moment to listen to his rally speeches or the speeches compiled over 30 some odd years, you would hear his common sense approach to fixing the system which is broken because we are no longer a true democracy but an oligarchy.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

        His Socialism was called “communism” in Russia and in China.

        1. JPHALL January 19, 2016

          His Socialism is patterned after the Western European version not the Eastern or Asian versions. (Sweden, Norway, Germany, etc.)

    4. Transmuter January 19, 2016

      The rest of the civilized world provide single payer solutions, and the U.S. cannot do it? Are we somehow inferior? The wealthiest country in the world CANT do it? It’s no coincidence that the #1 cause for bankruptcy in the U.S. is medical debt.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

        Actually what the rest of the world has is Universal Healthcare…Canada has single payer and the cost is about $500 a year per person. So..tell us..how does Sanders plan to lob $500 a year on the unemployed, the homeless and the low income earners? Yeesh Do you Saint Bernad Attack Dogs actually have math skills?

        1. Transmuter January 19, 2016

          I’m not an “attack dog” and that hurts my feelings. I want to provide healthcare to all citizens. If someone is unemployed or homeless, they are not going to be turned away at the hospital, and they are not going to leave with a large bill. You are fear mongering and its not healthy. Low income pays a low premium. I was injured in France when I was younger, and I will never forget the treatment I received. A real eye opener. Medicare for ALL<<< All means everyone regardless of income.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

            You already have healthcare for all citizens and the ACA already provides healthcare to 16 million Americans who formerly had none. Now, you want to disconnect that and move to a radical single payer plan that would cost at least another 10,000 employees to be hired by the government to manage the single payer plan.

            You people just do not think of the consequences of the actions that Sanders is spouting. The words sound papal but even the Pope knows the difference between idealisms and pragmatism that works.

          2. Transmuter January 19, 2016

            Are you paid to do this?

  8. Böcker January 19, 2016

    It’s a real plan that can work, these Hillary people are just trying to kill it off just as they are trying to kill off Sanders. Not gonna work. Going for the Bern 2016!!!

    1. Carolyn1520 January 19, 2016

      No the Hillary people aren’t trying to kill it off. It’s a matter of timing. Everything is.

      1. Susan McGraw Keber January 19, 2016

        Complacency is a way to let the ACA dwindle. There has long been a need for universal healthcare in this country. We are behind the times. There is NO better time like the present to improve that which is good but can be enhanced to service the nation’s citizens. Hillary’s apathy on this issue is astounding.

        1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

          Sanders said in the last debate he intends to dump the ACA. Good..now do you have an immediate plan to cover teh 16 million under the ACA or should they wait for ER medical care?

          1. Susan McGraw Keber January 19, 2016

            Senator Sanders did not say he intends to “DUMP” ACA…he said he was on the committee that worked on drafting it and that there is room for improvement.

          2. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

            You are a liar. He stated this very thing in an interview on PBS. He also stated it again during this last interview…You Saint Bernard fanatics need to stop with ramming Sanders down our throats. I am voting for a president who will move the country forward…not stagnate it.

            Sanders preaches an awful lot at decibels you’d hear in a Cathedral. Sorry..the US needs a president who can fill Obama’s shoes..that isn’t Sanders. He has no understanding of how to deal with oppostion and from the Saint Bernard attack dog platitudes posted, neither do they.

          3. robertblair3174 January 19, 2016

            Unlike the Republicans, who have voted to repeal all, or part of the ACA 60+ times, and STILL haven’t offered anything to replace it with, Senator Sanders actually HAS a plan. I’m pretty sure that he would make sure that his program was in place, and transitioned with a lot of organization, to avoid the problem you’re concerned about

          4. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

            Yes..and I heard that plan in this last debate. He stated that he intends to “replace the ACA” with single payer. What he avoids saying is HOW he plans to do that and who will pay for that?

          5. robertblair3174 January 20, 2016

            Then you AREN’T listening. (probably on purpose)
            He’s planning on enhancing the current Medicare program, by doing away with co-pays, and deductibles, improving coverage, and expanding it to cover everyone (including nearly 30 million people who still fall through the cracks in the ACA)
            He’ll pay for it with a payroll tax of 2-6.5% on workers, and 6.5% on employers. The typical family is expected to save about $5000 a year, in insurance premiums, and out of pocket medical costs. (even AFTER the payroll tax is counted)
            I’m personally spending about 5% of my income for Blue Cross, so under this proposal, I’d come out ahead JUST on the insurance premiums. Not having co-pays, or deductibles would be a bonus

          6. Transmuter January 19, 2016

            Really Eleanore??? Bernie is not going to dump ANYONE off of their insurance or Medicare. Under a Medicare For All policy, ANYONE can get medical attention and not worry about which “plan” you have. Do you not know what single payer is?

          7. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

            Really? Then why did Sanders say that he intended to get rid of the ACA? I know what I heard..YOu Saint Bernard Attack Dogs are not going to impress those of us who know you can’t build Rome in a single day.

          8. Transmuter January 19, 2016

            The ACA is a gateway, and a decent step. Doesn’t go far enough. Still bows down to Pharma and Private Insurers. Also the ACA would not be “dismantled” until single payer was put in place. Stop scaring people. And… why are you so mad?

        2. Carolyn1520 January 19, 2016

          Who is complacent? The ACA is the law of the land and will remain so as long as Dems aren’t complacent about voting.
          All I’m saying is don’t talk about dismantling something in it’s entirety that has show it’s working.

      2. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

        The question Sanders never answers is what happens to Medicare ALREADY paid for? There are over 49 million seniors on Medicare at present. Do the Sanders supporters forget that any interruption in their care can be a disaster?

        1. Susan McGraw Keber January 19, 2016

          Segue….key word. People are afraid of change. Change is a constant and real factor in our lives. Medicare is NOT going to disappear…in fact Bernie has spoken to this very issue. The GOP wants to dismantle Medicare…that is unacceptable.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

            Are you afraid when you pay the cashier at the grocery checkout counter that you will not get what you paid for? Who are you trying to fool? I voted for Obama because I wanted change…Not the kind of change that couldn’t be achieved EVER.

            Sanders is not going to accomplsih a fraction of what Obama did. THAT IS WHY I am voting for Hillary.

  9. Carolyn1520 January 19, 2016

    Like every other unpopular program that came before the ACA, they all have evolved. The ACA will also.
    The problem today is many have to have instant gratification or they start jumping ship or threatening to do so. Grow up!
    Patience is a virtue, a cliche’ but no less true,

    1. Susan McGraw Keber January 19, 2016

      Agreed, however, the GOP candidates have pledged to dismantle and destroy ACA. That is going backwards and it is unacceptable. We can not have patience with that kind of destructive attitude.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

        The GOP candidates are not the entire US government. Stop empowering the less than powerful. I don’t have patiences with any pie in the sky idealist who cannot put a price on what he spouts.

        1. Susan McGraw Keber January 19, 2016

          The GOP is no longer. It is the Tea Party zealots who are being used as puppets by billionaires to storm the country. Abe Lincoln would not recognize his party ….the Republican party doesn’t resemble itself any longer.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

            How about stop insisting you are so politically savvy and posting to dunderheads? I was a Republican for 33 years…Don’t try to tell me about the GOP. And the Tea Party is the Koch Party.

      2. Carolyn1520 January 19, 2016

        I was speaking exclusively of integrating single payer into the current ACA
        The battle against the slash and burn mouth breathing right is a separate and on going battle. On that we agree.

  10. Susan McGraw Keber January 19, 2016

    So what this essentially says is we should not strive to make the changes necessary to make ACA/Obamacare better because it will be too difficult to do? This lack of encouragement and enthusiasm on Hillary’s part is disappointing to say the least. If she feels doing NOTHING to improve ACA because it’s too difficult to accomplish then she should not run for president. There is always a mountain of “NO” in the horizon but we traverse the rough roads to not only get to the mountain but to climb to the apex and look out at the vistas beyond…filled with more mountains to climb. Congress has seats coming up for election and I believe and have FAITH that we not only must but owe it to our citizens, to tackle the next phase of Affordable Healthcare for all of us. I stand with Senator Bernie Sanders and I paraphrase his slogan: For those who say it can’t be done, step out of the way while others are DOING IT. Hillary is not willing to roll up her sleeves. Bernie Sanders has been all his elected public servant life and he will continue to do so as POTUS!

  11. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

    Actually, the devil is in Sanders single payer details. A very well respected economist thoroughly vetted the Sanders single payer plan and did the math..the cost to taxpayers will be $18 trillion dollars according to his statements in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.

    Hillary Clinton has the right idea. Instead of costing taxpayers disjointed healthcare while the single payer plan goes into effect and costing those who paid for 40 or more years into Medicare to lose what they paid for, her plan is to “improve the “ACA” and move it to “universal healthcare.”

    What Sanders doesn’t say is who will pay for the uninsured on a single payer plan. Nor, does it tell us why he feels states should “have jurisdiction” over managing single payer healthcare insurance. That is THE absolute WORST idea yet.

    My state (NJ) already pays the highest property taxes in the country, has an underfunded Public Worker Pension PLan and an underfunded Transportation Plan, not Sanders wants to hand over single payer to these same governors who for nearly 5 decades spent funding? Sorry…Sanders can preach his hypertensive gospels to states that don’t borrow from Peter to pay Paul which is all too few in the US.

    1. Susan McGraw Keber January 19, 2016

      That report is false and misleading. It is a deliberate attack on Sanders and it is patently wrong. Other economists have proven Sander’s plan to be correct and that families would save nearly 5-6 thousand dollars a year. He has said who will pay for the plan: a tax on Wall Street. And he has said it over and over again to those who listen to him and have come to respect his honesty about what’s really going on in this country. Do you approve of companies who set up overseas accounts to hide their profits? Do you feel it is okay to escape paying taxes on those profits? Trillions of dollars are lost each year by this loophole. Those funds should be used to finance infrastructure, education, healthcare, research, etc. etc. etc. If an oligarchy is what you feel the country should be and not a democracy, then vote for the mainstream candidate who will give you “business as usual”…those who support Senator Bernie Sanders are not in favor of that kind of “phony leadership.”

      1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

        Keber…Give it up…Mr. Friedman who wrote that report doesn’t lie .It is NOT wrong. Since you know so much…tell us how on Sanders first day in office he plans to take all of the payroll deductions we all paid for decades and use it for single payer?

        YOu know damn well he can’t hope to achieve half of what Obama has and that Sanders is just another idealistic mouthpiece whose platform you are defending for your own personal reasons, not for the good of the whole country.

        1. Susan McGraw Keber January 19, 2016

          Whitaker…go back to reading and listening. Your anger is palpable. I don’t communicate with people who scream and rant and rave. It’s undignified and ugly.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

            Keber…YOu are a Saint Bernard Attack Dog…Sorry but I don’t vote for a president who can’t remotely do what he proposes and has yet to put a price tag on any of his initiatives. Sanders won’t be president. O’Mally of MD has a better shot and better more SOUND ideas. People like you ignore Sanders bluster and radicalism..I don’t.

        2. Transmuter January 19, 2016

          Here’s Friedman himself, in case you missed my post above. The WSJ report did not give the entire picture and did not mention how much families would save from an alternative system.


  12. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

    Okay…Fast foward …January 20, 2017…President Sanders takes office. Immediately, he has to provide healthcare as he planned under single payer. How?

    Immediately, Sanders has to gut corporate wealth…How?

    Immediately, Sanders ends all military intervention…How?

    Ideals are not reality. Hillary knows that. So does Warren. Time to face reality

    Prediction..Sanders first act as president will be to reinstate the sanctions against Iran.

    1. FT66 January 19, 2016

      Sanders is selling only words to people and not the reality.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

        When I listened to him in the last debate…His speaking technique was far too defensive, too loud and too like another great, albeit infamous orator…Hitler.

        I don’t have a problem with Sanders specifically. I’m just too much invested in reality to fall for the type of hype Sanders is using…way too unrealistic. His ideals are fine as goals to reach. But he cannot hope to make instant changes from ideals. It’s all due to how much he can deal with the GOP. And when it comes down to it?

        The Republicans loathe, despise and wish Hillary Clinton would disappear. YOu know why…the Clinton Years of her husband are the last vestige Americans have of national prosperity. If she continues Obama’s path as she has stated several times, it would open a gaping wound in Conservatism and Republicanism in particular.

  13. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

    Forl the Sanders Attack Dogs …here is the Medicare link you need to read carefully: https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs/part-b-costs.html

  14. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

    Here is what I don’t get about Sanders supporters. When in the annals of history has anything been provided to millions of people for FREE..totally FREE?

    If single payer means no one pays a dime, then who does? Who’s left? The wealthy? Who will beat a hasty retreat to a foreign shore with no taxation whatever. The corporations? Who will also relocate offshore and pay not a dime in taxes.

    Now what? Do you people ever apply ANY common sense to your thinking?

    War costs, poverty costs, drug, gambling and alcohol addictions all cost. Unemployment costs. So does corruption. Why would healthcare be totally free? Doctors are going to work for charity? Hospitals will beg utilties to provide water and fuel? Nurses and administrators will work free?

    Enough with this Great Depression Plantation Nation attitude that you can what you want from some magical, mystical financial genius.

    1. mike January 19, 2016

      Probably the only honest words to come out of your brain. OMG!!! I agree with Eleanore, what a blast.

      1. David January 19, 2016

        I know…it is a shock!

        1. mike January 19, 2016

          Don’t hold your breath that she had an epiphany. ??

          1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

            I don’t have any reason for any epiphany…My conscience is clear. A crook who has skimmed off others and played those adorable little boys “I got away with it” games always needs the Baptism of Fire to emerge like a Phoenix from the ashes of their corruption. Take the hint. YOu are no match for a woman with brains.

          2. mike January 19, 2016

            You just can’t stop spewing same old diarrhea of the brain. Can you??

          3. mike January 19, 2016

            This reminds me of how you see the world.

      2. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

        Men with the guiltiest consciences cannot process truth or facts mentally. Their cloud of guilt is so overwhelming that truth is alien to them. Men in on the corruption games are the ones who hate facts and truth most. You literally have to ram truth down their moron throats or take away their most prized toys to force them to realize they can’t just go around lying lying lying lying and think they can remember every detail of their crooked lies.

        1. mike January 19, 2016

          Same boring, old diatribe made up of diarrhea of the brain.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

            Truth hurts doesn’t it? Same old BS from a gender biased woman hater who can’t get his way…oooooh…poor lil Mikey…he “doesn’t like it.” Tough for you isn’t it?

          2. mike January 19, 2016

            As usual, your head is still up where the sun doesn’t shine.
            I see you are still thinking stupidly. So sad! But I enjoyed your ridiculous post, thanks for the laugh.

          3. Eleanore Whitaker January 20, 2016

            As usual, a dickhead is too chicken livered to dare admit when he is wrong. So dickhead…how sad that you can’t handle the truth. How about get your dick out of your brain?

          4. mike January 20, 2016

            LOL!!! Just more of your stupid posts.
            Thanks for the laugh, again!

          5. Eleanore Whitaker January 21, 2016

            I stongly suggest you get professional help for your mental illness…You do know that uncontrollable laughter is a mental disorder called the Pseudobulbar Effect (PBA). I suggest you check into your mental problems.

          6. mike January 21, 2016

            My laughter is a very natural response to a person acting so stupidly that the one can only be gobsmacked.

          7. Eleanore Whitaker January 22, 2016

            No…your laughter is mental illness you can’t admit. Tell us..when you are in your good ole boys group…do they whisper WUSS as you walk by? Men like you are wusses of the Twerpie breed. You never grow up and then expect to be Grand High Pubbahs of Upper Butt Crack?

          8. mike January 22, 2016

            I see your misandrist side is showing again.
            Hillary is going down all by herself.

          9. Eleanore Whitaker January 22, 2016

            This from the mysognistic moron who relies on a booze and Viagra crutch?

          10. mike January 22, 2016

            You crack me up with your ridiculous posts.

          11. Eleanore Whitaker January 22, 2016

            Wrong…You have always been “cracked up” and therein lies your problem. A swollen mentally ill ego based on nothingness. Don’t you ever work? Or is tyring to match wits with someone more intellitent all you have to call a “life” loser?

          12. mike January 22, 2016

            Keep trying but no Clinton cigar.

          13. Eleanore Whitaker January 22, 2016

            Clue for the clueless: I never “TRY”…I was raised to DO …trying is for wussy boys like you.

          14. mike January 22, 2016

            I see you are still trying!! Go stick your head in the snow so your brain can feel at home once more, Numb and Dumb!

          15. Eleanore Whitaker January 22, 2016

            I turn this lunatic into a science experiment and he falls for it. Mentall illness clouds his judgment…rofl.

          16. mike January 22, 2016

            Only in your pea brain is this even close to being a science experiment.
            Keep trying numb brain!

          17. Eleanore Whitaker January 22, 2016

            When I said you were a scientific experiment, I wasn’t kidding..I used your lunatic personality in a short story I am writing about socipathic narcissists. You aren’t the only one. I’ve used several other bossy, overbearing guys like you in this story. Unfortunately, you don’t begin to be the star antagonist. I’ve saved that for one other scientific experiment whose personality is far more mentally extreme than yours. You are welcome! roflmao.

          18. mike January 22, 2016

            What a pseudo-intellectual bore you continue to be.
            Ta Ta

          19. Eleanore Whitaker January 23, 2016

            Yawn…this from the spoiled little boy who must always have his way or he hightails it the minute a woman is smarter and more capable of proving you wrong. Do run away…most cowards who can’t put a sentence of value together do that when they know they are BEAT!

          20. mike January 23, 2016

            I see you are still acting like a loser.
            No cigar, again!!
            But I am sure enjoying your lack of depth.

    2. Transmuter January 19, 2016

      Who said it would be free?

      Here are some details, summarized by Gerald Friedman:


      1. @HawaiianTater January 19, 2016

        Ellie is not interested in facts. She’s only interested in hating Bernie Sanders because he’s a man and all men are evil and Hillary should be our president because she’s got a vagina.

        1. mike January 19, 2016

          You got that right. Finally, about time. LOL

  15. latebloomingrandma January 19, 2016

    Medicare for all would still be problematic. You still need a private insurance supplement for deductibles and meds. My husband and I chose a supplement that costs a little more, but pays for almost everything without copays. Our costs for being on Medicare are over $6000 per year. The true universal health care would not involve private insurances. That is the model of the British Health System. I can’t see Americans going for this. Our payroll taxes would be large.Any changes to the ACA need to be incremental. I would be in favor of lowering the Medicare age to 60, as an option for people finding it difficult to work due to chronic health problems. Also, all children should be on SCHIP until age 18, when there can go on their parent’s plan. Pro-life people should be in favor of this, if they want more births. At least our children would be on a level playing field regarding health, and maybe can avoid chronic problems of the future.

    1. Eleanore Whitaker January 19, 2016

      Thank you. I am so glad you pointed this out. I think some of the middle aged Sanders supporters wear rose colored glasses. They obviously think that money grows on trees for seniors.

      Universal Healthcare is exactly what Hillary wants the country to move to. She has stated this at least 5 times recently, and in particular in her interview with Rachel Maddow.

      Personally? Big Insurance has pushed the envelope to the point where now the Big 6 are forcing hostile buyouts of the smaller ACA insurance companies. All so they keep total control of healthcare in the US. So..when it comes down to it, what needs reform most is what Elizabeth Warren is proposing and Hillary will support…taking down the Big 6 Big INsurance corporations.

      Let’s be honest…Does Robert Benmosche of AIG really need to earn $10.6 million a year not counting his cash bonuses or stock options which ratchets his income to over $22 million a year? That money comes from our insurance premiums.

  16. LCR78 January 19, 2016

    Even if the Democrats win back both the House and Senate, it won’t be by a big margin and a lot of Democrats still have too many scars from ACA to want another battle over healthcare. There are more pressing issues that need to be dealt with like better paying jobs; poor infrastructure; a sick tax system; a banking system that can still destroy our economy (banks are still too big to fail); and terrorism. I’m sure most people could list a whole series of issues that need fixing that would be ignored if we go through another round of healthcare wars.

    1. Transmuter January 19, 2016

      Anyone that expects radical change, with money and special interest controlling Congress, is kidding themselves. That said, Bernie is the only step that may begin that process. Medicare for All is a vision and a goal, but the fight will be difficult. I refuse to “settle” though, and anyone that tells me the U.S. is incapable of something is full of crap. We’re now playing catch-up to the rest of the world in terms of healthcare policy.

    2. Jmz Nesky January 19, 2016

      And that’s exactly what the Goppers will concentrate on if they find another slick way to get one of their (is it still a dozen?) clowns to wear the top hat.. They’ll do this because (1) Each and everyone of them have already said they would and (2) they haven’t had another thought (besides Benghazi) that would benefit or help this nation’s citizens.. I don’t see Sanders or Clinton wholly concentrating on spending another 4 to 8 years on this issue, I see that they’re defending what the pubs say they want to do with it by telling us that they can make it better (with the cooperation of the entire nation, not just blue and purple). Bernie will have millions working on it with him, Hillary? Well, she’s capable but as we all know.. if you get big contributions from corporate entities, the vulture capitalist by-word has never been, “something for nothing”.

  17. Otto Greif January 19, 2016

    Liberals say Obamacare is great at the same time they say it should be thrown out for single payer.

    1. Transmuter January 19, 2016

      “Liberals”. Ok… The truth is that Obama supporters wanted healthcare reform. Obama, with all the compromises he had to make, gave us that. What it did for me was allow me to start my own business, no longer tethered to a job that I hated, but worked to keep my family insured.


      Before Pharma and Insurers helped write the bill (the compromise) there was originally supposed to be a public option. I almost voted for Hillary in 08, because she was so supportive of single-payer.

      So basically, as a “liberal”, if you must, I am still not satisfied. The BEST thing to come from ACA is that you cant be turned away for pre-existing conditions. The insurance companies hate this, and are finding other ways to make up the difference. We are still playing the same game. Are we better off? Sure, but the entire time I’ve supported single-payer.

    2. Sterling Harris January 19, 2016


    3. Sterling Harris January 19, 2016


      1. Otto Greif January 19, 2016

        So sad to hear about your caps-lock key getting broken.

    4. RED January 20, 2016

      Never surprised when an ignorant Con can’t grasp simple concepts like better or worse. Their ignorant petty little minds are only capable of absolutes. And really only when others tell them what absolutes they’re supposed to follow. Must be tragic going through a world darkened and being frightened from the Con sickness, what a horrible fate for the dumbest humans among us.

      1. Otto Greif January 20, 2016

        That’s deep, man.

      2. Steve Batchelor January 20, 2016

        LOL…Facts isn’t in the Rethugs vocabulary and neither is science. They believe that the bible is law and they thirst for Armageddon!

  18. @HawaiianTater January 19, 2016

    This is a testament to how bought and paid for our Congress is; on BOTH sides. There is simply too much money in private healthcare insurance to switch to a single payer system. It just goes to show that our politicians care more about money than they do about the health and well-being of our citizens. It’s sad fact of life in America but our leaders would rather let you die than give up any of that sweet donation money.

    1. ImpaledNazarene January 21, 2016

      I can actually afford private healthcare and I like it. I get to choose whatever I want on my own terms. Its the best!

      Communists like you who want to take away my private healthcare insurance just so you little peons can say ‘we beat wall street’ are pathetic little sanders cultist losers.

      1. @HawaiianTater January 21, 2016

        I got mine and everyone else can F off. That’s the American way.

      2. Böcker January 21, 2016

        No one is going to take away your doctor, gee whine much??

  19. Carolyn1520 January 19, 2016

    Bottom line Folks. I sincerely hope the candidate who wins the primary whether it be Bernie or Hillary, brings you out to vote in the general election.
    No time for temper tantrums. Whether you like one and hate the other, there is NO ONE on the right who will give you even one thing on your wish list and there is way to much at stake to take a walk in the opposite direction and that is the only direction they know.
    If you don’t vote, then you are no better than the mouth breathing right.

  20. dragonboneman January 20, 2016

    Why would I want to hear someone whine about what CAN’T be done? Single-payer is what we need, and the more people push for it the sooner it will happen. Btw we also need a carbon tax. Call it a “political impossibility” if you like, but it has to happen if we are to survive.

  21. ImpaledNazarene January 21, 2016

    Its funny how people who want single-payer healthcare don’t even know how single-payer healthcare works!!

    Your precious sanders will NOT help you! Single-payer healthcare would be a complete disaster.

  22. Böcker January 21, 2016

    Bernies plan is an excellent plan and not one dependent on states to implement. In fact it’s here now and working well, Medicare.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.