HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Nanjeanne » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Oct 28, 2015, 02:02 PM
Number of posts: 4,085

Journal Archives

Civil rights attorney, Pamela Price, endorses Bernie in CA


Sanders, according to some, is cheap with his charitable contributions. How about others?


Warren at the top with 5.5%

Next Inslee with 4.1

Then that cheapskate Bernie with only 3.4

Klobuchar gave 1.9

Gillibrand came in at 1.7

Harris at 1.4

Beto gave a whopping 0.3

You can read it also in Washington Post but it’s behind a firewall


By contrast, Biden has given very little to charity but has increased his contributions once he became VP.

Personally I don’t really care about candidates charitable contributions as much as their policies to help Americans live a good life. But since some people were very focused on what Sanders didn’t give, a little perspective, I thought, was worthwhile.

Take it from an economist, Medicare for All is the most sensible way to fix health care


We all recognize that the status quo isn’t working. We spend more per person than any other country on health care, but we aren’t getting any bang for our buck. We have lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality rates and more preventable deaths, and too many personal bankruptcies are due at least in part to medical bills.

Where we disagree is the solution. The favorite new “reasonable” plan is “Medicare for America,” a bill from Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Rosa DeLauro that has won the support of big names like Texas presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke and the Center for American Progress, the left-of-center think tank where the plan originated as “Medicare Extra for All.” It has been extolled in opinion pieces for some of America’s largest newspapers as a “realistic” plan to fix what’s broken in our health care system.


Time to get real. As an economist who has spent decades studying our health care system, I can tell you that Medicare for All advocates are the only ones who are being reasonable, because theirs is the only plan that will control health care costs while finally achieving universal coverage.

Insurance companies are middle men
The problem with incremental plans, whether they are public options, buy-ins to Medicare or Medicaid, or pumping more money into subsidies in the Affordable Care Act's individual marketplace, is that they preserve the private health insurance system weighing down our health care.


If we’re talking about which health care reform plans are serious about attacking cost, providing universal coverage and making sure everyone has access to health care, Medicare for All is the only reasonable answer. No other plan does this effectively, which is why I suspect that the Center for American Progress has not come out with spending estimates. Basic economic tenets tell us that their plan will not reduce health care spending as effectively.

Is Medicare for All bold? Absolutely. Is it reasonable? You bet. It is time to accept that Medicare for All is the practical alternative.

Worth reading the whole article by Gerald Friedman, economics professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Go to Page: 1