There are candidates who run as Democrats but are not Democrats. They’re socialist populists, not liberals, and they don’t even consider themselves to be Democrats. They explicitly admit that their goal is to take over the party by getting rid of the real Democrats.
I’m talking about the so-called Justice Democrats, of course, but also their entire Green Hydra of associated organizations; many heads snaking out from a single bloated body. They might try to pass themselves off as blue but they’re entirely green, and that means they’re as bad as red.
The purpose of this rant is to help you identify these people. After all, their greatest weapon is stealth. By passing themselves off as purer leftists, they get gain from our ignorance, turning us into useful idiots for their cause.
The rotten green apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, so a good starting point is to know about the organizations and individuals who are guilty of socialist populism. I’ll name names, with links all around so you can dive deeper.
This list will never be complete, but anyone who willingly associates with such people is raising a red flag. The closer the association, the bigger the flag. In particular, endorsing, accepting the endorsement of, or working for or with them are all strong indicators of guilt.
None of this is fixed in stone, so I plan to update it as needed. Please let me know if anything in this list is outdated or just plain wrong, or if there’s someone who’s been omitted but is particularly deserving.
Guilty Associations and Associates
- Bernie Sanders (BS) – Figurehead of the socialist-populist “progressive” movement and lifelong Marxist. Note that his web site lists people and orgs he endorses.
- Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) – Not a party, but a 501c4 nonprofit “dark money” political org, this is is conceptually the center of the movement. Their emoji is 🌹.
- Justice Democrats (JD) – A hybrid PAC (a Carey Committee that is both a PAC and a super PAC) founded by Zack Exley, Saikat Chakrabarti, Kyle Kulinski, Cenk Uygur. Run by Alexandra Rojas. Note how it has the word “Democrats” in it, even though they’re not.
- The Squad (🔗) – A devil’s half-dozen of prominent JD’s in the House: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush.
- Non-Squad members of Congress: Ro Khanna, Raúl Grijalva, Pramila Jayapal, Jamaal Bowman, Marie Newman, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick. Likely Mark Pocan. Bernie himself likely counts as their sole Senator.
- Warrenites – Members of Congress strongly or loosely associated with Elizabeth Warren, including Katie Porter, Jamie Raskin, Mondaire Jones, Mike Levin, Ted Lieu, Julian Castro. Some of these are Warren-adjacent as opposed to true disciples, but none are real D’s.
- Brand New Congress (BNC) – A super PAC founded by Zack Exley, Alexandra Rojas, Corbin Trent. Essentially the JD’s, only stealthier and less DNC-focused. Associated with Malcolm Kenyatta and Lindsey Boylan. Note how BNC sounds a lot like DNC, even though it’s in opposition to it.
- Sunrise Movement (🔗) – This super PAC and 501c4 “dark money” org is an arm of the JD; note how even their logo matches.
- Working Families Party (WFP) – Unlike most of the others, this is a party, not a PAC and sometimes endorses actual Democrats in order to get on the ballot. Letitia (Tish) James, who took down Cuomo, is one of them.
- Green Party (GPUS) – The spoiler party that brought us Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, Howie Hawkins. Republican-funded and not really associated with European Greens.
- Our Revolution (OR) – Another 501c4 nonprofit “dark money” org formed as a remnant of Bernie 2016 and using a Trotskyist slogan.
- The Young Turks (TYT) – Aided by faux-stupid sidekick Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur‘s goal is to form a red-brown alliance by getting the far left to join the far right in a populist gang.
- Occupy Wall Street (OWS) – This (along with its Republican counterpart, the Tea Party Movement) was the tip of the populist wedge in America, fueled by Russia, naturally. Direct remnants include Occupy Democrats, which spurts propaganda memes.
- Secular Talk (🔗) – Kyle Kulinski‘s home turf. Aggressive atheism as a gateway to populism.
- Chapo Trap House (🔗) – Home of the dirtbag left, including Virgil Texas.
- The Gravel Institute (🔗) – Some stupid, vulgar kids who took a dead man’s name.
- Indivisible (🔗) – Pushes a voting guide that endorses only socialist populists.
- IfNotNow (🔗)- Socialist Jewish antisemites, such as Max Berger, hiding behind antizionism.
- Sanders Institute (🔗) – Bernie’s cash pit lists “Fellows” who are loyal.
- Data For Progress (DFP) – Fake polls to provide talking points for the greens.
- Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC, aka BoldProgressives.org) – This Warren-centered “economic populist” org also endorses JD’s. Note how its name is CCCP (USSR) in reverse; in Soviet Russia, joke gets you.
- Democracy For America (DFA) – Much like PCCC, endorses JD and Warrenite candidates. Also occasionally endorses Democrats.
- The Intercept (🔗) – Propaganda outlet. Everyone who touches this is toxic.
- Jacobin (🔗) – Extremist propaganda outlet. Everyone who touches this is even more toxic.
- Russia Today (RT) – Literally Russian propaganda. Everyone who touches this is tainted with treason.
- MintPress News (🔗) – One little boy sitting on the other one’s shoulders, covered by a trench coat, and holding a copy of RT. Yep, it’s just RT in an unconvincing disguise.
- MSNBC – Not all socialist-populist operatives, but many are, including Chris Hayes, Chuck Todd, Mehdi Hasan, Chris Cillizza, David Weigel.
- Wikileaks (🔗) – Julian Assange is mentioned in more detail below, but the org itself is a blatant Russian cutout.
- Gen-Z for Change (🔗) This is the org behind Olivia Julianna. Claim to fame is its “Gen-Z for Choice Abortion Fund” and her petty feud with Matt Gaetz. Her track record and its policy list makes it clear what it is, though.
- CPC Letter for Diplomacy on Russia/Ukraine Conflict (🔗) – This is the letter that 30 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) signed, demanding that we appease Putin. The full list of signatories is: Pramila Jayapal, Earl Blumenauer, Cori Bush, Jesús G. “Chuy” García, Raúl M. Grijalva, Sara Jacobs (“would not sign today”), Ro Khanna, Barbara Lee, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Sheila Jackson Lee, Mark Pocan, Nydia M. Velázquez, Gwen S. Moore, Yvette D. Clarke, Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr., Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Mondaire Jones, Peter A. DeFazio, Jamaal Bowman, Marie Newman, Alma S. Adams, Chellie Pingree, Jamie Raskin, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Mark Takano, André Carson, Donald M. Payne, Jr., Mark DeSaulnier,
- Operatives: Briahna (BrieBrie) Joy Gray, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Nina Turner, Cornel West, Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Katie Halper, Tara Reade, John Fetterman, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Maté, Anthony Zenkus, Zerlina Maxwell, Jess McIntosh, Elie Mystal and many, many more.
Of course, no list can be complete and not everyone outs themselves by advertising their association plainly. For example, Malcolm Kenyatta managed to hide his BNC link for a long time. So how do we detect these green pod people? It’s easy: they tell us. All we have to do is listen, and never forget what we hear.
Every group needs ways of identifying its own members, which leads to secret handshakes and other silly shibboleths. The trick is that, in this case, they have to act as dog whistles; understood by those who need to understand, but vague and deniable to everyone else.
Here’s a glossary of terms and phrases that give socialist populists away. It works for political operatives of all kinds, whether they’re politicians, journalists, or Twitter randos.
- Socialist populism – Sometimes they say the quiet part loud by actually admitting that they’re socialists or populists or both. This is about as clear as it gets. Of the two, socialism is much more likely to be mentioned because it makes them seem edgy and pure; and association with it hurts real Democrats.
- Progressive – This one is, quite intentionally, ambiguous. It used to refer to liberals, and sometimes it still does, but it’s also the preferred label of the pod people, who especially like it as a noun, not just an adjective. While not everyone who calls themselves progressive, or even characterizes themselves as being a progressive, is one of them, socialist populists almost always identify themselves with this term.
- No corporate donations – Anyone who brags about refusing “corporate” donations is suspicious because it’s a meaningless purity pledge that socialist populists almost always make. In reality, they’re fine taking money from their own PAC’s and from questionable “small” donations (see below). Again, not everyone who says this is one of them, but every one of them says this.
- Medicare for All (M4A) – Support for this slogan is pretty much a requirement for socialist populists. The key is that they don’t just want Universal Healthcare (UHC) or a Public Option (PO), they want to shut down all private insurance and replace it. Click on this incredibly useful list of “Real Progressives“, which is based on the requirement of endorsing M4A while rejecting “corporate” money.
While not all of them are socialist populists, here are the co-sponsors of the bill: Alma S. Adams Ph.D., Nanette Diaz Barragán, Karen Bass, Don Beyer, Earl Blumenauer, Suzanne Bonamici, Jamaal Bowman, Brendan F. Boyle, Anthony Brown, Cori Bush, Salud Carbajal, Tony Cárdenas, André Carson, Matt Cartwright, Judy Chu, David Cicilline, Katherine Clark, Yvette D. Clarke, Emanuel Cleaver, II, Steve Cohen, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Danny K. Davis, Peter DeFazio, Diana DeGette, Mark DeSaulnier, Debbie Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Mike Doyle, Ted Deutch, Veronica Escobar, Adriano Espaillat, Teresa Leger Fernandez, Lois Frankel, Ruben Gallego, Jesús G. “Chuy” García, Jimmy Gomez, Al Green, Raúl M. Grijalva, Josh Harder, Alcee L. Hastings, Jahana Hayes, Brian Higgins, Jared Huffman, Sara Jacobs, Pramila Jayapal, Hakeem Jeffries, Hank Johnson, Mondaire Jones, Kaiali’i Kahele, William R. Keating, Robin L. Kelly, Ro Khanna, Daniel T. Kildee, Ann Kirkpatrick, James R. Langevin, Brenda L. Lawrence, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Andy Levin, Mike Levin, Ted W. Lieu, Alan Lowenthal, Carolyn B. Maloney, James P. McGovern, Jerry McNerney, Gregory W. Meeks, Grace Meng, Jerrold Nadler, Grace F. Napolitano, Joe Neguse, Marie Newman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Frank Pallone Jr., Jimmy Panetta, Donald Payne Jr., Ed Perlmutter, Chellie Pingree, Mark Pocan, Katie Porter, Ayanna Pressley, David Price, Jamie Raskin, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Bobby L. Rush, Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Linda Sanchez, John Sarbanes, Jan Schakowsky, Adam Schiff, Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Brad Sherman, Adam Smith, Jackie Speier, Eric Swalwell, Mark Takano, Bennie G. Thompson, Mike Thompson, Dina Titus, Rashida Tlaib, Paul Tonko, Ritchie Torres, Lori Trahan, Juan Vargas, Marc Veasey, Nydia M. Velázquez, Maxine Waters, Peter Welch, Susan Wild, Nikema Williams, Frederica Wilson, and John Yarmuth. - Small donations – Bernie bragged about an average of $27 per donation, but he never said how many donations were being made by each person. It’s a grift; by breaking large donations up into chunks smaller than $200, they avoid the need to report who donated, allowing them to hide their shady benefactors, both foreign and domestic.
- Establishment – Along with terms such as “neoliberal”, “elite”, “rigged”, this is a standard slur used by socialist populists. The more terms they use and the more they use them, the bigger and redder the flag.
- Green New Deal (GND) – Much like M4A, support for this slogan is pretty much required, and is a strong indicator of guilt. Endorsing the nonsensical Green New Deal for Public Schools (GND4PS) is especially clear.
- Defund the Police (DTP) – Another slogan that you’re not going to hear from real D’s, this one is particularly toxic in elections.
- Cancel Student Loans (CSL) – A recent addition to the required slogans, this bit of blatant pandering has become popular because it goes along with the claim that Biden should violate the Constitution by issuing an executive order. While it’s a very strong signal in general, one notable exception is Chuck Schumer, whose Twitter account routinely spouts this as a shield against being primaried by JD’s.
- Black Lives Matter (BLM) – This one’s tricky, because it’s something real liberals are quite likely to support, especially when it’s the entirely reasonable concept and not the more questionable organization. Socialist populists routinely add this to their self-description, though, as protective coloring. The trick is that, for them, it’s only skin deep. It’s the “but I have a Black friend” of the Internet; an excuse for being otherwise anti-anti-racist or even racist.
- Identity politics – Socialist populists are Marxist economic reductionists, so they don’t believe that racism and other forms of bigotry need to be addressed. As such, they dismiss anyone who does want to fight bigotry as engaging in “identity politics”. In a related way, they cynically put out skinfolk candidates and even more cynically accuse any legitimate criticism of being motivated by bigotry.
- Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) – Also a bit tricky, because even though the far left hides its antisemitism behind antizionism, there are liberals who are legitimately critical of Israeli policy. So “BDS” or “Free Palestine” aren’t sure signs, but they’re significant.
- Bold – This is the preferred positive adjective of the Bold Progressives (PCCC, see above). The implication is that real Democrats are cowardly because they won’t pander enough.
- Justice – This is the preferred positive adjective of the Justice Democrats (naturally). The implication is that real Democrats don’t care about (purely economic) justice because they’re not Marxist.
- Free Assange – As mentioned above, Assange such a blatant Russkiy that anyone embracing him at this point isn’t even hiding what they are.
- Communism – If cosplay socialism isn’t edgy enough for you, there’s always communism. Online edgelords love the old hammer and sickle emoji (☭), so it’s a sure sign. Note that, while there’s plenty of support for Putin from the right, none of it is based on the contrafactual notion that Russia is still communist.
- Soviet imagery – The socialist populists love this stuff, whether it’s the JD’s using a modified hammer and sickle for their logo or the PCCC/CCCP “joke”. Naturally, when pressed, they’ll deny it as coincidental or claim it was ironic.
I could go on, but I’m going to stop here for now. More so than my other rants, which only get changed to fix typos or broken links, this one is intended to be kept up to date, so I once again suggest that you contact me if, likely by Twitter, you have suggestions or corrections.
Always remember that you have to use your brain and not jump to conclusions; life is more complicated than fiction.
Is it possible that the socialist populists have taken over the Washington Post? All of it–the OpEds, the journalism, and the comment sections. During last year’s Cuomo debacle, the paper ran a laser-focused campaign to oust the governor. For weeks there were two, three, four different articles and OpEds every single day. The front page carried at least three reports daily crucifying the guy. It didn’t feel like the usual WaPo crowd to me because the hatred of Cuomo was so over the top. Reportage was devoid of any objectivity, articles often included misinformation, and reader comments were pure vitriol. At first I figured most comments were coming from right wing puppets eager to bring down another Democrat, but the attacks seemed too specific and authentic to be anything but extreme left. I was curious which group had commandeered the erstwhile respectable WaPo, so I offered up a simple comment with two simple truths (1) that Letitia James who, as NYAG-elect was orchestrating the attack on the likable goombah (which was already clear to pretty much everyone watching) and (2) that Letitia James has been a lifelong member of the Working Families Party which is closely affiliated with Communist Party, not the somewhat tamer Socialist Party, and certainly not the Democratic Party to which she is brand spanking new and only joined for the same reasons Bernie did–the DNC platform exposure and DNC funding that paid for her NYAG campaign.
The uniform response from those commenters was that if I dared make another such hateful claim, their mob would find me and kill me. 😂😂
PS. Oddly enough, there is little mention of Ms. James’ long term political affiliation on the internet. So I must ask you, Deli Master, are there ways for public figures, like politicians, to hide their background, party affiliation, any legal dustups, etc?
The MeToo attack on Cuomo was absolutely a socialist-populist production, I don’t think it’s fair to say that WashPo is taken over. It’s compromised, but only in the same way that the rest of the MSM is, in that they do not exclude propagandists from their platform. The MSM is just plain easy to manipulate.
As for hiding their background, they don’t have to. They can count on the MSM not to focus on it. They rarely provide any insight into background to allow us to calibrate against bias, much less hint at deception.
Thanks for the feedback. I guess I’ll subscribe the the Post again this year. I found that Cuomo thing so offensive that I turned back to the NYT and found the tone of reporting there far less opinionated–at least these days. I wonder why the paper was so hard on Hillary in 2016. It’s really ludicrous how she’s treated by MSM. because they have to know that there’s no one on the public stage, then or now, that can hold a candle to her values, integrity, and grit.
LOL, she puts the male politicians to shame.
Sorry, I probably should have kept this on topic.
Um, about “Medicare for All (M4A)” – that was established in Canada by the well-known socialist Lester B. Pearson (pioneered by the premier of Saskatchewan, a Baptist minister). And originally was a “public option” that morphed into Medicare as the for-profit insurance companies became increasingly unable to compete with the non-profit government system.
(I’m not suggesting that M4A would work in the US – but support for it is hardly limited to “socialist populists”.)
M4A is extremely unpopular once you tell people that it replaces all private insurance and show them how much it costs in taxes. The ACA is very popular, especially when you ask in terms of the various parts while avoiding the “ObamaCare” label. The PO is also popular, again because it’s an option, not a mandate.
At this point, M4A isn’t even a policy, just an empty TLA slogan used as a purity test to demonstrate socialist-populist bonafides. There are no M4A bills that explain how much they cost or where that money will come from.
If you add up both the premiums and the taxes, the Canadian Medicare system is far cheaper than anything in the US, including Medicare. Your surveys that showed people hating the increase in taxes probably forgot to mention the savings on premiums, not to mention other benefits of Medicare such as not having to argue with insurance companies over approvals, and having every doctor “in network”. And: people are afraid of change, so the thought of switching from a bad insurance company to a scary unknown “government bureaucracy” — and, if my Canadian, French, and Japanese experience is any indication, it’s far less bureaucratic than insurance companies.
Anyway, as I said (and you ignored), the Medicare system in Canada started as a public option, which the for-profit insurance companies ended up being unable to compete with. The system has been damaged by 10 years of Conservative austerity, but repairs seem to be happening; and it’s overwhelming popular.
UHC is a great idea, and the PO with Medicare expansion will get us there, but M4A is a nonstarter.
Unlike real insurance, M4A is billed as unlimited healthcare, which means unlimited expense. As such, it’s not a net savings and cannot be. Nothing in the world provides what M4A is promised to. Canadians do not depend solely on government health insurance plans, precisely because they don’t cover everything.
As for whether the PO might turn into M4A over time, that’s not likely because American Republicans are even worse than Canadian Conservatives. We can’t afford to put all our eggs into a single basket, because the R’s will absolutely smash it the next time they get the chance, which is really only a matter of time because white voters are stupid.
That’s why we need a hybrid system, with the PO putting competitive pressure on private insurance to counter its natural tendency towards putting profit above people, but private insurance providing competition to keep the gov honest and act as a fallback against R attacks.
“Canadians do not depend solely on government health insurance plans” — what are you referring to?
As far as I know, the only things not covered by government health care are cosmetic surgery, dental, out-of-hospital medications, long-term care, ambulance services, or vision care. For medications, Pharmacare is being proposed to cover one major deficiency; long-term care is partly covered by other social services that integrate with the public health system. (Ambulances – including by helicopter – are $80 in BC; or free if you receive public assistance) (“Medical” vision care, such as cataracts, are covered; although some options require out-of-pocket payment)
[There are slight variations in Canadian Medicare across the country, because it’s administered at the provincial and not national level.]
As to not putting all eggs one basket because of Republicans — that’s not an unreasonable idea. But please don’t say that single payer doesn’t exist anywhere, or isn’t popular where it is implemented.
Single-payer exists, but not anything like M4A. M4A is, as I pointed out already, characterized as having unlimited coverage and disallowing all private insurance.
That’s not what Canada has, either. Canada’s government health insurance has limited coverage, which is why supplemental health insurance is available privately and constitutes “a crucial part of the system” that the average Canadian family spends thousands on annually.
Canada is also known for long wait times, particularly for non-urgent services. Canadians are not allowed to buy private insurance that competes with the government and this is a bad thing; in fact, about half of Canadians would like to have this option. Canada is, on the whole, much better than America, but this is a low bar.
American healthcare stinks and we need UHC, but we don’t want or need M4A. At this point, it’s just a slogan used as a purity test by socialist populists.
The most expensive missing piece of Canadian health insurance is Pharmacare, and that’s now being discussed. “The publicly-funded [provincial] drug programs generally provide drug plan coverage for those most in need, based on age, income, and medical condition.” So, people aren’t being forced to choose between insulin and food.
As to “Canada is known for long wait times” — urgent stuff doesn’t wait and non-urgent, by definition, can wait. Waiting is a by-product of high utilization (a.k.a. “efficiency”); if there’s an over-supply of doctors or facilities, then the wait time is lower (but the system cost is higher).
Also: have you looked at the wait times for seeing a specialist in the US?
Look: a lot of your other points are valid; but Medicare-For-All is a reasonable policy proposal. Whether it’s the best for the US is debatable; but being an advocate for it shouldn’t be evidence of being a “social populist” wing-nut.
People don’t realize that much of Europe, and some Canadian provinces, have a hybrid system.
M4A isn’t a policy proposal at all. That’s the point!
It’s an empty slogan that connotes “everything you ever wanted from your doctor but were afraid to ask” but denotes nothing. It’s not a bill that can be passed because it has no limits on its costs and no way to pay for them. It literally cannot be voted on.
M4A cannot pass. It is not even supposed to ever be passed. It exists only as a way to:
1. Identify the pure ones; they’re the candidates endorsing M4A. It’s a membership badge.
2. Attack the evil ones; they’re the ones who obviously just want us all to die because they support real UHC and not this M4A boondoggle.
3. Antagonize the center-right and far-right, turning the former against the DNC and giving the latter something to attack us over so as to throw red meat to their radicalized base.
All of this is why overt support for M4A is indeed a sign of socialist populism. I proved that with the link to that “real progressives” site that uses it as one of its two criteria.
As for long wait times, they’re bad, actually. It means people who need medical services aren’t getting them in a timely manner. The US is objectively better at this; one of the few ways in which it is.
So, you’re saying that M4A (similar to what’s in Canada, although better resourced) could be a fine idea; but it’s been weaponized as a shibboleth for “real progressives”?
Ditto things like “the police need to be seriously reformed”, which was turned into “defund the police”?
And the “real progressives” are thereby sabotaging actual progress?
The “real progressives” are just socialist populists, and as populists, they care about pandering, not policy. So, yes, M4A has been weaponized as a shibboleth, much like “defund the police”, although the latter is by far stupider.
As for whether a single-payer system could work in America; no, because we have Republicans, so we can’t have nice things. If there were no private alternatives, then the R’s would cripple the mandatory federal health insurance system the next chance they get, and we’d have no way out.
Are you suggesting that the Republicans would cripple the current Medicare system, if they got into power? I haven’t seen evidence of that, but maybe I’ve been blind.
There are things like Medicare Advantage to fill in the gaps in original Medicare – which, while not ideal, aren’t terrible because the government specifies the choices, which allows side-by-side comparisons (with the exception of the drugs formularies, which are a nightmare). [Switzerland and Germany specify what the insurance plans must cover, although they go further in terms of limiting the profits.]
The R’s have been trying to destroy ACA since even before it passed, but ACA doesn’t replace private insurance. M4A would, so when the Republicans tank M4A, there’ll be nowhere to turn because all alternatives will have been put out of business by fiat.
Peter,
Medicare Advantage does not fill in the gaps in Original Medicare. In fact, you cannot have a Medicare Advantage Plan AND Original Medicare. M/Advantage Plans are private HMO’s that use the term Medicare simply because they cover older Americans. I believe you were thinking of “Medigap” which is expensive private insurance. Original Medicare only covers 85% of the amount it approves for various medical services. Medigap covers the 15% not paid by Original Medicare. You mentioned Original Medicare not covering hearing aids, glasses, or dental–all services that older Americans absolutely need. Hearing aids go for $3-5K and dental services are even more expensive. So those are certainly not minor or insignificant
Deli Master,
Both you and Peter are missing important issues in healthcare coverage. Over the last five or six years, there’s been river of private equity flowing into private medical practices in the US, and I’m wondering what kind of ROI investors expect when a patient’s health is a doctors only product. Big Tech is partnering closely with the insurance and pharmaceutical sectors. and even more closely with government while consumers and lawmakers have been excluded from the conversation. Apple has formed partnerships with every private practice, HMO, and hospital in the US. Apple runs the Medicaid insurance program for Washington state.
Private insurance companies have gained far too much power and so has Big Tech. You like the idea of Universal Healthcare being a melange of private and public interests, Deli Master, and I used to also. But now Original Medicare is looking more and more like an example of something we got right, while private sector gluttony is being allowed to run roughshod over everything and everyone. Are you aware that everyday folks are not allowed to see their entire medical record? Only the doctors and insurers are privy to that. Are you aware that HIPPA has become meaningless? That electronic PHI data being fed to insurance, government and research systems is so corrupted that it can actually harm healthcare consumers.
The private sector, right now, is far more dangerous and destructive than the SocPops with their podiums and bullhorns. What big tech (Apple in particular) has been doing quietly with our government and every player in healthcare over the past decade will have farther reaching, more devastating consequences to our democracy than ten thousand AOC’s
The R’s have been trying to destroy ACA since even before it passed, but ACA doesn’t replace private insurance. M4A would, so when the Republicans tank M4A, there’ll be nowhere to turn because all alternatives will have been put out of business by fiat.
Chocolat, I’m not defending private insurance as inherently good.
Rather, I’m making two arguments:
1) People want private insurance to remain available, even if they’d rather buy into government insurance. In other words, they want a public option, not a public mandate.
2) If we don’t retain private insurance, then we have no alternative if government insurance is sabotaged by R’s or is otherwise bad. Competition is good; if you’re right about private insurance sucking, then it’ll simply lose out to the government alternative.