Establishment Dems Fight to Defeat 'Medicare-for-All' in Colorado

[eridani]

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/20/establishment-dems-fight-defeat-medicare-all-colorado

Highlighting the divisions in the Democratic party this election, Colorado's ballot measure for a universal, single-payer healthcare plan is facing unexpected resistance from the very same party that has been calling for such a healthcare plan since the 1990s.

"There is a disconnect between the powers that be and the people," said state senator Irene Aguilar, a former doctor and the chief architect of the statewide 'Medicare-for-all,' called ColoradoCare, in an interview with the Guardian. "The powers that be are incrementalists. There hasn't been a courage of conviction to try and deal with [healthcare coverage]."

<snip>

Clinton's campaign is directly linked to Coloradans for Coloradans, the most prominent organization opposing ColoradoCare. Formed solely to defeat the measure, Coloradans for Coloradans is being funded by the very same consultant firm currently working for the Clinton super PAC Priorities USA, as Lee Fang reported in the Intercept.

While a stance for the ACA and against single payer is the least popular with the public, it is the most popular within a certain sector of the population: pharmaceutical and healthcare companies.

Indeed, in Colorado the "anti-single-payer effort is funded almost entirely by health care industry interests," Fang reported, "including $500,000 from Anthem Inc., the state’s largest health insurance provider; $40,000 from Cigna, another large health insurer that is current in talks to merge with Anthem; $75,000 from Davita, the dialysis company; $25,000 from Delta Dental, the largest dental insurer in the state; and $100,000 from SCL Health, the faith-based hospital chain."

[merrily]

1. Would these be the same establishment Democrats who assured us Obamacare was but

a first step toward Medicare for all? That the ONLY reason we were not getting anything better than Obamacare was bad, bad Leroy Lieberman (who wasn't going to run again)?* That we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the health industry bail out?

Please remember this. Please.







*

Fundraising

Since 1989, Lieberman has received more than $31.4 million in campaign donations from specific industries and sectors. His largest donors have represented the securities and investment ($3.7 million), legal ($3.6 million), real estate ($3.1 million) and health professional ($1.1 million) industries.

....
Following his retirement from the Senate, Lieberman became senior counsel of the white collar criminal defense and investigations practice at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, a law firm in New York City.[59] In March 2013, it was announced that Lieberman would be joining the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank as co-chairman of their American Internationalism Project, alongside former Republican Senator Jon Kyl.[60] In February 2014, Lieberman was named as Counselor at the National Bureau of Asian Research.[61] Additionally, he serves as the Lieberman Chair of Public Policy and Public Service at Yeshiva University, where he teaches an undergraduate course in political science.

In early September 2015, Lieberman attended a rally outside the office of New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand held in the hopes that such a protest would lead the senator to retract her support for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.[62] In March 2016, Lieberman was hired by Schaghicoke Tribal Nation for the purpose of assisting the group in demolishing Connecticut laws that gave exemptions to only the top two state gaming tribes to build casinos.[63][64]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

Get it, suckas?

[TrueDemVA]

3. These fake Dems

Only acted like they were for it in the past, b/c they knew it would not pass. Whether it was Repugs blocking it or they would find some way to sabotage it. Now that people are demanding it and standing up for a better run govt, these cowards are doing what they do best, working as the corporate puppets they are.

VOTE THEM OUT! NO more DINOs.

[merrily]

4. The whole fake Dems, real Dems debate is counter productive, IMO.

The reality is that neoliberals are now the majority of Democrats holding office.

And voting them out is very, very difficult.

For just one thing, the DNC favors incumbents and fights anyone challenging them. Remember the Lieberman-Lamont primary?

For another, this Presidential primary season has given us a glimpse into what happens at the DNC and state party levels when a primary challenger starts doing well in a primary.

Even more difficult than voting them out?

Replacing them with a liberal.

[TrueDemVA]

13. Absolutely agree

It will be hard, but it's time we start pushing back and voting in others where possible. Definitely won't happen overnight. I think once politicians start seeing the fellow corporate buddies get challenged and in some cases losing reelection bids, they will change course out of Fear of losing their meal ticket.

They will be forced to adapt or get booted. It will take years, but it is worth starting the fight

[merrily]

14. Oh, I am very pro a fight. Which war(s) to fight, however, is another issue.

I will give that more thought after the Democratic National Convention.

[TrueDemVA]

15. We agree

We need to be smart about this going forward.

[Dustlawyer]

32. A group of Bernie's campaign staff split off of the campaign to start Bernie's next assault.

They are going to go after House seats. They are recruiting non-politician candidates with a reputation for integrity in their communities. These Bernie campaigners are going to raise money nationally from us and distribute it to OUR CANDIDATES to start retaking the House. They want to free up the candidates from having to campaign and raise money at the same time. The candidates must hew close to Bernie's platform and have it as their goal to eliminate campaign contributions to get the money out of our politics. The fundraising will be done like the national Sanders Presidential campaign!

I think this is a great idea. We should be able to win a significant number of House seats in the next midterms, especially since the Congresses approval numbers are in the tank.

[Duval]

39. Didn't know that.

That's a very smart move.

[baran]

42. Website Link

http://brandnewcongress.org/home

[JDPriestly]

86. Thanks. Great.

[blackspade]

47. So now we know why staffers 'abandoned' his campaign....

Sounds awesome!

[Beartracks]

56. Just to repeat: MID-TERMS ARE IMPORTANT, PEOPLE!! :)

Don't skip 'em! Get to a voting booth in 2018. That's where the grassroots seeds get planted. Well, there, and at your LOCAL elections.



====================

[TrueDemVA]

69. I hope so

I love that things seem to be changing. People are now getting strategic and smart about the fight. We have needed this primary to wake up the masses. I love it!

[passiveporcupine]

74. This is excellent news

this must be what my latest Bernie e-mail is about. He's asking us to support eight new state representatives who are progressives.

Yep...we all need to continue this fight with our pocketbooks, as well as our votes and spirit.

[nikto]

82. Very sad, but very true

[fasttense]

19. These Democrats are economic RepubliCONS

They don't have problems with equality and social liberal ideals. But they don't want equality in economic issues. They will let the GLBT community have marriage but they wont give the middle class and poor economic opportunities.

And when you are poor, you have no power in a capitalist economy.

[merrily]

23. Are you sure neoliberals have no problems with social liberal ideals?

I'm not.

Hillary did not come out in support of equal marriage until after the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional. She has been announcing "I am a Christian" while campaigning for POTUS against Senator Sanders, even though the Constitution prohibits religious tests and liberals stand squarely for separation of church and state, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson. She has said she is willing to negotiate a Constitutional amendment about reproductive choice with Republicans. The only reason such an amendment would be needed would be to override the scant protections the Supreme Court has already read into the Constitution about choice.

[fasttense]

54. Hmm good point

Bigotry, racism and misogyny are so common among the uber rich that I think it provides some kind of economic advantage for them.

[dmosh42]

2. this sort of verifies what Bernie has been saying all the time-The third way gang!

[Recursion]

6. How? The campaign and a pro-Clinton PAC hired the same consultant

You really see that as an actual "connection"?

[pengu]

26. Definitely

[Jackilope]

27. You mean besides Hillary herself saying it?

She has basically said single payer is never going to happen.

[tom_kelly]

34. Basically said it? She couldn't have said it any louder than the scream when she said it. n/t

[Baobab]

59. A 1995 Clinton era trade deal made it that way. To get single payer we have to change it first.

Colorado is going to run into it - its the General Agreement on Trade in Services or "GATS"

We have to change that or get rid of the parts that apply to health care reform.

They will howl because its their secret plan to block affordable health care.

[tom_kelly]

70. Thank you n/t

[Hoyt]

53. There's a difference in saying it won't happen with our Congress and saying she doesn't want it to

happen. She has not said the latter. She's right for forseeable future and approach the issue of health care from an unrealistic standpoint, gets us nowhere. Public Option has a real chance. If as good as we think, most people will gravitate to public system.

[stupidicus]

60. as far as I can tell she opposes it in principle and practice

https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+isw+opposed+to+single+payer+in+principle&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=hillary+clinton+is+opposed+to+single+payer+in+principle

which means that "pragmatic" bs is exactly and ONLY that -- bs

[Hoyt]

64. I think she's politically astute and she'll get us closer to SP than Sanders

[stupidicus]

67. if and ONLY if

it's market-based as her efforts have ALWAYS been

you are of course free to attempt to correct that record, but what you think regarding her ability to get us closer than Bernie is worthless in terms of properly and honestly characterizing/identifying her as an unqualified but pragmatic single-payer supporter in the BS/dem party mold of the gov being the single paid...

How long have you been supporting the private insurance industry?

[Hoyt]

68. A Public Option is market based only in the sense that it lets us

Last edited Wed May 25, 2016, 10:21 AM - Edit history (1)

choose which way we go. Even though I don't think the public plan will be more than 10% or so cheaper than private insurance, I'd sign up immediately. But lots of folks will have to be convinced by seeing others signing up and not facing death panels or soaring costs per beneficiary.

[stupidicus]

87. none of that alters the deliberate deception behind the claim

she's a "single-payer" supporter

it's a free country, so be as dishonest as you want. Just don't expect others to not point that out.

[Hoyt]

90. Again, she says single payer won't happen. Similarly if asked, she would say cancer will not be

cured in the next five years. Does that mean she's against a cure for cancer? No, it means she doesn't believe in fairy tales and things her supporters are smarter than that.

[stupidicus]

98. meaningless garbage that in no rebuts her anti-gov/single payer stance

well established by almost every article to be found in the google search link above that you're dodging in your tireless effort to justify the dishonesty of the claim "well, she supports single-payer, she just doesn't think it achievable in the short term". Gee what's next, her lack of support and consequent silence/lack of advocacy for it is gonna make achieving it more likely in her 4-8 years in office?

Her "supporters are smarter than that"??? too funny Of course it'll never happen with her, and she's talking to her supporters like they're too stupid to figure that out.

Thanks again for showcasing your support for the private insurance industry, and opposition to single-payer

[Baobab]

104. Our government is fighting single pyer around the world, public education too.

Thats why we sign trade deals prohibiting it with them.

Its a theft from corporations. People would otherwise buy better - the best - insurance unless they wanted to die from crap-care.

All insurance other than the best must deliver substandard care or its 'trade distorting'.

That is the WTO rule. Competition policy.

[AlbertCat]

62. She's right for forseeable future ....

Like she was so right and knew what to do when she was in charge of a healthcare platform.... that was an utter failure.

She's so mediocre.

[Hoyt]

65. She had a good plan at the time. Might as well criticize Truman who first proposed

single payer.

[AlbertCat]

66. She had a good plan at the time.

I remember everyone, not just conservatives, saying it was a big lumbering mess.

[Baobab]

113. It was a cover up to cover up that they were writing an FTA that made single payer FTA illegal.

Forever.

It was called the WTO "General Agreement on Trade in Services"

[Baobab]

107. It was not a good plan considering that at the same time they were writing the global deal

to block SP.

It was a cover their ass cover up.

[Baobab]

106. She had to hide GVT5- people would have gone insane in 1994 if they knew about GVT5

which is the real word written halfway upside down to foil filters

[Baobab]

75. "Public option" fails because of bothGATS Article I:3 (b)(c) issue AND AdverseSelection>death spiral

Single payers' savings don't travel at all into other contexts. For that reason, as the insurers know quite well, a 'public option' is guaranteed to fail, because of adverse selection, or be extremely expensive, as in high risk pool (thats basically what it would become)

in addition to being against our own FTA dogma, very rigid dogma if past positions are any guide,

There are a number of reasons single payer works, some of them revolve around simplicity, others revolve around bargaining power, some revolve around early access to care which only happens when its free. Then people see a doctor when they need to right at the beginning.

You cannot provide a service for free when you need to coddle the need of for profit insurers to make money by never offering a better deal. Thats basically a big problem. They will always cherry pick the profitable healthy people.

But the key issue is the GATS Article I:3 one.

http://www.ciel.org/Publications/PublicServicesScope.pdf

http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htm

http://www.ictsd.org/downloads/2008/06/cassim_steuart_part3.pdf

http://www.cesruc.org/uploads/soft/130303/1-130303131949.pdf

https://business.highbeam.com/437406/article-1G1-148417088/service-supplied-exercise-governmental-authority-under

[Hoyt]

83. The GATS is junk. Any country is allowed to rescind GATS assuming it even applies in this

situation. Jesus Christ, read the darn thing before spreading BS.

[Baobab]

88. TiSA uses ISDS so TiSA is more binding. See the Maine ctpc document.

TiSA is almost completed.

TPTB emphatically do not want SP because in a few years virtually everybody is going to need it. There wont be jobs like there are today.

[Hoyt]

89. There is absolutely nothing in all of that which prohibits the USA from going to a Public Option,

single payer or anything else.

[Baobab]

91. Yes there is, you don't even have the foggiest idea of what you are saying.

Look at the "standstill clause" in TiSA. TiSA from the beginning has had standstill, ratchet and rollback.

These are the basic concepts in FTAs, Hoyt.

They were introduced in around the fifth line of the very first document announcing the intent to create TiSA.

Look for the line in the newer TiSA docs about 'capturing' the 'autonomous level' of liberalisation.

That creates a noose like document where the more the country struggles, the tighter the noose gets.

[Hoyt]

97. Then tell Sanders to quit talking about Single Payer. Sorry you are wrong.

[Baobab]

99. USTR supports my position, other countries can't have it. We obviously can't have it either.

Read this. http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/ctpchlthcaresub.pdf

And this:

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/putting_health_first.pdf

[Hoyt]

102. Looks like Maine went ahead with its health plan, despite inquiry you cite written 10 years ago.

ACA did the same. Colorado's plan will too if enacted.

[Baobab]

108. No, it died.

They had to disband it.

ACA is private insurance and there is no single payer anywhere in the US that did not exist before the 1998 effective date of the Understanding on commitment in financial services.

[Hoyt]

109. No it ended in 2013, being replaced by ACA. There goes your GATS concern.

[Baobab]

110. Thats what I meant. Nothing can change because of GATS. ACA is another in a chain of failures.

Ever hear of the Uninsurables? The people - roughly 10% - that both Hillary and Obama were throwing under the bus?

Nothing has changed. If it had you would have heard about it.

Hoyt, I am sorry, this conversation has to end for now. Have to go. bye.

You need another job!

[Hoyt]

111. Things have changed since GATS started a few decades ago. You need a new world conspiracy theory.

[Baobab]

112. No they havent, as I said, its clear from TiSA

Look at the TiSA mandate, there you will see standstill, ratchet, rollback, just as before.

TiSA also is default everything on so its, as they say, GATS on steroids.

Do some research Hoyt.

Recommendation, watch Sanya Reid Smith's videos on YouTube.

Good day!

[Baobab]

100. Keep killing people. No way.

These FTAs are evil. They lock countries into a system we have long known did not work.

And WE have to get the worst deal of all.

[Recursion]

5. Hiring the same consultant is a "direct link"?

Umm... OK...

[retrowire]

30. Hillary herself said it will never happen. nt

[democrank]

7. "There is a disconnect between the powers that be and the people" clearly states the party`s problem

The Democratic Machine can offer up their hand-picked candidates all they want, but a growing number of citizens are beginning to challenge the status quo. Sooner or later, change is going to come.

[ananda]

8. Have to protect the private corporate interests ..

like insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc....

[ms liberty]

9. I'm shocked, shocked, I...well, no I'm not.

This is part for the course of today's democratic party. They've abandoned the people and the common good for wealth, power, and the favor of the oligarchs.

[Enthusiast]

10. K&R! This post should receive hundreds of recommendations.

The entire rest of the developed world enjoys the savings of single payer. Unfortunately in the United States we do not have freedom and democracy even in the party that calls itself Democratic. Corporate Rule.

[Scuba]

11. All part of the Dem leadership plan to keep the Republican Party viable.

"If the Democratic Party would fight as hard for the Working Class as the Republican Party fights for the Ruling Class, the Republicans would be a powerless minority party within a few election cycles.

The Democratic Party knows this, the Republican Party knows this, the Ruling Class knows this- and they've been astonishingly successful at making sure the Working Class never learns this." Anonymous

[disillusioned73]

72. Right on point...

Thank you

[Enthusiast]

77. They have been doing this for a while.

The entire thing is pretty clear if you are willing to look at it. Ugly! Used to be a democracy. Jeez. What will we tell the kids? Sorry...

[cantbeserious]

12. A Preview Of A HRC Administration

eom

[roomtomove]

24. Please stop

with the bug on the screeen.......it is s0000000000000 annoying, little one........

[cantbeserious]

25. Bug In Honor Of Fallen DU Comrades At The Hands Of Paid Disruptors

eom

[AllyCat]

16. Never in my voting life did I expect Democrats to fight against

Something that would help everyone. Guess I forget these are not Democrats. Just people parading around with the name doing the devil's work.

[clg311]

45. They're been doing it for over 20 years. NT

[Baobab]

92. Help bankrupt everybody.

Buy or die.

[Promethean]

17. Policy before party.

All the party loyalists keep acting shocked when we side with policy before the party. The thing with Liberals is that we are not about loyalty to institutions or authorities. We care about people's ideas. So we came to the Democratic Party at first because they proposed the good ideas. The Republicans being overtly corrupt helped make the decision easy. Now the Democrats have turned against the ideas that got us here in the first place. So whats the next step?

[Dustlawyer]

33. See my post above, Bernie and some of his now former campaign staff have a plan.

Our Party has been taken over by the monied interests that control the Republicans. It is all like a Harlem Globetrotters Washington Generals game being played for kids, we are supposed to believe it is real, but it is all rigged on both sides, we are about to change that!

[Vinca]

18. Bottom line: insurance companies get what they pay for.

I'm thinking the Democratic Party should split into two parties: the People's Democratic Party and the Corporate Democratic Party.

[jtuck004]

20. When two politicians agree, you don't need one of them. These voters might

figure that out, and you might not like the answer.

[ybbor]

21. So by incremental they mean nothing

That sounds more like obstructionists to me.

Wow! That is a great preview of what a HRC administration would look like.

No We Can't! No We Cant!

We're fucked!

[HughBeaumont]

22. YAY! Let's keep the bake-sale-to-bankruptcy Insurance"Care" going!!

Keep up that 20th Century problem solving America! Keep on thinking everything has to have a price attached to it!

[MaeScott]

28. Kicked.

[midnight]

29. kick

[retrowire]

31. knr!

This is what we're getting with Hillary! Pat yourself on the back if you voted for this!

Seriously. Terrible work.

[SammyWinstonJack]

50. +1000000!

[Victor_c3]

55. You get what you vote for

I honestly can't wrap my head around the idea how anyone calling themselves a democrat could support a candidate like Hillary Clinton.

[CrispyQ]

35. The D brand is severely tarnished. It's looking a lot like the R brand of yesteryear. -nt

[Feeling the Bern]

76. This election is party over principle

Expect probably the lowest turn out in history.

[Katashi_itto]

36. K&R!!!

[bbgrunt]

37. well gosh, I wonder why dems are fighting against medicare for all since they would

have you believe that donations do not affect their votes.

[blackspade]

38. Fucking pathetic.

Sell-outs.
These assholes are determined to keep the profits rolling in on the pain and misery of the sick and poor.
Fuck Coloradans for Coloradans, and the corporate horse they rode in on.

[Hiraeth]

40. pathetically laughable.

fucking hysterically laughable.

[SusanLarson]

41. A rose by any other name

Call them what they are Corporatist Dems, Blue Dogs, DINO, Republicans....

[SheilaT]

43. Once again, Hillary and her supporters are squarely on the side

of the people. No, wait, they are not.

Why am I not surprised?

[afertal]

44. We're getting Hillary for the same reason we got Obamacare...

...she's the best we can do under the circumstances. Live with it, suckers...

[Baobab]

96. Or die with it if you're poor. Around a million and a half have.

unnecessarily.

Over 20 years since the GATS was signed and we've been being lied to.

[zentrum]

46. Damn—we need Bernie.

It's time!

[mudstump]

48. This is why I'm having such a hard time deciding....

what I will do in the general. The democratic party is a sham.

[jpmonk91]

49. Establiment dems

Hate welfare programs and Medicare because they are actually Reagan conservatives disguised as dems

[dflprincess]

71. Of late, I prefer to call them Vichy Democrats nt

[Enthusiast]

81. It's an excellent name, Vichy Democrats.

Historically it fits like a glove.

[Baobab]

93. Very appropriate to this situation, given Hillary's propensity to grandiosity and millitarism.

Vichy Democrats.


Rhymes with "itchy" as in annoying, smothering.

[azmom]

51. Shameful. Profits over people.

I thought our party was supposed to be better than this.

[MariaThinks]

52. Very disturbing

[ReRe]

57. This pretty much tells everyone whose side...

... Hillary is on. And it isn't the people's side. She's on the Corporate side. Got that? She's in the 1% Club, and we the people ain't in it.

And frankly, I would never have envisioned this coming to pass. For all the world, it's like someone died. In being against Colorado's universal health campaign, she and her cohorts have betrayed the Democratic Party.

[Enthusiast]

78. I am with you!

[ReRe]

79. Seriously!

Can you believe that? It's a total turn to the right, right there in front of your eyes, FGS!

[Enthusiast]

80. And done only to protect the profits of the health care/insurance industry.

For there is no other viable reason.

[Baobab]

94. And keep people buying useless junk instead of saving money.

God forbid we become frugal like the (smart in this respect) Chinese.

[Baobab]

95. Read the grey text in my sig for the other reason.

That is, if you can see it.

Seems only a few people do.

[Thespian2]

58. K & R

[stupidicus]

61. sad, and for no good reasons and shameless excuses. Must be Hillarians.

[mountain grammy]

63. K&R

[MisterP]

73. "Coloradans for Coloradans"?

[Enthusiast]

84. I can't believe this post has only 131 recommendations.

I am very suspicious of this number.

[cliffordu]

85. Well, of course they do.

Gotta keep that money spigot open.

[Zen Democrat]

101. I thought all Dems were for 100% healthcare coverage? But not Hillary, huh?

[hughee99]

103. I'm not sure why this is surprising. The ACA passed without a single republican vote,

which means they COULD have passed any healthcare system they could have sold to the establishment Dems. We didn't get single payer, or even a public option, because they couldn't sell the establishment Dems on either. That was 6 years ago, and nothing has changed.

[YankeeBravo]

105. A vote for Hillary Clinton

is accepting these monsters trying to destroy any chance of a fair and just healthcare system.