The Progressive Guide to Fighting Corporatism
A talking points memo for Medicare For All
by Emmanuel Alcantar
campaign intern, Agatha For Congress
One of my favorite questions we get when speaking to voters is “how are you going to pay for it?” The reason is that I am usually prepared to answer it at length because, if you are a progressive, this question is all too familiar. You hear it thrown at us by moderate candidates, debate moderators, and interviewers all the time. It’s a question that has come up multiple times while text banking.
What I intend to do in this article is break down common talking-points against two policies Agatha supports and why these attacks can be disingenuous. More importantly, my goal is to provide a blueprint for progressives to better tackle these questions (which are not, in themselves, invalid).
Medicare-for-all
Before I get into the arguments against Medicare-for-all, some historical context is necessary. Medicare was created in 1965, enacted into law by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson to attend to the health of elderly Americans. Although he signed it into law, Johnson referred to Harry Truman as “the real daddy of Medicare.” That is because Truman had pushed for universal healthcare during his own presidency. He had proposed a healthcare fund paid through a pay-roll tax, but faced massive resistance from health insurance companies who used the fear of socialism to garner opposition to the bill (sound familiar?). His plan never made it to a vote. The reason I mention this is because Medicare was always intended to be a universal program. One argument progressives should make is that they are simply pushing for the program’s original intention.
This is the policy where the “how are you going to pay for it?” talking-point is directed at most. We are constantly told we cannot afford to guarantee healthcare as a right despite the fact that every other industrialized country in the world does it. Candidates like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg often bring up the large price-tag in order to scare voters without (purposely so) including the context. The current system we have will cost $49 trillion if we continue with the same old, same old to 2027. The libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a Koch Brothers-backed think tank, found that Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-for-all bill would cost $32 trillion over the next ten years. Even in that report, it found that it would save $2 trillion. Why do single-payer systems save money? Because they reduce administrative costs in hospitals and allow for better bargaining power.
So back to “how are you going to pay for it,” the reality is we already are paying for healthcare. In fact, a public option would be more expensive. The reason for this is that a two-tiered system would be created in which the sickest folks are on the public option, while the healthiest citizens are on private insurance. And because they are for-profit entities, they will continue to raise prices. It would be more fiscally responsible to switch to a single-payer system.
This leads me to my second talking point: raising taxes. The key to defeating this ‘argument’ not wasting too much time on it and reframing it, Medicare-for-all is actually a tax cut. What are deductibles, co-pays, and premiums, but taxes to a private entity. What our plan proposes is replacing those fees with a single, much smaller, public tax that would go to the government and guarantee you healthcare. The simplicity of this argument makes it easy to communicate although, thankfully, most people see beyond “they’re going to raise your taxes” scare.
Lastly, there is the concern about consumer choice with “Medicare-for-all.” There are two arguments that disprove this. One is that there is not a lot of choice when it comes to which doctors or hospitals someone can go to because many exist within private networks that depend on your insurance provider. 91% of doctors exist in Medicare already and under Medicare-for-all, patients will have the choice of which doctor they can go to without having to worry about whether or not they’re in-network.
Money Out of Politics
This is the issue underlying all other issues in this country. Campaign contributions from the wealthy and corporate interests are the reasons why we have politicians who actively oppose progressive policies. Corporatist candidates will say one of these two talking points: 1) we can’t unilaterally disarm or 2) I can’t be bought.
The amount of money a campaign has on hand helps a lot, but these last two election cycles have proven that it isn’t everything. Joe Crowley spent $1.5 million on his 2018 re-election race against Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, vastly outspending her, and she won against all odds. In 2016, Hillary Clinton also largely outspent Donald Trump. According to CNBC, Trump spent about “$238.9 million through mid-October, compared with $450.6 million by Clinton’s campaign.” As I mentioned before, campaign contributions are important (especially if you are a grassroots campaign — please donate to Agatha!), but they do not matter as much if you’re taking corporate/big donor money which creates the appearance of corruption.
There is both hard and soft corruption when it comes to taking corporate money and holding high-dollar fundraisers. Hard corruption is recognizable to all of us because it’s the buying of votes. Soft corruption, however, is more insidious because it’s not as recognizable. If you are only spending your time doing fundraisers surrounded by the financial elite, you are only exposed to a certain perspective and are more inclined to listen to people who give you large contributions. Furthermore, soft corruption also manifests itself as which policies politicians choose not to prioritize, misunderstanding bills they’re voting for, and misremembering or gaslighting past votes come election season. The dual nature of corruption is why it is so important that Agatha does not take corporate money. It’s also why it is important that Nancy Pelosi not only takes corporate money, but fundraises large amounts of corporate money for the entire Democratic party.
Concluding Thoughts
There is a new wave of progressives that are running to rebuild the democratic party. That means taking on the political establishment and consultants who have a lot to lose financially. The biggest mistake progressives can make is letting these actors control the narrative. We have to debate them and vehemently push back against their arguments or risk losing the American people to fear. Thankfully, progressives are doing just that and with representatives like Agatha in Congress, the movement will be in good hands.
