A Washington Post news piece (3/11/19) claims Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s Medicare for All bill “reflects the influence of hard-line liberal groups and unions,” as well as “advocates on the far left,” who would “upend health coverage for tens of millions of Americans.”
The phrase “hard-line,” as commonly used in the Washington Post, is almost always a pejorative. Often it references official enemy states like Iran (5/4/18, 5/9/18) or North Korea (1/18/19). In a recent Post (3/11/19) article, however, reporter Paige W. Cunningham used the term to refer to a different kind of enemy: proponents of Medicare for All.
Among the “hard-line liberal groups and unions” the article refers to in its headline and lead is the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, a coalition of approximately 100 national disability organizations. The “hard-line” groups include much of the grassroots movements for healthcare justice in the country: National Nurses United, Social Security Works and the Center for Popular Democracy. These orgs—described elsewhere in the piece as “advocates on the far left”—are devoted to such “hard-line” positions as universal healthcare, protecting senior citizens and empowering voters and activists. The Post is concerned that these groups provided input to Rep. Pramila Jayapal as she wrote the Medicare for All legislation (H.R. 1384) she introduced in February.
In fact, what the Post describes as “hard-line” and “far left” is actually a very popular position. Medicare for All has long polled well among the public at large, especially Democratic voters. A Reuters poll from 2018 (The Hill, 8/23/18) showed 70 percent of the public, 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans support Medicare for All. That poll is the high water mark, but the policy polls well in most other polls as well (Politico/Harvard, 1/7/19).
This popular support was not mentioned by the Post. In fact, the article asserted that the “bill would overhaul the US healthcare system so dramatically that summoning broad public support for it seems like a tall order.” Yet Medicare for All already has broad public support, despite its reputation on K Street and Capitol Hill—and, evidently, in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Acceptably mainstream groups
Neera Tanden, an opponent of Medicare for All that the Washington Post thinks should have been consulted on a Medicare for All bill. (Washington Post photo by Larry French/Getty Images.)
The Post article tried to marginalize Medicare for All advocates by contrasting them with more establishment think tanks who helped design Obamacare:
Instead of consulting with influential organizations such as the Center for American Progress or Families USA—two groups deeply involved in the crafting of the 2010 Affordable Care Act—staff for the Washington Democrat invited feedback over the past few months from a slew of groups further to the left.
Both these groups would be odd choices to get input from on a Medicare for All bill, given that neither organization advocates for the policy. Families USA is an especially aggressive advocate for preserving the Affordable Care Act. Families USA founder Ron Pollack was quoted by Third Way (5/4/18)—a corporate-funded group devoted to pushing Democrats to the right—in an essay about why Democrats should avoid the single-payer issue.
Cunningham failed to observe that the Center for American Progress has received donations from the likes of Blue Cross Blue Shield, CVS Caremark and Americans Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the largest insurance lobby in the country (Politico, 12/13/13).
The implication from Cunningham—who has been critiqued for parroting right-wing talking points by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters (2/15/18)—is that there are acceptably mainstream policies like the ACA, backed by acceptably mainstream groups like CAP. Jayapal and others, on the other hand, are going “a step (or steps) too far” with Medicare for All, “as it would upend health coverage for tens of millions of Americans”—according “to some progressives.”
Assuredly “some progressives” disagree with the Medicare for All policy. It is also true that “some conservatives” agree with the policy. In fact, you can put the word “some” before virtually any demographic group and be correct. Given the volume of information about this issue available, it is hard to believe the Post could not be bothered to put these vague terms in context. Who are these progressives? Voters or politicians? Do they get money from the industry? There was no information about any of that.
Blatant Falsehoods
A since-deleted tweet from Washington Post reporter Paige Cunningham (2/14/18) said it was “super weird” that people felt the Trump administration affected their “quality of life.”
The Post article has several factual inaccuracies, including the kicker to the “some progressives” passage, which claimed Medicare for All “could cost many times more than the ACA.”
Almost anything could happen, theoretically, but this is a misleading statement at best. If by “cost” Cunningham means only government expenditures, then it’s almost tautological, since the point of single-payer is to shift healthcare funding from private to public insurance.
If she’s using “cost” in a more meaningful sense—as in, how much do we as a society spend on healthcare?—there is really no evidence to support the idea that single-payer would cost more than the ACA. The ACA had very little cost containment at all. The US currently spends 18 percent of GDP and rising—the most in the world, by far—on healthcare. Under the most optimistic CBO projections (3/20/10) for Obamacare, at its best it would leave 22 million uncovered, and costs would continue to rise (if at a lower rate). A more recent analysis from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (2/15/17) “projects the health share of GDP to rise from 17.8 percent in 2015 to 19.9 percent by 2025.”
Contrarily, single-payer systems—as seen around the world—are far less expensive, due to savings on administrative waste and better bargaining power for drug prices. In fact, these savings are what make universal, comprehensive care possible. The cost effectiveness of Medicare for All is its main attraction. Even the the Mercatus study (with its ties to the Koch brothers) said Medicare for All would cost $2 trillion less over 10 years than what we are projected to pay now (The Nation, 7/31/18).
The Post mentions the new bill would use “global budgets,” and claims this would “open…the door for hospitals in different parts of the country to receive different payments for the same service.” The problem, as the national advocacy group Healthcare-Now! explains in a tweet, is that the global budgets, by design, don’t use a pay-for-service model with hospitals.
“The whole point of moving to global budgets is that you’re no longer paying hospitals per service, which she herself notes earlier in the paragraph,” Ben Day, the executive director of HealthCare Now!, explained to FAIR.
Critics of single-payer often claim the polls are misleading because “voters don’t understand how such a system would work” (Forbes, 3/19/18). Their understanding of the issue is not likely to improve after reading the Post’s coverage.
Messages can be sent to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter @washingtonpost. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Featured image: National Nurses United supporting Medicare for All.
Dear Washington Post writer, Paige Cunningham:
It seems a bit weird that so many in the insurance and health fields find problems with Medicare For All —saying it’s too big to handle. These doubters manage to create views that somehow this kind of care threatens America. Gee. Imagine what a Pandemic of 2018 could have done where so many now are lacking so much in America ( health care , shelter, food)
It would seem to me that a democratic republic would offer some goodies benefiting the People. After all, being a citizen should probably have some usable benefits. I can’t imagine why Medicare For All scares so many—but you know, with so many no longer vaccinating their kids—- maybe accessible health care for ALL in America has become a real necessity!
so many now are lacking so much in America ( health care , shelter, food)
A nice figure without basis or fact.
Thanks for this piece. The author mentions “…single-payer systems—as seen around the world—are far less expensive, due to savings on administrative waste and better bargaining power for drug prices.” I wish he’d also mentioned likely trillions in net cost savings from:
> catching and treating medical conditions earlier,
> treating chronic conditions more effectively via greater patient compliance, because families won’t have to choose between paying for treatment or the rent, and
> indirect-but-real cost savings to businesses and the economy as a whole, thanks to:
…reduced worker and student absenteeism,
…higher productivity and performance from a healthier populace, and
…a vast reduction in personal bankruptcies and their devastating consequential (secondary and tertiary) cost impacts.
I urge progressive platforms including FAIR to relentlessly spotlight these cost savings at every turn. Why? Because (a) these savings add trillions to the compelling economic argument for universal healthcare (which of course means single payer), and (b) mentioning these savings — staying healthier, recovering faster from illness / injury, and avoiding huge financial stress — makes it personal for readers / voters.
Imagine how much you could save if you put 60% of Americans on a diet.
And why should over weight/obese people be subsidize with healthcare for making poor life style choices.
Or perhaps we could pursue policies that are not thinly veiled right-wing attacks on the poor under the guise of “individual responsibility” (i.e., a refusal to regulate the capitalist class)? After all, obesity is mostly tied to poverty and the unhealthy industrial “foods” available to the poor.
In all “fairness” you should dig down into the details of support for Medicare for All. There is widespread support for the slogan; however, the slogan means different things to different people. For the creators of the proposal it means an immediate move to single-payer for all insurance (that is a “hard-line” approach). But that is not what really has the widest support. For most supporters, the single-payer part is aspirational. They agree that it’s the ultimate goal, but they differ in 1) How to reach the goal and 2) Whether or not the most important issue now is private vs single-payer insurance. Most see that within the Affordable Care Act there are improvements of immediate benefit to people and that lead toward single-payer (such as the public option and expanding the existing single-payer program Medicaid). There may be political will to do those things. And most people believe that controlling drug costs and providing at least some kind of coverage to everyone as being of higher priority than moving everyone to single-payer. Keep in mind over 155 million Americans have employer-paid insurance and do have access to care. Yet 20-25 million still have no coverage and no access at all. Your article really is itself biased in that you have not presented both sides of this issue and have engaged in negative characterizations of allies in the effort to provide quality health care to everyone.
The privatized, for-profit remedial sick care as a commodity industry has had over 70 years to prove itself capable of providing high quality care to everyone – somehow.
(Nixon/Heritage/Romney) Obamacare (written by the sick care industry) was sold to the public as the final piece of the puzzle.
Now our 37th rate sick care (an optimistic ranking) is 15% more expensive than it was when the ACA was passed, it still leaves the (over) 20-25 million that you mention out in the cold completely as well as rendering at least 80 million people UNDER-INSURED and/or without any real access to care. And the dirtiest little secret of all is that those 155 million Americans(sic) may have employer paid insurance but that does NOT mean they have access to quality care nor can most afford the huge extra charges, co-pays and deductibles as well as inflated costs for drugs that one major illness or accident will saddle them with.
The ONLY clear path left to give ALL USAmericans comprehensive, universal, affordable quality care and to change the primary goal of the system from profits to Effective Health Care is now HR1384 – National Improved Medicare for All.
That is “how to reach the goal”. Take those who do not positively contribute out of the picture entirely.
Thank you for this comment. I was thinking the same thing.
There are a lot of different proposals out there to expand and universalize coverage that don’t necessarily involve an immediate move to single-payer, and some of them are worth getting into. Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii has a very interesting bill that involves expanding Medicaid coverage. Other Democrats have proposals for expanding Medicare access but the expansion would take place in a variety of different ways–and these plans are also referred to as “Medicare-for-All”, which definitely creates some confusion when gauging public support.
Also, this article grossly mischaracterizes the Center for American Progress’s position on universal health coverage. Go read up on their proposal–called Medicare Extra For All–which is a well-considered and detailed plan for offering public healthcare benefits to anyone who wants them–benefits, I might add, that go beyond what actual Medicare covers now, much like what the Sanders and Jayapal bills propose offering. To write off CAP’s proposal as not advocating universal coverage simply because it does not do so through a single payer mechanism writes important ideas out of the debate and is, plainly, misleading.
WaPo’s “hard-line” slur brought to mind this Trump tweet from a year ago (3/18/18): “Why does the Mueller team have 13 hardened Democrats…” Hardened Democrats, like hardened criminals — this from America’s crime boss. Sweet.
Inspired, the next day I posted a “Hardened Progressive” sign to Houston-area Indivisible groups, with an explainer:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/297936893955776/permalink/459439574472173.
Time to take the ‘green screen’ off all these welfare/bum/corporations that soaked up damn hard-earned taxpayer monies, even when they were ‘doing just’ fine.
But none are adjusting, like the music business, to the overriding changes.
If Washington Post wants to disrespect all those taxpayers, that now find out this paper is no different, from any other corporation. In calling the unknown taxpayers out, to foot any and all scams.
First in 2008 other multinationals gambled, but felt no consequences, as the elites never take responsibility for their illegal or unethical behavior (never have).
Second, they know what their like, so they lobby/con governmental official to set up a scheme where dummy taxpayers take the financial fall, any and every time—even if it will put them behind at least another generation in their economic growth…
Time, for a total re-think on all this elite falsity . I am sure that all the media, including this one, are aware of law S2155 that erases all rights of depositors to control their own money. Now under this law, all deposits, fixed or unfixed assets,will be stolen/taken to cover asinine debts, no functional bank should ever play for. Hopefully taxpayers are ready to turn a page and never-ever re-consider no matter the scam…
Opposing Medicare? No bueno, no bueno. Look at the Europeans…
Excellent article. Though it might be worth mentioning here something that needs to be challenged further in the framing of the medicare-for-all debate. It is discussed in depth in Jim Kavanagh’s article “‘Taxpayer Money’ Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)” (The Polemicist, 9/18/2018). Underlying all this talk about “how will we pay for it?” is the acceptance of right-wing economics. “Progressives” are engaged in a self-defeating battle and are in effect “taking the bait” when they accept these terms of debate. What do I mean? Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) explains how a sovereign issuer of currency (like the USA) collects taxes to (a) create demand for the currency and (b) limit the power of the wealthy. Taxes are NOT necessary to “pay for”, “fund” or “finance” social programs (those government expenditures are constrained in other ways). Ever notice how the TARP bailout or military spending in any given year is never subject to discussions about “how will we pay for it?” The very selective questioning of “how will we pay for it” only against social welfare programs and never against corporate welfare programs or the repressive police/military/surveillance apparatus shows how this is an inherently politicized framing. This also echos Pierre Bourdieu’s notable interview “The Left Hand and the Right Hand of the State” (Variant, 32, Summer 2008). “Progressives” should instead be laughing away demands to explain “how will we pay for it” as based on junk economics — unless and until right-wing economics are challenged in a political sense, “progressives” will never ultimately win debates on smaller issues (like Medicare for all) that flow from theory.
another example of how the more you read/watch outlets like the Post and their echo chambers on MSDNC, ABC, Fox, CNN, the less you know.