It's Simple: Medicare for All by George S. McGovern

[Better Believe It]

Op-ED
It's Simple: Medicare for All
By George S. McGovern
George S. McGovern, a former senator from South Dakota, was the Democratic nominee for president in 1972.

September 13, 2009


For many years, a handful of American political leaders -- including the late senator Ted Kennedy and now President Obama -- have been trying to gain passage of comprehensive health care for all Americans. As far back as President Harry S. Truman, they have urged Congress to act on this national need. In a presentation before a joint session of Congress last week, Obama offered his view of the best way forward.

But what seems missing in the current battle is a single proposal that everyone can understand and that does not lend itself to demagoguery. If we want comprehensive health care for all our citizens, we can achieve it with a single sentence: Congress hereby extends Medicare to all Americans.

Those of us over 65 have been enjoying this program for years. I go to the doctor or hospital of my choice, and my taxes pay all the bills. It's wonderful. But I would have appreciated it even more if my wife and children and I had had such health-care coverage when we were younger. I want every American, from birth to death, to get the kind of health care I now receive. Removing the payments now going to the insurance corporations would considerably offset the tax increase necessary to cover all Americans.

I don't feel as though the government is meddling in my life when it pays my doctor and hospital fees. There are some things the government does that I don't like -- most notably getting us into needless wars that cost many times what health care for all Americans would cost. Investing in the health of our citizens will enhance the well-being and security of the nation.

We know that Medicare has worked well for half a century for those of us over 65. Why does it become "socialized medicine" when we extend it to younger Americans?

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091102406.html

[democrat2thecore]

1. McGovern is absolutely right. - How Simple Can It Get? -nt

[andym]

2. McGovern has it right K&R But...

He is from the era that created the social programs like Medicare.

How many people now serve in the Congress from that era (Ted Kennedy was one)? Robert Byrd is another.
A handful is my guess.

Has one major social program/entitlement been created since the early 70s? Why is that? My answer: ideological middle ground has shifted rightwards.

The real difference is that a Senator from McGovern's region (SD) would be moderate to conservative today. In 1972, SD was represented by one of the most progressive, liberal men to ever run for President on a major party ticket. That's one of the key reasons we're not getting single payer and having a deuce of a time getting a strong public option.

[Better Believe It]

3. So both major parties have moved to the right and controlled by corporate interests?

[andym]

6. Both parties have moved to the right on the role of government

However, on personal rights, at least there the Democratic party has moved leftward.

As for corporate "control", large corporate interests have had a large influence on government since at least the turn of the last century. However, their influence waxes and wains. Therefore I prefer the term "influence" rather than "control." The two Roosevelt administratons were particular low points for corporate influence. But for example, by the Truman administration, corporate interests representing the medical establishment were able to shelve universal health care reform.

It's also important to realize that corporate interests are not monolithic, and that corporate interests are often in conflict. Health care reform is one area where many manufacturers would no doubt benefit greatly from real reform like single-payer, where of course the health insurance industry would suffer.

I'm not sure they have more influence now than they did in the 60s when Medicare passed. The military industrial complex was probably stronger then. The key question is which corporate interests are having the greatest influence on government and how much could public pressure undo that influence. Under the Bush adminstration there wasn't a chance that the public could do much good. Under the current administration, it is yet to be determined. But so far I see VERY FEW attempts by the public (and here I especially mean self-described "progressives") to identify the malefactors, and then whip up public support to the extent needed. One clear example, is how few stories are circulating in mass emails that tell how insurance companies are rescinding coverage or bankrupting people.

[Better Believe It]

8. Good points

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. I think that is a very fair statement

One of the arguments I used to have with conservative Democrats is the question of whether the Democratic Party had moved rightward or leftward since 1972.

To me it was patently obvious that the answer was toward the right. While some conservative Dems were convinced that he party had moved to the left. I couldn't for the life of me imagine where on earth they got that crazy notion. But when it comes to issues like Gay rights and the right to abortion - the Democratic Party since 1972 has liberalized as the whole of society has liberalized. However, when it comes to the role of the government in economic matters - the Democratic Party had over the two decades following 1972 - moved into a position once held by moderate Republicans, in fact probably to the right of where most moderate Republicans were pre-1972 when it comes to the role of the government in the economy.

I've had the same mind boggling argument with Republicans about the so-called "liberal media." I used to wonder how on earth they could seriously believe that the media was the least bit liberal. Then I started to think that perhaps the mainstream media does tend to be slightly liberal - the same way the average Wall Street stock broker tends to be slightly liberal. In other words, on issues on matters of personal lives, they tended to be neutral. While on economic matters, they had adopted the establishment neoliberal consensus that markets and private interest are the answer.

However, now the Republican Party has moved into such an extreme position - so dominated by right-wing fundamentalist, conspiracy theorist and out and out racist and xenophobes with the majority of its activist only one step away from the far right militia movements - the Democratic Party cannot help but appear relatively liberal.

[quantass]

4. Weiner has been preaching this already -- Good to finally see another democrat

[indimuse]

5. HUGE knr! n/t

[Laelth]

7. k&r for a very good idea. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[OwnedByFerrets]

10. Singing my tune: Medicare for ALL....easy to define, easy to defend

but, wont happen cuz the corporate masters wont allow it.