The Democratic Debate on Medicare For All

Recently, the Washington Post reported that Bernie Sanders has revised his Medicare For All plan to try to protect the legitimate interests of unionized workers who have their health insurance through collective bargaining agreements with their employers.  See https://wapo.st/2P7eMYs

While it is good that Bernie recognized an unintended consequence of his plan, his proposed protection does not guarantee success. The right to renegotiate a contract to move money currently going to private insurance premiums does not assure that employers will agree. Moreover, millions of workers and retirees have such employer-based plans which are not part of collective bargaining agreements. Indeed, federal government workers and private sector workers who are deemed supervisory or managerial cannot compel their employers to collectively bargain over any forms of compensation.

A virtue of this long nomination campaign is that it can force examination of big policy proposals, and expose unintended consequences. How candidate proponents of such policies respond will tell us a lot about their electability, and, just as importantly, whether they would be successful presidents.

In Medicare For All, Bernie’s response is nowhere near enough to address the legitimate concerns presented by his proposal. Nor, so far, have Elizabeth Warren’s or Kamila Harris’s.  Pete Buttigieg’s Medicare For All Who Want It plan does resolve those concerns.

Voters who like Joe Biden’s “build on Obamacare” approach, but are concerned that Joe is not sharp enough to conduct campaign we need or to be an effective president should take a closer look at Pete.

"Racism -- A Basic Flaw in Our Society" (The Hatchet Oct. 31, 1967)

“He’s right, too!”

From the August 8, 2019 Washington Jewish Week. https://washingtonjewishweek.com/56548/letters-aug-8-2019/editorial-opinion/, commenting on https://washingtonjewishweek.com/55853/takoma-park-screening-met-with-protests-celebration/news/

“Who’s the Puppet?”

“Who’s the Puppet?”

The Trump/Epstein story reported in Thursday’s Washington Post is sleazy and would be a great episode of Lifestyles of the Rich and [In]famous. However, the most significant part of this report is buried near the end:

“Four years after [Trump outbid Epstein for] the Gorman mansion, Trump sold it to Russian businessman Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million, more than doubling his investment.”  

Now let’s connect some dots. A December 2017 Dallas Morning News
article on the Bank of Cyprus reported that Rybolovlev is part owner of the Bank (which was run by Wilbur Ross before Ross became Trump’s Secretary of Commerce, and is the center of much Trump-related corruption), and included this information:

“Dmitry Rybolovlev, Russia's 'Fertilizer King,' owns a 3.3 percent stake in the bank. Rybolovlev purchased Trump's mega mansion in Palm Beach for $95 million, which allowed Trump to more than double his $41 million investment in the property in four years. The timing of the purchase was essentially a Trump rescue package Trump was suing Deutsche Bank, his one remaining creditor, to try to avoid repaying a $40 million real estate loan. He lost.”

There is no such thing as a mega-rich Russian businessman who is not part of the Putin Machine. The Putin Machine bailed out Trump in 2009.

 “Who’s the puppet?”  Indeed.