... a 501(c)(3), but it could fund co-ventures that are profit making.

That way, not only would a contribution to the umbrella be tax free, it would be considered a gift that keeps on giving.

Lambert - Philosopher/Poet/Revolutionary/Messiah?

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

I'm going to pick on your post a little and I apologize if I seem rude. Not intentional. But you've done exactly what Caro has warned of in her lead post: this is not about being right and it's not about me explaining to people what Medicare really does. The right-wing messaging is that government programs are BAD; Medicare is a government program; therefore, it is BAD.

Don't look for logic, because it isn't about logic.

All it will take to destroy any effort to redefine or brand Medicare for all is one nightmare Medicare story. And there are plenty. (It doesn't matter if there are one million great stories and two shitty ones---the shitty ones will command the narrative because they're usually pretty horrible and people like having their worst fears confirmed, so they'll tune in. And tuning in means dough.)

The negative messaging has been successful. If the messaging wasn't successful, we would already have universal healthcare. It makes the most sense. It is economically responsible. It is American in our best traditions---so why haven't we done it? Why no political will? It's a result of the messaging. It's because people do not trust government to have our best interests at heart. And because the messaging has succeeded, no amount of persuasion will convince enough people otherwise.

(It's more complicated than this, but I hope you get my point: nothing is what it appears and this situation is not about "educating" people about Medicare. It's about something much more fundamental, something that has to be addressed before any educating can ever happen.)

Remember how Democrat pols were saying that we should all get the same health insurance they get? How clumsy it all sounded because they didn't have a snappy name for it? Too bad, because that was a winning pitch. It takes people's inherent distrust of politicians and uses it as leverage in a beneficial way, "Geez, it must be good if those dirtbags have it."

Now, if politicians all switched to Medicare and ran around saying, "I have Medicare because it's the best thing out there," then everyone would want it. That is a winning position because people will commit and it is that committment that we're after. Start with a foundation that isn't defensive ("No, really, Medicare doesn't suck, it's okay, really...") and start with something that speaks to people's needs beyond the obvious one. People need affordable and excellent healthcare. Obviously. What else do they need? That is a marketing question---trying to figure out what it is someone really needs and trying to fulfill that need.

"Medicare for all" does not address that need: to not feel like a sap or a sucker. Or a sapsucker. It is a bad slogan made up by people trying to solve their need of find an expression for their plans, and that is backasswards. Listen to people first and they'll tell you what they need and what they want. And the manner in which they tell you often tells you more about them. And this is what's missing in all this.

For example, someone (DCBlogger?) had a post about healthcare parasites recently, in which she discusses the stealth insurance industry healthcare group. The most revealing part of the thing she quoted from the group was how they emphasized going around the country listening to people. I didn't have time to yank out the quote and say, "See, that's how they win. Whether they really listen or will do anything positive with what they find is a question of ethics, but that they're making the effort is good marketing. They are already making an effort to reach out, to be available as a sympathetic ear. To make contact. To begin being an honest broker (which they may or may not be). They're offering an opportunity for individuals to begin a relationship and people need that, frankly. And that works."

I'm not going to touch the ethics of the group or their methods---just that the process is a good way to start. Apologies if my emphasis on the marketing of this just doesn't work for you. It's one of my frames of reference, so it's easiest for me to discuss it that way. You can also just say I'm wrong and that's that.

lambert, I wrote a shitload about why Medicare as-is may be a politically safe issue (no one's going to cancel it), but not necessarily a winning issue for universal healthcare in another of DCBlogger's threads. No one is going to touch an entitlement of a large and pwoerful voting and lobbying bloc like those of people who get Medicare. But that doesn't mean that universal healthcare, labeled "Medicare for all," is a winner because you're not trying to convince people who benefit that it's good. You're trying to convince people who don't that they will. It's a different problem and as popular as Medicare may be for politicians and their constituents who receive it, that's not the people that need to be heard and whose needs to be addressed.

The people who need convincing are the people who are suspicious. The first question is why are they suspicious? The second is what are their needs? To get answers to those questions means starting a relationship. Not lecturing or hectoring.

(FTR, fab GF's younger brother worked for Medicare, he now is a g-man who busts doctors trying to defraud Medicare and Medicaid. The woman he's married to is a muckety-muck dealing with Medicare case management. My youngest brother is a doctor, who's in practice with his best friend who also has two brothers who are doctors. We discuss this dodecahedron of issues often and from different directions.)