Should Democrats who decline to support Medicare for All be primaried?

[FairWinds]

There is a spirited discussion about that going on
right now in California.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/05/20/amid-f-bomb-and-uproar-dems-face-demands-get-behind-single-payer

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Depends, HUGELY depends on the following:

If said non supporter of single payer is in a district where the GOP will win if he or she is primaried, HELL NO.

[emulatorloo]

2. Tiring of the binary-thinking ideologues at commondreams.

Maybe we should focus on Republicans who want to kill the ACA, rather than Dems who support the ACA but have not yet endorsed Medicare for all.

BTW, ACA was a good first step towards Medicare for all. Eventually it would have been modified to Medicare for all imho.

[skylucy]

10. Thank you! You are so right on about this!

[ehrnst]

25. +1000 (nt)

[bettyellen]

32. I am giving the side eye to any one talking about "primary-ing" any Dem if I don't see them

Working 10x as hard against the GOP. You have to do what necessary before going for the luxilury of having reps that agree 100% on all areas. Work on your own damn district and find out what's actually doable or worth fighting for.

[bettyellen]

3. Nope, anyone working toward losing us seats right now is an idiot.

I've had enough of trying to hold the party hostage.
Fix the ACA. Get the seats.

[Squinch]

14. Counting down, though, till we see the first person who tries to say that if you don't

think Medicare for All should be a primarying issue, then you shouldn't think that people's ownership of their own bodies is a primarying issue either.

It'll happen...

But no. You are right. Hold on to our most basic values and in the meantime get the seats that will let us improve healthcare for everyone.

[bettyellen]

16. Screw that - the resistance is easily 75% women- and part of that is how fed up we are about being

Put on the back burner. No more!

[brooklynite]

4. As soon as I saw COMMON DREAMS, I stopped pqying attention.

[Demsrule86]

19. I do not like Common Dreams and feel they are part of the problem not the solution...

blocked them and not one dime will I send these folks.

[NobodyHere]

5. I'd rather have our resources fight Republicans than other Democrats

[ehrnst]

28. THANK YOU! (nt)

[frazzled]

6. No, because ...

all Democratic legislators at this particular moment in time—unprecedented in its Republican-controlled lockstop descent into chaos and destruction—need to focus their attention on that which is attainable. That is, they must focus like a laser on preventing Republican destruction of existing laws and institutions so that the least damage is done.

Focusing on wish-list items like Medicare for All (which we all must admit is not going to be achieved during this administration) is like tilting at windmills while the entire farm is burning down. It's a waste of time and energy to be placing top priority on things that are not of this moment. The art of legislating is knowing when the right time has come: otherwise, you move backward, not forward.

Let's put Brogressives in perspective: they're distracting us, not helping.

[FairWinds]

8. ". . things that are not of this moment . ."

that are supported by substantial majorities of the public?

Recent Gallop poll . . .

Replacing the ACA with a federally funded healthcare
program providing insurance for all Americans

YES NO N/S

58 37 5

[Demsrule86]

20. It doesn't matter how many support it...it won't happen with the GOP in charge.

[frazzled]

22. Politically not of this moment

One would be naive to think otherwise. People always respond to "policy" based questions in ways that support Democratic agendas, but these almost never erase the electoral divisions (take abortion, for example) or translate into victories. Those same people will vote for Republicans nonetheless--because, for the large part, Americans have no coherent political philosophies. Sad, but overwhelmingly true.

When you look back at the agonizing fight to get the ACA, and the current move to abolish it (not to mention our current minority status and a potential tenuous majority in the future), you cannot possibly imagine that suddenly we can implement wholesale the very game-changing policy of universal Medicare in one fell swoop. The tax and premium issues alone would be huge, and the eradication of the private insurance industry seismic. People with current employer-based plans would not necessarily be happy; there could be great resistance.

As Donald Trump found out, gee, health care is hard. You don't just snap your fingers and change things because you want them or they're a good idea. The better route would be to save the ACA, strengthen and amend it, work at adding a public option ... all of which would eventually, over time, pave the way to something like Medicare for All.

[creeksneakers2]

23. Of course they answer healthcare for all

Who wants to say some people shouldn't get healthcare? If they asked instead if the government ought to take over all healthcare you would see a very different result.

[elehhhhna]

17. Brogressives? Wow.

[FairWinds]

7. But note that the Tea Party does not hesitate a second . .

to primary GOPPERS who don't play along.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Anyone advocating Medicare for All has to be explicit about how it's funded

and until someone has made a proposal that has broad support across the country, it would be suicidal to primary anyone on a point of principle over it.

[mwooldri]

11. What if a Democrat comes out for nationalization of the hospitals...

... and a full blown government run health system, saying "Medicare for All" doesn't go far enough? Primary that person?

Playing Devil's Advocate here of course....

I'm for anything that brings us affordable healthcare for all.

"No society can legitimately call itself civilized if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means" - Aneurin Bevan, considered to be by many the father of the UK's National Health Service.

Then there's his other quote "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." US equivalent is Republican Party... go figure...

But back on topic... maybe this is something good for the Californian Democratic Party. Might not be the best position elsewhere in the country. However goal is "affordable healthcare for all" and if someone isn't on that bandwagon then time to get off.

[Demsrule86]

21. People would consider it socialism and we would lose...take it gradually...we achieved a monumental

thing by making American realize that health care is right...now let's work on saving the ACA because if we lose it, we lose any shot at single payer.

[FairWinds]

24. well, as a matter of fact, I get my own healthcare from . .

". . a full blown government run health system, ."

Where the govt. owns all the facilities (nearly), and everyone who works in the system
is a govt. employee.

And this system has lower costs and better outcomes than either Medicare or private insurance.

It is called the Veterans Administration

But I do agree with those who say that we are not ready for it . . . YET

[ehrnst]

27. Universal health care should be the goal.

And there are other, more realistic ways to get there than single payer.

See also most of the rest of the developed world.

[Starry Messenger]

12. There are only a tiny handful of Dems in CA who don't support single payer

The coalition working on the CA Single Payer bill are very divisive and will probably torpedo their own efforts by being assholes, unfortunately. I support it, but I'm not sending them money so they can go scream at Tom Perez because they are butt-hurt about the primary.

The FB pages for SB562 could only cough up the names of 4 CA state Dems who don't support the STATE bill. When pressed on that they will scream about Nancy Pelosi--who has zero-fuck-all to do with teh CA STATE BILL.

[ehrnst]

30. Would you share the statistics on the number of Dems in CA

on Single Payer as it was presented in the plan?

[Starry Messenger]

34. Do you mean who voted on it?

Things have changed a bit since I posted this post in May. The bill passed the Senate, and then the Assembly speaker kept it back in committee, and let it park there.

The Senate vote was 23 Yes, 13 No, 3 Other. One Democrat, Sen. Glazer, voted No. Three Democrats abstained (the "other" votes.) All the Republicans were Nay votes.

The bill history is here at this link: https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/830479

[Iggo]

13. Of course not. That would be stupid.

What part of California is this spirited conversation taking place at?

I live in Whittier and I spend most of my week in Los Angeles.

We're talking about defeating Republicans, not Democrats.

[ehrnst]

31. Yes, bashing Democrats is exactly what we need to win 2018... (nt)

[Gothmog]

15. No

This is a very dumb idea

[Demsrule86]

18. NO and no...no... do not primary sitting Dems...not all Dems want single payer...I would love it but

feel it will never happen ...the way we will get single payer is with a public option and a gradual lowering of Medicare age. Why why do Democrats and some non-Democrats want to fight about single payer which doesn't amount to squat with Trump in the White House. Fight Trump people not for pie in the sky legislation which we lost all chance of getting when some did not support Sec. Clinton... Single payer can not happen without a super majority and even then it will be very tough.

[ehrnst]

26. Well, they were going to take money from Medicaid and Medicare to finance it.

Non-starter for many people.

And the failure of Vermont single payer should be studied, because Bernie sure isn't willing to talk about what lessons were learned there.

Again... the goal should be universal health care coverage. Single payer is to universal coverage as poodle is to canine.

Medicare isn't single payer. Most of the developed world achieves universal coverage through multiple payers.

Holding out for a poodle could take years.

Making "single payer or bust" into needless dogma is really no different than the right's "getting rid of Planned Parenthood will get rid of abortions" dogma - neither takes into account the actual data, and what unbiased experts in the area of health care policy have to say.

But it certainly makes those who believe it feel like they are the only ethical ones, and everyone else is corrupt.

[ehrnst]

29. Bashing Democrats who don't meet a specific politician's litmus test on which of many

ways to acheive universal healthcare is something that will TOTALLY do us well in 2018...

[David__77]

33. There are no primaries in California.

...

[spicysista]

35. Nope!

I'm done with people attacking our own. All politics are local. Be the most progressive that you can be and win. That is all.