Medicare-For-All Is Winning the Debate

Medicare-for-all advocates should rejoice. You are winning the debate. No one has refuted the benefits of this proposed single-payer health care system. The arguments that have been presented against Medicare-for-all have been wrong, misleading, and disingenuous. Even the haggling over cost is not much of a dispute. This issue is not whether Medicare-for-all will save money—it will—it is just a question of how MUCH will be saved.

The benefits of Medicare-for-all include: one, it covers everybody. No more time needs to be spent figuring what insurance to buy or what your policy covers.

Two, it eliminates co-payments and deductibles, making health care affordable and accessible to all. No more worrying about whether you can afford medical care or whether the co-payments and deductibles will cause bankruptcy.

Three, it covers more benefits than most current insurance. For example, Medicare-for-all covers vision and dental, benefits that many insurance policies lack.

Four, it provides the freedom to choose any hospital or medical professional. Under Medicare-for-all you can choose any physician you want, and you can stay with that doctor no matter how many times you change jobs. No longer will your choice be limited by the insurance companies’ ability to get the best rate without regard to quality.

Five, it allows the physician to determine the best course of treatment based on need, not based on whether your insurance policy covers the treatment or whether you can afford it.

Continue reading

Joe Biden never advocated blocking Supreme Court nominees

Joe Biden never advocated blocking Supreme Court nominees during an election year. Too many people on social media, and worse, too many news organizations keep getting this wrong.

This misconception started February 22, 2016, when C-SPAN posted a video clip from 1992 that shows then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” Here is the clip posted by C-SPAN:


Conservatives pounced on this quote to show that there is a precedent for denying a Supreme Court nomination during an election year.

Biden rejects this position about 10 minutes later in the speech. He states clearly that he would carefully consider a Supreme Court nominee should a vacancy occur.

Biden said, “I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate. Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter. But if he does not, as is the president’s right, then I will oppose his future nominees, as is my right.”

The second video clearly shows that Biden would follow the established Constitutional process for a hypothetical vacancy. Any other conclusion distorts the record and is wrong.


John Oliver Nails Hypocrisy on Voter ID Laws

John Oliver is back and his show “Last Week Tonight” nailed the hypocrisy of Voter ID laws yesterday.

As Oliver pointed out from 2000 to 2004 there were more than a billion votes cast and 31 possible incidents of voter fraud. He also cites examples of how hard to to get a an ID is some states along with examples of how many people are affected.

Take 15 minutes and watch the video. It will be worth your time to become knowledgable on this important subject.