Elizabeth Warren is Getting Cold Feet About Medicare for All

For FREE help finding a Medicare plan,
Click here or call 1-800-729-9590.

Get early access to our content by supporting us on Patreon or PayPal! Sign up here: or here:

Watch the Full Video Clip Here:

Visit Our Website:
Follow Us on Twitter:
Like Us on Facebook:
Follow Mike on Instagram:
Audio Available on iTunes:

Also, if you shop on Amazon, bookmark this link to support the show:

The Humanist Report (THR) is a progressive political podcast that discusses and analyzes current news events and pressing political issues. Our analyses are guided by humanism and political progressivism. Each news story we cover is supplemented with thought-provoking, fact-based commentary that aims for the highest level of objectivity.

#2020 #HumanistReport #THR #MikeFigueredo


Share This:

81 thoughts on “Elizabeth Warren is Getting Cold Feet About Medicare for All

  1. She needs to drop out of the race. She has no backbone and she made that clear when she did not endorse Bernie in 2016. NEXT!

    • Yep. I think as soon as Bernie enters she’s going to Jeb out. But I still the she’s be a good VP pick or a secretary of treasury.

    • +Cassidy Robinson I thought she would have made a good VP choice for either Bernie or Hillary in 2016, but I think things are different this time. I don’t think she would add much for Bernie in 2020. Someone like Tulsi or Stacy Abrams would make the ticket stronger.

    • Warren is a good person, she deserves to be re-elected as a senator where she can continue to do her thing, but she doesn’t have the balls to be president. She fell into the pocahontas bullshit and played into it with a DNA test and allowed the republicans to play her for a fool.

    • +trippplefive People see it the same way. They see it as a political move meant to gain favor with Hillary at the expense of Bernie.

  2. Are you honestly surprised? Its ELIZABETH WARREN… she would collapse into herself from nothing more than a gentle fart in her general direction xD

  3. When are we going to face the hard reality that for-profit health insurance has no moral right even to exist. As part of the Green New Deal, we need programs to transition these workers into a single payer system. Their CEOs can get jobs at Walmart.

    • +SeaRose Bernie’s bill only includes copays on pharmaceuticals, and transitions coverage of Medicare from where it is now to people 55 and older, to include people under 25, then it will cover everyone by the fourth year.

    • +Dylan Reznick Read the bill. Or call Bernie’s office and talk to them which is what I did after reading it. Or if you like I can hunt down some articles from when he introduced it. A lot of single payer advocacy groups were REALLY upset about his bill and how different it is to the house bill introduced by Conyers. Now Rep. Jayapal and the fauxgressives house dems have rewritten Conyers bill in the house to match the weak Senate bill ( Bernie’s bill) and progressives are up in arms about it being “watered down”….yes it is watered down and now it matches Bernie’s weak watery Senate bill.

    • I wish Bernie would run but it seems like Bernie will not run, because he knows he will be cheated by the establishment superdelegates in the primaries. So prepare for another four miserable years of trump and possibly a post United States North America!

  4. Warren could be the ticket for the neoliberals. Pretends to be a progressive, has done some good things to convince people but in the end she’ll end up applying neoliberal policies.

    • +Botar Akutabi: I watched most of his interview on Joe Rogan yesterday. I didn’t disagree with him on anything. He even had a good answer on Russiagate. He said he would take strong action against Russia….with substantial proof of meddling. I think he said his standard was 85-90% sure of the evidence. That’s about an 85-90% higher standard than we have now for Russiagate. His main campaign issue is universal basic income. I couldn’t disagree with his reasoning on that either. He will definitely spark some interesting debates on the campaign trail. I’ve given my loyalty to Tulsi, but he’s a close second. My support goes to the candidate who honestly believes what they are espousing and he clearly does. He’s a change candidate. If either of my two top choices waffle on their commitments to the issues, I’ll waffle on my commitment to them.

  5. “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.” Elizabeth Warren showed us who she is in 2016.

    edit: oh yeahI… *TOLD YA SO!*

    • Azmon Rougier I’m incredibly disappointed in her not supporting Bernie or Medicare for All….but are we really going to ignore all the great legislation she’s put up and actions she’s taken at the CFPB to take on the corporations and pretend she’s not a progressive?

    • swatej Tripathi or that it’s not her #1 priority, or not a fight she’s willing to have at the moment.
      Again, I want someone who’s gonna fight for Medicare for All at every stage, but the OTTA erasure of her entire record is ridiculous.

  6. No health insurance! Medicare for all. If healthcare is a right, then there is no need for health insurance. They can insure homes and autos.

    • +Erin Prather The mess has been in the making since the 1980s – _it will not be easy or the work of one election to undo it._ The good thing is that every 2 years there are important elections 😉 The voters would not need to completely change Congress or Senate , if the progressive takeover is good underway some of the shills will check their options

       – either aim for a cushy jobs thanks to the Big Donors (if they will deliver that in the necessary numbers) OR they might consider start working For The People for fear of losing their seat within a few years (the salary and the excellent healthcare).

      the Big Donors (and partially the party establishment) so far have honored the obligation to take good care of ex-politicians. But they have to keep the shills at ease that still hold office. If the whole “money in politics and lobbying” model is in jeopardy they might at least not bother to take care of the lower profile people.

      Media also is glad to help out by hiring ex politicians – after all they get a lot of the campaign donations and are owned by rich people. That is a well oiled machine with many moving parts.

      Also the niche for lobbyists and strategists and campaign advisors provides jobs for obedient ex-politicians. But that requires the insane campaign spending.

      The effects on Congress and Senate would be felt long before the complete takeover.

    • +Erin Prather FDR strongarmed some Democratic elected “representatives” – that worked well enough. Once the first measures were passed, that brought relief for the masses, that of course cemented his influence. Enough Dems then were affluent or rich and could easily resign themselves to the misery of the masses – it did not harm THEM.

    • +Erin Prather _FDR also threatened to pack the courts._ His minimum wage was challenged – but found constitutional. They also had a right wing court then (one that had allowed child labor again – and the 1920s were a period where the unions were crushed once more but they bounced back after 1929. Of course the oligarchs worked relentlessly to undermine them, starting with laws in 1947 Taft-Hartley Act).

      Note to self: Oligarchs learn from their defeats. And they organize and coordinate even with olitgarchs they have litte in common. (some are conservative, some are more prgresssive at least when it comes to cosial issues. Some are completeley backwards like the oligarchs from the gulfstate theocracies. But in the end they get along just fine.

      For court packing the president needs majorities in the houses. And also for constitutional amendments (like money out of politics).

      Mind you: then there were many UNITED left movements and parties that GAVE FDR the LEVERAGE – he was the lesser evil for the rational oligarchs – it would be the New Deal – or the pitchforks.

    • I couldnt disagree more, I have both private health insurance and public option. Greetings from Filand, btw.

      /edit, But then again, my insurance costs just 120€ a year…

  7. She will lose my vote and many more in California So sick of this old fight. We need medicare for everyone. Like many other countries.

    • +super happy hour nobody talks about abolishing guns. Not one dem politician that I’ve seen. It’s not really a reality to take away all guns. They just talk about ways to diminish voluntarily and sensible gun laws federally. We need to do something we have way to many gun related daily deaths.

    • +Subversively Surreal Actually Switzerland * leaves the insurance to private for profit insurance companies. And maybe Singapore has a private system (but they do also top down affordable housing – that’s a different culture – it is an dictatorship but with some benign populist goals). The Swiss have even higher per capita costs **: USD 9600 vs. the U.S. with 9200. Versus most wealthy European countries, Canada, Australia with per capita healthcare expenditures who are in the range of USD 5,000 – 6,000 (Germany for instance 5,600).

      Those countries have at least a non-profit public insurance company, the obligation and RIGHT to have insurance (usually the mandate is tied to having a job, and the employers MUST match the wage deduction, that is a % of the wage).

       In most cases the public non-profit insurance agency dominates the field. And they have only public non-profit hospitals – or at least lots of them. So there is the benchmarking in case they have “private” hospitals (coming from a tradition of church charities – it is not comparable to the U.S. “private” hospitals. NO chains).

      Insurance coverage and hospitals – that takes care of the places where a lot of money is spent.

      The ONLY powerful and large for-profit actor in those systems is Big Pharma – good thing they have extremely standardized, internationally comparable products – that makes price negotiations easy.

      Private (insurance) companies almost instinctively guard their information advantage, the results of their negotiations – it could help them with profits or be used in marketing to convince consumers.

       (not that the U.S. insurers make ANY attempt to negotiate for real – the giants of the industry = pharma, hospitals and insurance companies engage in “non-aggression” – they carefully avoid a battle of the giants and prefer to get their profits from the patients and the tax payers. That is easier.

      On the other hand non-profit agencies have no reason to guard the price information as eagerly. They will compare – if only behind closed doors. The negotiations are on a national level. But they result in lists, that can be easily copied on a stick and the substances are highly standardized even if the brand names and the packaging differs.

      Big Pharma cannot rip off Iceland for instance even though it is a tiny nation with only 300,000 people – they could either buy with other countries – or get a pretty good idea what other countries with 3, 8, 30 or 85 million people are paying in general. Maybe they will accept a little mark-up – but that’s it. Of course Icelanders pay much, much less for pharmaceutical products than U.S. citizens. That’s a joke when you consider that the U.S. market has 325 million people.

    • +Subversively Surreal ** I have also seen PPP numbers but do not know them by heart. It means _purchasing power parity_ and then Switzerland with the private insurers looks a little better. It factors in currency exchange rates, and adjusts for the standard and costs of living that influence wage levels – wages are an important part of healthcare costs.

      The Swiss have excellenct healthcare, everyone is insured, some Kantons (these are districts or provinces) offer a public option. And they have the reputation of paying the staff well – so much so that they attract doctors, nurses and other staff from Germany, Austria, France (people that speak one of the official languages – Geman is of course the main language).

      So at least the Swiss are getting something for the costs that are approximately at U.S. levels.

      But in general: Private For Profit in healthcare ! = unnecessary costs = expensive w/o added value

      The reason is that not every product is a good fit for the “free market” – for that all actors must have about the same power. That works well enough for “nice to have can do without” services (if the consumers can decide NOT TO BUY or at least delay the purchase or work around with subsittutes – that restores a lot of their power even if they deal with multinationals).

      The “free market” and “competition” does not work for an extremely complex, life and death, very expensive service like healthcare.

      Patients and the regulators will always be a few steps behind the actors that have massive information advantages and that are the gate keepers for life saving treatments. The profit motive (maximize profits !) is toxic under these condtions.

      When you look at the World Bank data: the moment a system has more “private for-profit” in it – it gets more expensive (in countries who have only the public option. Two tier systems. The basics are covered by the public system, but most people have to buy extra private insurance for things like dental etc.)

      The U.K. has only 3,900 USD per capity – they are however severly underfunding the public NHS (and that is done intentionally to sell the hesistant population the need for a “privatization” and force them to buy from the profiteers).

      In the NHS even the family doctors are employees of the public system and most if not all hospitals (that are used by the population in general) are run by the NHS. (They have completely private facilities for the international oligarchs …. but that’s another league).

      But with only 50 % of the U.S. per capita expenditures (or 80 % of that of Germany) the NHS could run like a charm (the public non-profit NHS delivers most of the care in the U.K. – so the higher expenditures per person would naturally mean THEY are getting adequate if lean budgets.

      Part of it comes from wage deductions, but they have de facto reduced wages for most workers (adjusted for inflation) and created a huge low-pay sector – so that means less funding for the NHS. Plus the government subsidies that are necessary in EVERY system have been reduced (or not adapted to the growing number of people. If a gov. encourages mass immigration over the course of 10 – 15 years – they better adjudst affordable housing and healthcare accordingly. That has not happened at all ).

      With sufficient funding the NHS could perform better – which would of course mean that many people would dump the private services that they are forced to pay for additionally if they want good services (with littel waiting times) – the kind of services French or German, or Austrian citizens get by default.

    • +Michael Gavin Johnston They Republicans earlier than the Dems specialized in serving the rich, companies and the wealthy. It is hard to get majorites – they have to scratch the votes together somehow there are just not enough wealthy people to vote for them. Voter suppression of course.

      And identitiy politics – BOTH parties are financed by the same industries and both use identity politics and issues that do not cost the Big Donors profits – in order to sugarcoat the fact that they do not give the voters anything substantial.
      The Rs specialized in Evangelicals, being anti science anti-Global waming and in racism (a variety of identitiy politics if you will).

      Neither Republicans nor Democrats would like to have gun control, abortion, LGBT rights or immigration “solved” – how are they supposed to rile up the electorate. Enough to get the to the polls – or to scare them into voting for the lesser evil. Hillary Clinton had that role as well – for the Republican base, and Trump certainly made a good boogeyman for the Democratic base.

      That is why the third party voters are so despised by the Democratic establishment. Democratic voters can switch over to the Republican candidates or not vote at all. That will not trigger critique. – Voters however who DARE to challenge the absolute reign of the two major parties ….. which would be the only cure for the current mess … they are attacked.

      Ralph Nader is STILL quoted as having caused the loss of 2000 (how many registered Democrats in FL voted for Bush ??? many more votes than Nader got in Florida. Of COURSE the sitting president and his VP Al Gore could not be bothered to kick some behinds when Jeb Bush purged black men in masses from the voter rolls. It was headline news in Europe months BEFORE the elections. And WHO told Al Gore that it was a good move to decline the support of Bill Clinton on the campaign trail OR to chose neocon Republican-Democrat Lieberman as VP ?

      For the Dems keeping the money flowing is more important than winning elections.

      They bet that most of them will keep their seats and the Big Donors will reward good shills with cushy posts. The service of the Dems for the Big Donors is to suppress and sheepdog progressives.

      They MUST win primaries (so that is where the Dems use the voter roll purges and rig elections) and maybe the hackable voting machines. (Which explains their deafening silence – they are at least not opposed to having that option in case of a progressive “emergency”).

      It is not important if the Corporate Dems also win the general election – for the Big Donors. They get a corporate Democrat or a Republican – for THEM that makes little difference, their interests will always be well taken care of (usually on the back of the people that the Democratic party claims to serve – they have to do more mental gymnastics than the Republicans).

      The Dems help to “achieve” a certain kind of ballot: the voters must be left with the “choice” between a sell-out, spineless Democrat or a fierce Republican. (That explains a lot of the seemingly weak behavior of Democratic politicians. They are only weak with Republicans, they are not weak at all against Progressives and FDR style Democrats)

      Unless the voters, the unruly lot decide to call the bluff and vote third party – at least in the “safe” blue or red states for a start.
      Or the progressive or third party candidate in the primaries. Imagine the progressives had at least had very good results against the heavyweights and dinosaurs of the party in the primaries. Think New York of California.

      In CA the best 2 candidates move up to the GE. Meaning the Republican candidate has almost no chance. Usually it will be 2 Democratic candidates that run against each other in the GE. Lesser evilism is not an argument, not even in theory.

      So nor risk for the voters who chose the more progressive candidate (if they run under the D ticket). There was no danger he or she would then lose in the GE against a Republican. But no, the sheeple rewarded the Democratic establishment.

  8. I’m glad to see you covering this. I’ve been sad to see so many progressive commentators insist that she is on the side of progressives when that’s only true for some issues some of the time (just like so many other corporate Democrats).

    • Same. If Bernie decides to run and Tulsi comes in 2nd then it’s logical that she would be VP. I respect her military background and her desire to stop imperialistic wars. We kill innocent people with our tax money and create vets with PTSD.

  9. In other words, Elizabeth Warren is full of hot air. When asked a direct question, rather than answering the question, she attacked Republicans. That is the same thing that cost hillary the election.

  10. Elisabeth Warren is a Flake. Not the first time she backs away when it comes to hot in the kitchen. She did it When she Backed Hillary instead of Bernie. & she did it again when the DNC got caught cheating. She got no ballz. & Ballz is what it’s needed now.

    • She is all bark and no bite. People were enthusiastic when she slammed Wallstreet and the banksters. And she did good work with the agency. Under the protection of a progressive admin she likely could do good work in an agency. – but the times are getting more and more difficult, the situation is a mess – that calls for a backbone, conviction and not giving a damn (that is something Dems or Progressives could learn from Trump – and apply it to better causes).

    • +Xyz Same
      Made worse when people found out that she is using Native American identity for her own gain, for her ancestry testing to prove that it is not enough to count as one.

      The natives had enough being used and abused. It is time to stop.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *