AOC nails it on M4A! This is how you respond when someone asks "how will you pay for it?"

[KelleyKramer]

Everyone needs to watch this incredible video of @AOC absolutely obliterating the scaremongering over the cost of Medicare-for-all. This is how you respond when someone asks “how will you pay for it?”

Link to tweet

.

[Sinistrous]

1. AOC is a formidable young woman.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. Yes, too bad AOC is not eligible and running for President this time around... she'd be a shoe-in!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Celerity]

32. She makes it by 99 days (how is that for a NYC/Jay-Z reference) for 2024.

The youngest a person can be and still run for POTUS amd be legally sowrn in (the the 2024 election) is to be born in January 20th, 1990, as they would turn 35 on the swearing in day. There is some legal reasoning that says you actually attain your legal age on the day before you birthday, so perhaps (it would be a huge court case) a person could be born on January 21, 1990 and still be elected and sworn in as POTUS on January 29th, 2025.

Buttigieg, for 2020, actually could be 4 years, and one day YOUNGER and still run (he was born January 19th, 1982).

[pangaia]

51. Uh, as much as I usually like her.. I don't think so by a long shot....

[Polybius]

77. A shoe-in for losing 45 states

I like her but no Justice Democrat can win a National election at this time. Not that she would would even win a primary state.

[Tursiops]

79. She is a natural. Win or lose, she would ignite the country.

"Trump would never be elected president".

[SamKnause]

2. Well done.

Well done indeed !!!

[ritapria]

3. WOW

[alwaysinasnit]

4. Damn. She just knocked it out of the park.

[Duppers]

5. K & R

[Skittles]

6. this is how you answer when you PREPARE

people running for president need to take notes

[whathehell]

7. Damn, she's good.

[NJCher]

8. She

Has the best words.

[sop]

9. No wonder they're so afraid of her, she is one impressive, passionate and well prepared young lady

[NBachers]

10. Well, I guess that settles that . . .

[dchill]

11. How long until she's 35, again?

[3sam3]

12. You Go Grrrl

Boy, you just have to wind her up and.....

[Mister Ed]

13. Very impressive! n/t

[democrank]

14. I wish I could recommend this a thousand times.

She’s right, it’s about our moral priorities. If all other industrialized nations can do it, so can we. Forget the tax cuts for billionaires.

[Scotch-Irish]

44. I'm with you. AOC nails the important points AND puts the blame squarely on republicans

where it ABSOLUTELY belongs.

[BlueMTexpat]

15. If ALL Democrats responded like

this instead of with timid, tepid comments, we might FINALLY be able not only to grab, but to carry the momentum.

Bravissima, AOC!

[JudyM]

40. This. Sharp and pointed.

[Sherman A1]

16. WOW!

Game, Set, Match!

[KY_EnviroGuy]

17. Wow, just wow. So much truth in two minutes!

............

[Mike Niendorff]

18. K&R

*This* is how you approach arguments that are based on false framing and false choices.

Well done.


MDN

[Alithea]

19. That's a perfect answer

I’d love it if we could stop overusing agressive terms like “obliterated” in non-adversarial contexts but, that said, her answer was brilliant and should be put on a perpetual loop. I haven’t been watching her too closely, but now I’m beginning to understand why she’s considered a rising star. Well done!

[tblue37]

22. Unfortunately, we deafies can't hear what she says, and no summary is provided. nt

[smirkymonkey]

20. Brava AOC!

Well done! Very impressive! I want to see more politicians fight like this for us.

[tblue37]

21. Please, could you tell us deafies what she said? Thanks. nt

[Luciferous]

28. She brought up the point that we always seem to have unlimited money for wars

and tax cuts for billionaires but when it comes to things like education and healthcare we are asked how do we pay for it. She also said that nobody takes into consideration the cost of decreased productivity and funerals for people that don't have access to the healthcare they need and that we are already essentially being taxed for healthcare anyway.

[tblue37]

30. Thank you! nt

[Luciferous]

46. No problem :)

[pecosbob]

36. and also that we're already paying more in premiums that M4A would cost.

Employer + employee contributions...

[JudyM]

41. What Luciferous said (good summary!)

She cut through all the hand wringing of the opponents by changing the framing entirely to focus on the true costs of our existing system and the sinister double standard of always somehow having limitless money to achieve gop goals, but never enough for the social, moral responsibility needs.

[wasupaloopa]

23. She is right that we spend too much on war and tax cuts but we are not in power.

Only by taking over the whole government can we pass a new healthcare plan. That means we have to win big in November. To win big we need the left, moderate, independents and never trumpers.

To me the lamest reason used to support single payer is that everyone else does it. This country has too many differences from every other country to use that as a reason.

The second lamest reason is that we are already paying for it.

You need to convince voters that single payer is what our health care system should become.

I think there is no convincing argument out there that could sell single payer or M4A to the number of voters we need to take over the government.

In my mind the best argument for universal health care is empathy.

People need to care that not everyone can access the health care they need. It may be as plain as the nose on your face to you but most voters think of themselves first.

If they have healthcare they like, telling them you are going to force them into a government run system because everyone else does it or that we already pay enough for it will not get their vote.

That is what I see as the fault with AOC’s argument. It just will not sell to enough voters to let us take back the government. It does just the opposite.

The winning argument is choice. Give people the ability to choose the way they pay for health care. We can get to universal affordable health care without tearing down but by adding what is needed to get to universal health care. That is by adding a private option that competes with the insurance industry and is means tested as far as what an individual has to pay.


We will not defeat trump with AOC’s arguments. We need to own all of government first then we will have the room to debate new ideas. You need opponents to M4A on the team to defeat trump.

If we lose in 2020 you can kiss universal health care good by for the next several generations. There will not be a court in the land that will allow it.

[Doremus]

58. When did we get so fearful?

Americans respect confidence and bold thinking. They yearn for it. Bold thinking brought us Medicare in the first place. It brought us Social Security, Medicaid and any other program of lasting value.

This timid "how will we pay for it," and "they might be scared away if we give them govt healthcare" BS needs to go away. Quit carrying their water. These are repuke talking points!

Let's pull up our big boy/girl panties and stop cowering in the fucking corner already!!

[wasupaloopa]

71. Well say hello to trump for four more years with that thinking! God people wake the fuck up!

We have to win first!

[emmaverybo]

74. +1000000

[malaise]

24. You go girl!

Most excellent

[ExciteBike66]

25. Funeral expenses of those who died due to lack of access...

I wouldn't even both with those, compared to the loss of productivity the nation suffers from such deaths.

If someone asked me how to pay for it, I would just point to the $1000/month family plan my employer offers and say I already am...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. BOOOOOOOOM!!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Vinca]

29. That was brilliant. No wonder the GOP is so upset by her.

[brush]

31. She's sharp, good ideas, just hope she stops primarying other Dem incumbents.

[demmiblue]

33. K&R

[Horizens]

34. She Responded But ..

She Never Answered the Question

[Hermit-The-Prog]

39. she answered it in the first 30 seconds

[Horizens]

43. Horse Hockey

She didn't answer the question. She stated that the existing system costs more but didn't say how M4A would be paid for.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

47. I can't help you

[TryLogic]

53. Good response.

[paleotn]

62. You can lead a horse to the obvious...

but you can't make him think. Excellent response.

[paleotn]

61. You're not serious.

You can't be serious. Dear God on a stick.

[Horizens]

64. No

She didn't answer the question. She stated a study that concluded M4A would cost less than the present system and equated today's premiums to a tax. She did not say how M4A would be funded. She did not answer the question. Period.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

65. current system worse than regressive tax

How is Medicare paid for? Medicare for all is a catchphrase for the expansion of the Medicare system to include everyone. If "M4A" costs less than the current system, it pays for itself. The difference is everyone pays 1 "insurance" provider instead of money being thrown at dozens.

We all pay for the current system, plus exorbitant overhead, plus exorbitant profits. It's like a regressive tax, such as a sales tax. "M4A" would eliminate considerable expense -- those profits for mansions and much of the overhead -- while spreading the cost more evenly among all. It would be similar to a progressive tax, such as the income tax, because it would subsidize the poorest people who cannot afford any health insurance now.

All of those logo-spattered skyscrapers that insurance companies like to show off cost a lot of money. Each of us with health insurance pays for those things, along with the private jets, extra mansions, golden parachutes, expense accounts, etc. We also pay for armies of doctors who do nothing for a living except review and deny claims.

Each dollar dispensed by Medicare costs about 1/4 as much in overhead as each dollar dispensed by for-profit wealthcare companies.

[Horizens]

80. She Didn't Answer the Question

and neither did you. Your explanation merely state that funds now going to private insurance will go to a single payer source. That's more than she said but ... no dah.

Will M4A be funded through taxes, premiums, co-pays or a combination of the three? She doesn't say and neither do you.

[paleotn]

72. The money you and your employer pay for private health insurance...

.........will go to the a central health care payment function. And since there's no need for vast sums spent on useless insurance company overhead and profit, it will cost ALL OF US LESS MONEY. There. Fixed it. Happy now?

[Horizens]

82. See Post #80

My answer there applies to you as well.

And NOBODY (not Warren, not Sanders) has said, "it will cost ALL OF US LESS MONEY".

[paleotn]

91. Are you being purposefully dense? Is this an act?

[George II]

100. Precisely. Not a single, specific statement about how it will be paid for. Nothing.

[George II]

68. Exactly. But the good thing is that under "M4A" we can eliminate the costs of funerals (at least...

...that's what she implied about 50 seconds into the video)

[emmaverybo]

102. LOL!

[kentuck]

35. I wish she was old enough to run for President.

I would vote for her. She has the passion and the vision to lead the country, imo.

[BSdetect]

37. If only every Dem spoke so comprehensively. Do your homework Reps.

[Hoyt]

38. Heck, we don't even know what it is going to cost. It was $34 T last month, now Warren says it's $52

$52 Trillion over 10 years.

I get what AOC is saying, but someone needs to get real before we are locked in and running against trump, or more likely another Republican.

[Recursion]

42. No good. The problem is who is paying what.

The fact that Ocasio-Cortez is right doesn't make it an effective argument, unfortunately.

The problem is the richer half of white Americans, roughly, have good insurance through their jobs that they don't have payroll deductions for. They will see no decrease in payroll deductions (since they don't have them) and an increase in taxes. The fact that it pays for itself overall doesn't change the fact that upper middle class white people will have less take-home pay.

I wish somebody would just be honest about this: we're going to tax the middle class to pay for health care. It's what all of Europe does, through a VAT. We would just do it through the income tax system instead. I wish we would just stand up for that.

[Poiuyt]

45. Just because there isn't a payroll deduction doesn't mean it's not part of the total

compensation package. If companies no longer needed to pay into expensive private insurance, they could increase the wages of people who get their health insurance through their work.

BTW, when I received a W-2 form, it itemized what my employer was paying for my medical insurance..

[Recursion]

85. ROTFLMAO

they could increase the wages of people who get their health insurance through their work

Yeah, no. They're not going to do that.

[TexasTowelie]

86. +1

Where are these benevolent employers because I need a job.

[emmaverybo]

103. OMG! That will be so nice of them. Just to show they too are true progressives.

[George II]

105. Sounds like trickle down economics to me - give the employer a financial break they'll give it...

...to their employees.

We learned almost 40 years ago that doesn't work.

[paleotn]

66. Umm, yes they do.

I'm part of that richer half of white Americans and I've cost shared medical insurance premiums with my employers for my entire 30+ year career. No one, and I mean fucking no one, has fully paid health insurance anymore. In fact, the trend now is to high deductible with HSA to cover out of pocket, even at fortune 100 companies. Trust me. I'm living it. And the cost I pay every 2 weeks and what my company pays has gone up far in excess of inflation every single one of those 30+ years.

A sizable portion of those premiums are insurance company profits, 7 and 8 figure compensation for senior insurance industry executives, and vast amounts spent on advertising and marketing. ALL OF THAT IS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY AND A TOTAL WASTE OF YOUR MONEY and mine!!! Add to that the cost of back office, duplication of efforts at every single private insurance carrier. Also add the armies of people health care providers must pay to handle all these different insurance carriers...what they will pay...what they wont pay...how to code this that and the other.... paperwork on top of paperwork. Private insurance admin costs, according to the study linked below, average 12%+. Medicare averages around 2%. By having only one major payer, Canadian hospitals admin cost is only around 12% of revenue, verses 25%+ in the US. In short, our private system is the most ludicrously inefficient and costly way of paying for health care anyone with half a brain could imagine. It's utterly insane.

We're paying far, far more than we should. In a single payer system, the fat and froth goes away, so in the end, you, me, our employers, the federal government, state governments...ALL OF US...pay less for the same level of care.

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2605414

[Recursion]

84. Lots and lots and lots of people have insurance paid for by work

My last three jobs did, come to think of it (I could have gone with the nicer PPO and paid a small premium, but I never chose to).

A sizable portion of those premiums are insurance company profits

About 6%. I don't know if that's "sizeable"; it's an irritant but not what makes health care so expensive.

[paleotn]

87. You're joking, right?

An irritant. Insurance company profits? And complete BS on the "Lots and Lots and Lots". That's health insurance fully paid by the company...no premium sharing. Evidence of that? Got any? Hmmm? Lots and lots? Hmmm?

[Recursion]

88. About a quarter of workers pay nothing

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf

And the average premium for people who get insurance through their employer is about $125.

And, yeah, the 6% private insurance overhead just isn't the problem. Remember that even Medicare and Medicaid end up handing off the provisioning to companies like Anthem.

[paleotn]

89. Ummm, no. The 25% of workers stat ain't there....

Show me, if you can. What is actually there....

Healthcare coverage premium sharing....
National Averages....
Private Industry / State & Local Gov. employees....

Single Coverage 80% Employer 20% Employee - Page 10. First line in the table.
Family Coverage 67% Employer 33% Employee - Page 12. First line in the table.

Here's the premium sharing for federal employees for 2020. Even they don't have full employer paid health insurance.

https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/premiums/



Private insurance overhead is 12% on average, not 6%.

Private insurers' overhead currently averages 12.4% versus 2.2% in traditional Medicare (2). Reducing overhead to Medicare's level would save approximately $220 billion this year (Table) (3). Single-payer reform could also sharply reduce billing and paperwork costs for physicians, hospitals, and other providers. For example, by paying hospitals lump-sum operating budgets rather than forcing them to bill per patient, Scotland and Canada have held hospital administrative costs to approximately 12% of their revenue versus 25.3% in the United States (4).

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2605414

Citations from paragraph above...

(2) https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/Downloads/TR2016.pdf

(3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12930930


Yes...they do hand offs to companies with bloated executive pay, profit for shareholders and other useless SG&A that does not exist in a single payer system. Your point??

[Recursion]

94. "seventy-three percent of workers made flat-dollar (i.e. premium) contributions"

Meaning 27%, or about a quarter, didn't. On page 2.

AFAIK Federal employees have always had premium cost-sharing; at least always during my adult life. In the private sector, you find zero-premium plans more in the nonprofit world than in the for-profit world, which is part of why the topline salaries are generally lower.

[paleotn]

97. I see it now. Thank you. However....

16% have variable premiums, leaving only 11% without premiums.

Then again, we're dithering about %'s and losing sight of the big picture. Our system of private insurance is ridiculously inefficient and costly. The wealthiest nation on earth can do far better. Give coverage to everyone at a lower cost than we all pay now.

[Recursion]

98. Ah, I missed the 16%, thanks

So, yeah, 11% of the workforce, or about 18 million people, don't pay premiums. And (this being what started this) they are the richer and whiter part of the workforce, which means they vote more and their votes count more. That's the problem.

[Fiendish Thingy]

69. They will see an elimination of deductibles and copays

I think the majority of Americans pay monthly premiums, and so will see significant out of pocket savings.

[Recursion]

83. Why would deductibles and copays go away?

I thought we wanted to give everyone Medicare

[paleotn]

90. Canadian system.

Read about it. It covers everyone no matter what their age. Ask an average Canadian if they'd give up their system for ours. I have. They look at you like you've lost your fucking mind.

[Recursion]

95. Canada has premiums, depending on your province

I think the Maritimes are mostly premium-free, but BC, Alberta, and Ontario have monthly premiums.

[paleotn]

96. And everyone has health care. Imagine.

[George II]

101. Not true. Virtually NO Americans who are covered by insurance through their employers....

....rich, white, or whatever, have no payroll deductions for that insurance.

I worked for 45+ years, in every job I had - from low paying part time jobs to salaried positions, I had a payroll deduction for health insurance. That was for both the employer provided insurance AND Medicare. I even drove a cab for two years while in college, essentially an "independent contractor", and they deducted health insurance from my pay.

[Recursion]

108. The numbers are upthread

It's tens of millions of workers. Every job I had at a nonprofit didn't have payroll deductions for insurance, for the last 20 years.

[warmfeet]

48. Quite so.

I would like to be able to vote for her in several years - vote for her when she runs for POTUS. My dream and my hope.

[patphil]

49. She's incredible!

AOC is going to have a long and successful career in government.
She talks to the common person, just like Elizabeth Warren.
Maybe some day she'll be president.
After Elizabeth Warren wins in 2020.

[colorado_ufo]

50. I want this woman for president, but

we would only have her for 8 years. She needs to gain as much experience and knowledge as she can in the political system, foreign affairs, and every other aspect of the office before she takes on this roll. She can learn a lot from Nancy Pelosi and others who I'm sure would be more than happy to groom her for office. We want her at her most effective, not when she has barely found her way around Washington.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

59. AOC is ready now... but we can wait until Bernie finishes his 2nd term.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[MrsCoffee]

92. How do you make yourself believe something like that?

[TryLogic]

52. YES !!

[SMC22307]

54. It is that simple: endless war and tax cuts for the uber-wealthy.

AOC nails it again.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

60. Yup, AOC sure does!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[pangaia]

55. Cuomo's face !!!!!!!!!!!

[lapucelle]

56. Walter Bragman? Really?

[Cha]

73. That didn't age so well for Bragman.. Yeah, there are a few us not

jumping on that wagon.

Mahalo, lapucelle!

[Turbineguy]

57. We're already paying

for it. We pay for the emergency room visits of those who use them for primary care. We pay for the bankruptcies of people. We pay for the phenomenal inefficiencies built into our current system.

[thesquanderer]

63. She's wrong in saying that the Supreme Court ruled that our monthly payments are a tax.

They ruled that the penalty for NOT getting insurance (when there was one) was a tax.

The monthly payments are paid to insurance companies, not the government, so definitely not a tax.

I'm surprised she got it wrong, and that so many people here have commented positively but no one has mentioned it...

[George II]

67. That interview was more than a year ago, August 9, 2018. But, she never did answer....

....the question "how will you pay for it." However, she DID say this, at about 50 seconds into the video:

“Why aren’t we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who die because they can’t afford access to health care. That is part of the cost of our system.”

Is she saying there that under Medicare for All people won't die and we can eliminate funeral expenses?

[Horizens]

99. You're Right

she never answered the question. I pointed this out earlier in the thread and I'm taking a verbal beating for stating that fact.

[The Wizard]

70. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is militay waste.

No one in Congress mentions it because defense contractors have enough of Congress on the payroll to keep the golden egg laying goose dropping bribes. Also consider the savings from not paying insurance premiums.

[lapucelle]

93. BOOM: Bernie Sanders Loves This $1 Trillion War Machine

Sen. Bernie Sanders has railed against big defense corporations at rallies, but he has a more complex history with the military-industrial complex. Most notably, he’s supported a $1.2 trillion stealth fighter that’s considered by many to be one of the bigger boondoggles in Pentagon history.

snip==================================================================

We know that there is massive fraud going on in the defense industry. Virtually every major defense contractor has either been convicted of fraud or reached a settlement with the government,” Sanders said in Iowa City last year at a town hall. “We need a strong military, it is a dangerous world. But I think we can make judicious cuts.”

But when those defense corporations come to his own backyard, he quietly welcomes them in.

The Vermont senator persuaded Lockheed Martin to place a research center in Burlington, according to Newsweek, and managed to get 18 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets stationed at the city’s airport for the Vermont National Guard.

snip====================================================================

“In very clever ways, the military-industrial complex puts plants all over the country, so that if people try to cut back on our weapons system what they’re saying is you’re going to be losing jobs in that area,” Sanders said at a Q&A in New Hampshire back in 2014. “[W]e’ve got to have the courage to understand that we cannot afford a lot of wasteful, unnecessary weapons systems, and I hope we can do that.”

History has shown that Sanders has not had the courage to do that.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-loves-this-dollar1-trillion-war-machine?ref=scroll

[zentrum]

75. Love her!

[StClone]

76. Me too! So absolutely right about so many things.

AOC stands up to the Right and knocks down their fantasies, lies and conspiracies. They are jealous of her and wish she were on "their" side. They being the stars of the Republican Freak Show.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

78. That was superb. n/t

[Joinfortmill]

104. She rocks

[Joe941]

106. This is why her endorsement of Bernie is so great!

[FM123]

107. "Why do we only have empty pockets for the morally right things to do?"

Good question AOC!
We need more smart questions like this (and of course more smart representatives like her)