Senator Claire McCaskill: "if a single-payer came up to a vote right now I would not vote for it"

[Pugster]

This is the disappointing view of Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri:

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who like most Democrats voted “present” on the GOP amendment, also told constituents she would not support a single-payer proposal.

“I’m going to disappoint a lot of you. ... I would say if a single-payer came up to a vote right now I would not vote for it,” McCaskill, who is up for reelection next year, told constituents during a town hall earlier this year.

McCaskill added she would support allowing individuals who only have one option on the ObamaCare exchanges to buy into Medicare or Medicaid instead.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/347175-democrats-prep-for-next-round-of-healthcare-fight

[MontanaMama]

1. Uh oh Claire.

Be careful on this. The progressive single payer train is leaving the station without you. One choice on the exchange? So, two choices is okay?? I had two choices for 2017...one for $1322 a month and the other for $2126 a month...for two adults and a child. I guess you think those are reasonable choices? Both of them are more than my mortgage and I had to choose one or go uninsured. Get real lady.

[brooklynite]

11. You can get a pro-single payer progressive elected in Missouri?

I'd like to see that.

[WinstonSmith00]

13. Hell yeah we could.

Its all in the sales pitch.
People want health care and they dont like the greedy insurance companies. Its time to shoe them the Government can do it better!

[JI7]

31. Even blue state colorado rejected it by huge numbers

[brooklynite]

38. ...and Vermont gave up.

[Hortensis]

96. Brooklynite and McCaskill are right. You guys are missing the time factor.

It's not time to pass a national single payer plan. Huge numbers of Americans are still adamantly opposed to it. This wheel needs more time to turn, even with us doing everything we can to turn it faster.

Question: What is the connection between the left wing push to remove leading Democratic senator Claire McCaskill, her fights to protect Medicare and the ACA, and the right wing's determination to replace McCaskill with a conservative and repeal Medicare and the ACA?

Don't be used.

[peggysue2]

109. Exactly!

This is merely an attempt to discredit another Democratic member, who just so happens to be running for re-election in 2018. What a coinky-dink!

As for single-payer? I think we'll get there; it's the only system that makes sense. But it's not going to happen in one felled swoop. As can be seen by the stalled state attempts. You talking about a huge realignment of 20% of the country's economy. The first reasonable step would be opening up Medicare for the 50-55 year old demographic, then working from there.

It will happen; it just won't happen fast.

[clu]

106. i replied in another thread

that as an individual state, they can't afford the program. one of the links outlined pro-sanders groups as denouncing the bill since it's not practical to try unless it's on a national level, yet here we still wonder if it's worth the political risk....

maybe in some areas but that is a part of the game so plan for it. who's chasing white voters around in Missouri anyways?


lead from the left, take public option for her protected electorate, everybody wins, now wash and repeat

[kstewart33]

110. I agree with McCaskill.

A 'do it now' bill is too much change too fast. The health care system cannot handle massive change quickly done. Single payer requires huge structural changes in the industry and hundreds of special interest groups must be dealt with.

Well thought out and planned incremental change has a much better chance of single payer working well over the long term.

[KPN]

68. Time to stop saying "Oh no we can't." Maybe we can and maybe we can't, but

saying we can't is a loser. Look where it has got us as a party. We need to stand for something tangible on health care, jobs and the economy.

It's how we frame it and how well WE control its framing. On health, why not talk about a national health cooperative as opposed to single payer, how about "health unions" like credit unions?

[brooklynite]

105. How about observing that, absent single-payer, we CAN elect a Democrat in Missouri?

[uponit7771]

2. Hmmmmm, isn't buying into Medicarecaid single payer? So its single payer for PEC ... that doesn't

... sound that bad at first thought.

[PoliticAverse]

5. It sounds like she is endorsing a sort of "public option" (like that originally part of Obamacare).

[uponit7771]

10. Right, ... hmmmmm on the face of it letting PeC pay into medicarecade makes sense

[area51]

100. Folks may want to read about

a public option.

[hatrack]

3. Well, you disappointed me. Get a grip, Claire.

.

[Thrill]

4. Of course not. Thats the problem with the Party

Can never get on one page and message

[sarcasmo]

6. Exactly. The right can be on the same page talking point the next day.

The Democratic party fights over two different talking points for six months.

[WinstonSmith00]

19. Well the right are mindless drones.

The left has more diversity of thought and opinion we just need to harness it and over come!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. I'm for single payer/UHC

but there are undeniably a lot of logistical and financial issues that have to be resolved before it can be implemented, to say nothing of winning a filibuster-proof vote on it in Congress. I know that the winds of change are shifting on single payer within the Democratic Party but the Republicans not only will probably never support single payer but they are STILL trying to defund/repeal ACA. There is no way that I can see, even with or without McCaskill, that Single-Payer is happening- really happening- anytime soon on a national level. Realistically, IMHO some kind of public buy-in option is the best that we can hope for in the short term, along with some blue states successfully implementing some kind of single payer program. Hopefully, people don't lose their heads (or seats) if Single-Payer doesn't get enacted in 2021, even assuming we have a Democratic President AND Congress.

[JI7]

24. There is no detailed plan for it

[LanternWaste]

101. Avoidance of commercial branding specifically for the lowest common denominator is not a problem...

Avoidance of commercial branding specifically for the lowest common denominator is not a problem... the lack of a well-informed electorate is.

Though I did find your contortions to place blame on the Democratic party bemusing.

[Thrill]

103. Truth hurts

[melanctha]

140. BS.No Our Revolution litmus test!

This Senator has been working for years for her constituents and Americans. Stop messing with sitting democrats. Stop pushing the independant backbencher's non event and divisiveness. It won't hit the floor. Nobody has to kiss Bernie's ass.

[Voltaire2]

148. Scared to stand up for core values, confused about

why people don't get their messaging.

[melanctha]

165. It's your messaging that is the problem. Stop dogging democrats!!!

Stop trying to be a Democrat. Our Revolution for you. You cannot impose your will here. Talk about authoritarian. We are disappointed in you. That was the concern trolling you are pushing. Your core values are Bernie's, not ours.

[Voltaire2]

166. I'm not imposing anything.

I'm suggesting that timid weathervane centrism has gotten us right where we are today: out of power in congress, the executive, the courts and the majority of the states. Perhaps if we supported unambiguously core Democratic Party positions everywhere all the time consistently people who either are not voting at all or are voting protest votes for third parties might start voting for our candidates. One thing is pretty obvious to me: we are not going to win over republican voters no matter how republican we pretend to be. All we do by veering right is discourage our base.

[Fix The Stupid]

7. Mods - please lock. Bashing a Democratic politician. Thanks n/t

[leftstreet]

8. How is it 'bashing?' Just repeating her statements n/t

[theaocp]

9. You have got to be kidding me.

This is the disappointing view of Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri:

This constitutes "bashing"? Fuck it, then. Just let them do whatever they want with no criticism. Jeez.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

14. Hey Fix...

no one likes a tattletale..........

[WinstonSmith00]

15. Its not bashing

To quote them... Was that intended as sarcasm perhaps?

[Autumn]

26. Quoting her actual words is bashing a Democratic politician?

[NurseJackie]

145. Please remember that you said this.

[Autumn]

156. I added it to my journal just in case. Thanks for the tip.

[NurseJackie]

159. You're welcome!

[Hekate]

84. If you wish to invoke the Jury system, press the Alert Abuse button at the bottom of the post

[pintobean]

160. Apt user name

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I really think public option is the way to go.

If you like your current plan you can keep it. If you don't you can buy a government plan.

[WinstonSmith00]

17. Yep and when everybody

Buys the Goverment plan we will have single payer.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Exactly

Why upset people who like their current plan and go through the whole if you like your current plan, no, you can't brouhaha all over again ?

I am sure most folks will like the public option better any way.

[Yavin4]

70. It's akin to private vs. public colleges

There will be enough people who will choose to go private that will keep that system afloat.

[uponit7771]

56. Right and she's saying PO for people with pre existing conditions, sounds like a win win

[LovingA2andMI]

18. They Are HER WORDS....

And discussing what a politician said out of THEIR MOUTH is NOT "Bashing" anybody. Re-read the DU rules before accusing folks of breaking them.....

[LanternWaste]

102. And that takes no more time than responding in the correct place.

"Re-read the DU rules before accusing folks of breaking them..."

And that takes no more time than responding in the correct place. And even less time than rationalizing it as purposeful.

The important thing though, is we roll our eyes at the mistakes of others rather than of ourselves-- as holding others to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to demands us to do so.

[pintobean]

161. Lol.

[cbdo2007]

20. Well there has to be a better plan in place than just the term "single payer"...

so I would hope nobody votes for it just under the guise of it being "single payer".

It's a very complicated issue so I appreciate any Senators who are doing their due diligence to make sure we put a full, comprehensive plan in place rather than a knee jerk reaction vote.

[TCJ70]

21. The problem with this quote...

...and what needs to be fleshed out is the mechanism. I don't think we can just end private insurance tomorrow. But working towards a single payer system by allowing Medicare/Medicaid buy in is totally workable (when properly sold to people).

[JI7]

22. She is from a right wing state. Even voters in colorado rejected it

If you want single payer you need to convince voters to support it.

[Autumn]

28. How do you get them to support something unless you get out there and convince them?

[JI7]

30. That's what i said people need to do

If they want single payer convince voters to support it. So they either vote for it themselves if it comes up like in colorado or votes for elected officials who support it.

[Autumn]

34. I think she could help to convince them. She should know why it's a good idea. What happened in CO

is most of our "leaders" came out against it, just as Claire did. I saw ad after ad aginst it, none for it.

[R B Garr]

41. Luckily, people can see through this deception. Why hasn't Bernie convinced Vermont??

Why isn't Bernie held accountable for Vermont rejecting it, mostly because of cost.

When will Democrats quit being demonized for something a small state like Vermont couldn't make happen.

Ironically, Vermont does not also have:
---$15/hr minimum wage
---Free college tuition

[Autumn]

44. You should start a thread about that, someone will rush over and reply. If discussing a

Democratic polticians stand is demonizing them, 2008 must have had you in a fetal ball.

[R B Garr]

46. How ironic! You refuse to discuss why Bernie hasn't convinced Vermont to pay

for single payer. Yet everyone else is held accountable for something he has not done himself.

[Autumn]

48. Start an OP about it , whoever is interested will jump in and discuss it.

[R B Garr]

49. Yes, like they are jumping in here to discuss why good elected Democrats are

being targeted over single payer while it's not implemented in Bernie's state.

[Autumn]

50. Right. Talking about what she said is targeting her.

[R B Garr]

52. You said she should help convince them. Why not target Bernie with the same smear.

You could be advocating for Bernie convincing Vermont before targeting Senator McCaskill with criticism.

[Autumn]

55. I will, as soon as Bernie comes out and says he won't vote for single payer.

You really think that saying an elected Democratic politician could come out and talk about the good things of single payer is targeting that person with criticism ???

that's funny and it explains so much.

[R B Garr]

77. You started out saying she should convince them. Now you change your story

when the real issue is that Bernie hasn't convinced Vermont, either. Then you said it's a "pet subject", which is obvious since no one holds Bernie to the same standards as they do other politicians.

It does explain SO MUCH.

[stevenleser]

63. We have had dozens of OPs about this in the last several months.

All with predictable responses exonerating Sanders for having any responsibility.

[Autumn]

65. Get back to me when Bernie says if single payer come up at this time I won't vote for it.

Then I'll be very happy to give you a response.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

75. I don't even get where this supposed gotcha stems from?

Has Bernie advocated for state by state single payer? As far as I know, he is advocating for a national program. He's not advocating for the smalllest states in the Union to start their own single payer, is he?

If he advocates cutting the military budget?

Duurrrrr durrrrr derp derp.... why hasn't Bernie advocated cutting Vermont's National Guard budget????? Durrrrrr

Idiotic.

[Autumn]

85. I know, any comment on an elected Democrats actual words is just like a trigger for some people.

Even if something has no chance in a red state I think it's a good idea for our Democrats in that state to point out to the people the benifits of it.

[R B Garr]

90. Luckily, people see through this deception and double standards.

If one politician can't get a "pet subject" (your words) passed, then judging other politicians "words" that question the pet subject is just a diversion.

[R B Garr]

80. You said she should convince people about single payer, yet Bernie hasn't

convinced his own state. Luckily, most people see through these deceptive double standards.

[Autumn]

89. You can't say he and John Conyers havn't tried. I give both mad props for their tireless efforts on

behalf of healthcare for the Americam people.

[R B Garr]

91. I give mad props to CA Assemblyman Rendon, who is the subject of a bogus "recall"

over this "pet subject" (your words). I don't see anyone in Vermont being threatened over the single payer failure there.

https://ballotpedia.org/Anthony_Rendon_recall,_California_State_Assembly_(2017)

[Autumn]

98. We lost 2 fine Democrats here in CO because they voted for gun control, that sucked but

recalls happen. Rendon blocked a bill that many people in CA wanted. And people are attempting a recall, that's on their heads. How is blocking a bill for single payer a single payer failure? It's up to the politicians to look out for the needs of their people and follow their lead. I didn't call single payer a pet project. Try rereading my earlier post to you.

By the way, your link doesn't work. Try this one.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-single-payer-supporters-take-first-1501286283-htmlstory.html

When Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) halted a measure to establish single-payer healthcare in California, the bill's most dedicated backers immediately called for him to be removed from office.

Now, more than a month later, single-payer advocates have taken the first formal step to follow through on their threat, giving Rendon's office this week notice of intent to circulate a recall petition.

Rendon's move to stop the single-payer bill — which he called "woefully incomplete," noting it passed the state Senate without a method to pay for it — was the catalyst for the outcry.

"If we recall the Assembly speaker, maybe someone else [will be] willing to push this bill, to get it out of the rules committee and send it to the Assembly to get a vote on it," said Jessica Covarrubias, a proponent of the effort. "Maybe that will help everyone get healthcare."

[R B Garr]

99. Wrong, the "many people" you claim are really Bernie fans outside Rendon's district.

Not people within his district, so again with the misrepresentation. If they were serious about single payer, they would have attached costs to the bill submitted instead of forcing the elected Democrat to address the issue. You can't claim to be for something but then submit a bill which is sure to fail. It's a deceptive endeavor, and luckily most people are on to it. Why aren't Vermont politicians being subjected to abuse for failing to implement single payer?? Democrats should not be targeted for this kind of abuse by Bernie fans over something Bernie has also failed to produce.

You said the subject of Bernie is a "pet subject", which is also your 'pet subject" to deflect any criticism of him. Looks like it goes further and is also a plan to criticize good Democrats over something that Bernie could not get done in his own state. Double standards.

That link works intermittently, but you can see the heading and see it's about a recall for Rendon.

[Autumn]

119. Say what?

[R B Garr]

122. Yeah, Say What is right! Trying to remove a Democrat over some pet issues

is absurd and inexcusable. Those people are not in his district. That's what.

[Autumn]

124. I don't live in CA, I have no say on what they do with their Reps or their pet issues . That's what.

You can always organize a fight against the recall if you wish to do so if you object to his unfair treatment.

[R B Garr]

126. Then that's a good reason not to attack Senator McCaskill for representing her state.

And it's also a good reason for Bernie to disavow his supporters for targeting politicians in California when he couldn't get the same issue passed in Vermont. Good Democrats don't deserve to be harassed like this.

[Autumn]

128. Link to where I attacked Senator McCaskill. I'll wait right here for that link.

[R B Garr]

131. Your cynicism about her not explaining single payer was obvious, although

you were just warming up by throwing shade passed off as just using her own words. But my comment was not directed at you, so much as it was more a general comment on the attacks on Democrats that use the same tactics. The blind allegiance to talking points from 2015 all have the same intentions in the end.

[Autumn]

132. Link to where I attacked Senator McCaskill like you said I did. I'll wait right here for that link.

Please don't project your actions onto me.

[R B Garr]

133. LOL, yes, I'm sure your comments about Senator McCaskill were because you fully

support her decisions. It's not like they have anything to do with supporting Bernie's platform.

[Autumn]

134. Link to where I attacked Senator McCaskill. I'll wait right here for that link.

[R B Garr]

137. You said she should "convince people" to support single payer.

That is obvious cynicism about her position. I already explained the rest of my comment about how this type of allegiance to 2015 talking points is a percurser to attacking Democrats. Then I gave an example of a good Democrat in Los Angeles who was attacked with this same deceptive criticism.

[Autumn]

139. Link to where I attacked Senator McCaskill. A link should be easy to find.

[R B Garr]

141. I guess you think this is clever or supports your claim that you were just

using "her words". But expecting her to "convince people" is an expression of criticism about her position.

Explain how you were not being critical of Senator McCaskill. Thanks.

[Autumn]

144. So there is no link to an attack by me on Senator McCaskill is what you are admitting.

No suprise at all. But whatever.

[R B Garr]

146. Explain how your comment that she should "convince people" was not

a criticism of her position.

Explain how this has nothing to do with blind allegiance to a platform from 2015.

It's always a crackup when people require exact words to appear and not realize that people can glean concepts other than the word "attack" spelled out in a sentence.

Here's a definition for you, even.


Definition of attack


transitive verb


1

:
to set upon or work against forcefully •attack an enemy fortification


2

:
to assail with unfriendly or bitter words •a politician verbally attacked by critics


3

:
to begin to affect or to act on injuriously •plants attacked by aphids


4

:
to set to work on •attack a problem


5
chess
:
to threaten (a piece) with immediate capture

[Autumn]

151. Last time. There is no link to my criticizing her because I didn't criticize her as you claimed.

Here's the crack up, politicians always convince people to do things, That's how they get elected.

[R B Garr]

152. LOL, it's like it doesn't matter her actual position,

she only needs to convince people to match Bernie's position.

LOL, yes.

[Autumn]

164. It's not just Bernie's position. It's also the position of Senators Booker,Gillibrand. Harris,

Merkley, Warren, Baucus and many others are comimg out for single payer. It's time. If it passes ot not, they have joined the fight for the needs of the Americam people. Senator McCaskill will eventualy come out for it. The people will insist, it's already happening.

[R B Garr]

169. LOL, like there is no history to it that people are

aware of.

Universal healthcare is also a progressive policy, thanks to all those who support that and who supported Clinton's efforts decades ago. We shouldn't be attacking Democrats who support those policies.

Thanks to President Obama for the ACA.

There are many good peope to thank. It's okay to support more than one issue, especially one that can get passed sooner.

[KTM]

147. This thing you do

Where you hijack other people's threads and then try to play a game of gotcha while derailing the original ideas and intent of the thread ? Where you try to twist words and play semantics, the long game of "look, Im a Sea Lion," where you flood out the entire front-end of the replies in a thread with this childish "I know you are but what am I?" discussion tactic ?

We can all see that, and recognize it for what it is. Autumn was correct in her early replies to you.

[R B Garr]

149. LOL, that is hilarious, as I have not seen any comments from you about the threads

you respond in?

Do you have any comments about Senator McCaskill's comments?

edit, and who is "we"? I bet I know...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

92. Well one way to help is have your kid stroll out of her $10 million dollar condo and...

.... claim Single Payer for all would be stealing your healthcare.

[Autumn]

97. The needs of the people will not be met until the people bend the politicians to their will.

[moda253]

108. How does that work?

The needs of the people will not be met until the people bend the politicians to their will.

Now wait a second.... You are saying the Claire McCaskill, and others should convince their constituents that SP is a good option, but then you say that the will of the people needs to bend the politicians to their will........ How the ever loving hell does THAT work? Clearly Claire doesn't have a constituency that agrees that SP is a good option. So which is it? Is she supposed to represent according to her constituency? or not?

The voters between Missouri and Vermont are two totally different animals. Losing a seat because of bad politics isn't a winning idea. Especially when you consider the expense of other policy that you put at stake when doing something like that.

[Autumn]

121. Huh?

[moda253]

107. Wow. That's hypocritical

You just commented about CO leaders not being able to deliver to their people for not supporting it and then you have no answer for when the completely relevant question as to why Bernie hasn't been successful.

What it comes down to is that constituents need to put the pressure on their elected officials. Sure they can champion causes and policy but in the end they have to answer to constituents. If WE are not being loud enough then WE need to put in the work convincing others. Otherwise you are asking our electeds to vote without representing their constituents.

[Autumn]

120. What's that now?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029581825

[JI7]

76. Not in missouri where the republicans voted against funds for harvey

[Autumn]

39. This is what they did with the push in CO

Nothing but ads lying about it. No one came out and talked about the positives here except Bernie and he wasn't covered.

What later happened is Helth First took over Medicaid, it's been a clusterfuck since.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/colorado-single-payer-vote_us_581cdf8be4b0d9ce6fbbf369

Single-Payer Health Care Dream Dies In Colorado

Tuesday’s defeat of Amendment 69 was decisive, as predicted. Polling ahead of Election Day showed that two-thirds of residents opposed the measure, which would have established a program called ColoradoCare to cover most people in the state.

The ColoradoCare initiative faced significant political headwinds. In addition to opposition from state Republicans, business groups, the health insurance industry and the Colorado Medical Society, powerful state Democrats also lined up against it, including Gov. John Hickenlooper, Sen. Michael Bennet, several U.S. representatives, Colorado House Majority Leader Crisanta Duran and a number of other state legislators.
Progressive groups and labor unions were divided on the measure. Supporters included National Nurses United, Public Citizen, filmmaker Michael Moore and scholar-activist Noam Chomsky. But ProgressNow Colorado, NARAL ProChoice Colorado and others opposed Amendment 69, arguing that a single-payer system is only appropriate on a national level.

Even the public backing of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a single-payer proponent who had bested Hillary Clinton in Colorado’s Democratic presidential caucus, wasn’t enough to win over voters.

Tuesday’s defeat marked the second failure of single-payer advocates to achieve a state-based universal health care system. The Vermont legislature and Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) first attempted to create one in the Green Mountain State in 2011, but Shumlin abandoned the effort three years later because his administration couldn’t figure out how to finance the program.

[R B Garr]

43. Why hasn't Bernie convinced them to pay for it in Vermont?

Bernie needs to answer for this instead of targeting good elected Democrats.

[R B Garr]

32. Bernie should take this advice and convince Vermont to support it, costs

and all, not just the easy rah rah part.

[Autumn]

35. Not even worthy of a reply.

[R B Garr]

36. Of course not.

It's a litmus test for Democrats only, not Independents from Vermont.

[Expecting Rain]

37. Sure, it is worthy of a reply.

Why not have an experiment in a very small state (population 1/6th by hometown including only those in the city limits and not the much larger metropolitan area) that vote in a guy who is the chief proponent of such a plan.

Demographically it works and politically it works. But they still can't get it done.

What's the problem?

[Autumn]

40. I posted about it , look for it in the thread or research what happened here in CO . Bye.

[R B Garr]

45. Why hasn't Bernie convinced Vermont to pay for it??

That was the perfect petri dish for it. Why subject other Democrats to such abuse for something he hasn't accomplished himself?

[Expecting Rain]

51. So that you discussed it proves the lie that such a question in't worth a reply is a lie.

No state in the Union is better poised to experiment with a single payer system than Vermont.

That Vermont can't pull it off does raise reasonable questions.

Personally, I'd love it if Vermont lead the way and the experiment was a big success. But that's not the reality.

[Autumn]

53. You want to discuss Bernie, Vermont and single payer start an OP about it.

I chose to participate about this OP on Claire, singer payer and MO. Be considerate don't hijack other peoples OPs for your pet subject.

[R B Garr]

54. Thanks for admitting that single payer is just a "pet subject". That's the point, it's

a pet subject. It is not a serious endeavor. It's just a litmus test to browbeat Democrats with, all for a pet subject. Otherwise, you would have concern for good Democrats being targeted for criticism over something that Bernie has not been able to accomplish in his own state.

Your quote:
"I chose to participate about this OP on Claire, singer payer and MO. Be considerate don't hijack other peoples OPs for your pet subject"

[Autumn]

59. You haven't discussed Claire and single payer so I can only assume that your pet subject is

Vermonet, Bernie and single payer. The key word being Bernie.

[R B Garr]

66. Not convincing. This just looks like a diversion from a pet subject featured in

Bernie's campaign being used as a club against other Democrats -- while he is not held accountable for Vermont not having single payer.

Actually, my concern is why this good elected Democrat is being targeted with a bogus "recall" effort over something Bernie's state also rejected. If this is what we have to look forward to, then dialogue about Vermont not having single payer is going to be prominent in any discussion, which is long overdue.


https://ballotpedia.org/Anthony_Rendon_recall,_California_State_Assembly_(2017)

[Autumn]

69. Wow, how awful. I had no idea. You should start an OP about that.

[R B Garr]

72. Not convincing. This is an OP about a good elected Democrat being targeted

for criticism over something that Bernie's own state didn't implement. And, yes, it is awful that Democrats are being harassed over this "pet subject". Luckily, most people see through the deception.

[Expecting Rain]

67. You criticized her for not going out an convincing the public that single payer...

is the best path when no state that tried or contemplated such a model has been successful.

While more muted than the attacks of some, people like McCaskill are vulnerable to the sort of "death by a thousand cuts" tactics evidenced all too often on DU.

When asked to support the foundations of the premise for your beef with McCaskill, you stated it wasn't worth a reply.

These sort of threads are damaging when we are already a minority in the Senate and McCaskill is in a race for survival.

Don't you see that???

[Expecting Rain]

57. And she announced support for a public option for those with only one option under the ACA.

Being "considerate" would not include coming to a forum designed for supporters of the DEMOCRATIC Party to mount attacks on vulnerable Senators who seats we can afford to lose.

If a litmus test is going to be used as the basis of an attack on a DEMOCRAT then it is entirely germane to question the premises of that attack.

[Autumn]

62. Where did I attack Claire? Link please.

[disillusioned73]

73. ...........

Last edited Mon Sep 11, 2017, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)

"Technique #3 – ‘TOPIC DILUTION’

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a ‘RESOURCE BURN.’ By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a ‘gossip mode.’ In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to ‘drive in the wedge.’"

[clu]

86. alert mod ban

[Expecting Rain]

23. She supports a public option...

for those with only one option on the exchanges.

Instead of recognizing that step forward we get DEMOCRAT bashing aimed at our most vulnerable DEMOCRATIC Senator on a forum purportedly designed to support DEMOCRATIC candidates.

[R B Garr]

33. It's truly absurd. It's obviously being used as a phony litmus test and

divisive political football. Ironically, Bernie is not targeted for this abuse over Vermont not having single payer.

[uponit7771]

58. +1

[Orsino]

74. She shuts the door on any single-payer, without asking for details?

That's kind of dumb. She could easily have stayed non-committal.

[Expecting Rain]

79. We keep waiting for the details.

When will they be forthcoming?

Sloganeering is insufficient when places like Vermont has not been able to pull it off.

[JCanete]

94. But if something like single payer came up for a fucking vote why would you be this certain ahead of

time that you would scuttle it? You are for some other good thing so you are going to actually help to kill this good thing? What the fuck?

Saying you are disappointed with a position is NOT bashing her. It is worth letting her know we are disappointed with her, or more important to her, if her own constituents are disappointed with her, for them to let her know. I see nothing at all wrong with that.

[Not Ruth]

25. So if the only 2 choices are Trumpcare or Subgle Payer?

[uponit7771]

60. Sounds like single payer for those who can't get Obamacare packages, doesn't sounds bad on the

... face of it.

Seems like a decent thought

[Wounded Bear]

29. Ummm, anything 'up for a vote' now would be a Repub plan...

Does anybody here really trust a "single payer" bill from a Repub Congress?

I don't. The buy in to Medicare/Medicaid idea is not a totally bad one, but would Repub majorities in Congress put that up for a vote? I doubt it.

If you're looking for reasons to bash McCaskill, I'm not sure this is it.

[Lee Adama]

42. The Russians must be targetting McCaskill's seat next year.

[bronxiteforever]

93. We know Rethug dark money will be flying into that race

Like your standard GOP manure factory

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/claire-mccaskill-missouri-karl-rove/

[Trust Buster]

47. Sanders is just grandstanding. The votes for single payer DO NOT EXIST !!!

Hillary is the wiser of the two. Fixing the ACA is the most realistic route to helping the American people with their healthcare. McCaskill is getting skewered for telling the people the truth.

[JCanete]

95. So Harris and Warren are also grandstanding then? nt

[KTM]

123. Say that about any other

Democratic politician or ally here. Say that about Warren, Harris, or Booker. Say that about Clinton.

The result is utterly predictable, yet your post stands.

[JCanete]

125. Obviously I disagree with you, and would love for you to present a real world scenario for getting

something done that doesn't involve actually advocating for it and putting it forward first, particularly as it pertains to a political climate such as we have today where reasonable compromise is a thing of the past. Nothing is possible until it is. Waiting for that day to come of its own volition is ensuring it never does.

Regarding single payer and other "pie in the sky" platforms, familiarity and possibility will strip away peoples reservations, and its from them that the political will comes from, and the fear that will pressure republican leadership to compromise on something, even if that something isn't single payer. I think we're moving past the ability to scare people with anti-communist rhetoric. People have gotten tired of that torch, particularly the Trump base who are now friends with Putin. The GOP can can hardly go that way.

[ck4829]

61. But why? Because our health care system is more about social control than, you know, treating people

McCaskill's not dumb. You don't become or usually remain a Senator today by seeking to subvert or destroy the dominant narrative.

http://tpalladium.freeforums.net/thread/19/intro-evidence

[Expecting Rain]

78. Because no one has shown that it is feasable and that's very unfortunate.

We don't have think-tanks with first-class economists, computer modelers, and analysis developing sound plans based on the best possible data.

Instead, the best argument we get is that other first-world economies manage it. That argument makes people take notice, but it's not good enough to carry the day without how we pull it off in the American context. And when places like Vermont fail, it deepens the skepticism.

We can't win on sloganeering alone.

[Voltaire2]

150. Feasible all over the world.

[Expecting Rain]

153. You (all) keep making my point for me.

That's not a PLAN.

Saying "other countries do it" may get people interested, but it won't carry the day absent the details of how such a system would work in the American context.

[Voltaire2]

155. You do know that the house and senate bills proposed

every session for the last dozen years or so contain a fairly detailed plan, right?

[Expecting Rain]

157. I suppose the use of the modifier "fairly" tells the tale.

The bill that's failed for the last dozen years or so doesn't cut it.

Proponents have got to do better than this if they want to convince enough people to pass this sort of measure.

Otherwise, we have symbolism without real progress.

[Voltaire2]

167. So basically you won't be satisfied that

it can work until some ever changing goalpost of feasibility is met.

[Expecting Rain]

168. No, not "ever changing goal posts." I think many (most?) Americans are increasingly open to...

either a single payer system, or a public option, or some hybrid of public-private system that makes basic healthcare universal.

But to seal support these same Americans will want more details and a vetting of the costs.

Not unreasonable expectations.

The repetition of "other countries do it" doesn't qualify as a plan.

[stevenleser]

64. As usual, some folks are making this out to be much simpler than it is.

Bills like HR 676, which I supported, have a lot more holes and problems than the "Single Payer or Bust" crowd understands or wants to admit.

First off, Medicare is not a single payer experience for most who have it. Most have supplemental private insurance and EVEN WITH that supplemental private insurance, Medicare + the Private insurance STILL HAS PLENTY OF HOLES IN COVERAGE.

It would be a disaster. 60%-70% of the country has good health care coverage through an employer that is many times better than what Medicare plus the private insurance supplemental would give them.

What is needed is a good single payer plan that addresses these holes and does it in a cost effective manner. No one has shown what that would look like. That's why thinking people like McCaskill have serious reservations and that is why single payer failed in places like Colorado and Vermont of all places.

[R B Garr]

81. AND it stalled in California. Like Jake Tapper said, those are cobalt blue states, and

it still stalled. What is obvious is this subject is being used as a bogus litmus test and anchor around Democrat's necks for very deceptive reasons now. They are not objectively pursuing single payer, or they would be attaching associated costs instead of making the bill a "values statement" like the bill in California.

Now they are trying to "recall" this Democrat.
https://ballotpedia.org/Anthony_Rendon_recall,_California_State_Assembly_(2017)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

82. Another issue is that with SP Republicans could dictate what is/isn't covered

The Hyde Amendment is still in place and would prohibit abortion coverage. A Republican-controlled government could conceivably prohibit coverage for HIV medication (because homosexuality is "sinful" and violates people's "conscience" ), transition-related coverage for Transgender persons (because being Trans is "sinful" and violates people's "conscience" ), birth control for women (because it is "sinful" and violate people's conscience ). Republicans will at least use the above things to drive a wedge to help defeat Single Payer because one person might agree with single payer in principle but think that they shouldn't have to pay for sex reassignment surgery, abortions, etc. and then the whole effort to pass it could fall apart unless everybody is on the same page. Remember that the Republican "alternatives" to ACA all drastically limit what ACA can cover, which is pretty much nothing when you get down to it. Now, think about it in terms of a national single payer system that Republicans might one day control and what they could do to damage or minimize it. Not saying that this is an argument against enacting Single Payer, just saying that things could get pretty messy pretty quick while trying to actually put a plan together in Congress and that we have to be mindful of such.

[stevenleser]

115. This is exactly why I think the best option is to go with a dual tier option like what the French

have. Everyone in France has a base coverage provided by the government. Some 80% of the French have opted to layer private insurance on top of it that provides additional care and expedited care.

In the US that private insurance could include any of the controversial services.

That's one idea. But again, my point is and I think you agree with it, is that this is a much more complicated issue than many folks here realize.

[JCanete]

111. Okay, it cannot be assumed that things like this stall because they currently just don't work,

there are other influences that could be the cause. To point to Vermont or California does not change the reality that there is a huge and wealthy industry that does not want anything like this, and can flex its muscle in a myriad of ways. We can't point to it stalling and then say "see, no point in fighting for that" without adding ourselves to the weight that it has to overcome next time.

I don't have enough understanding of that bill or healthcare to challenge your statement on whether or not it would have been a disaster, but the Senator in question was not speaking about a specific bill. The senator was speaking about a hypothetical bill. And we KNOW this can be done because other nations do it. Granted, they don't have to turn a whole economy upside down to do it, but many have a product that is better than what we get. And we're the richest nation in the world.

[stevenleser]

114. I used to work for a company that provided Medicare services. I can give you one example

and you can extrapolate from there for the many other holes that Medicare has.

You do not get coverage for a yearly checkup with Medicare or Medicare + Supplemental. At least not a checkup as you and I know it or how any medical professional would recommend it. Medicare covers something called an "Annual Wellness Visit" https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/downloads/AWV_chart_ICN905706.pdf

An annual wellness visit does not include any blood-work or labs. Basically, the only measurements taken are height, weight, BMI and blood pressure. After that its basically a questionnaire. Medically it has very little value and has very little chance of detecting a medical issue and allowing medical professionals to take early action.

Increasing coverage to include a real checkup with blood-work and labs would cost a couple of hundred extra dollars per patient. Extrapolate that out to 300+ million people, and the cost of Medicare would go up by that amount just to close this one gap in coverage in comparison to what a standard private health insurance policy would cover today and there are dozens of such gaps.

This is not a "Oh the wealthy insurance companies wants to stop this" issue. There is a real problem in creating a single player plan that would succeed in delivering the kind of care people expect at a price (taxes in this case) that people would be willing to pay. I think there is a solution but I am pretty sure that simple "Medicare for all" options are not it. Given how the GOP demagogued Obamacare to death via mostly irrational or completely false bases, you would find very quickly that "Medicare for all" would be open to all kinds of real complaints that would turn people off to it pretty quickly, assuming it even got past lawmakers looking at it and realizing it simply wouldn't fly.

I supported HR 676 before I had the experience of working in a company that delivered Medicare services to seniors. I would not support it today.

[JCanete]

118. those definitely sound like things we'd want to take into account, and I appreciate your

perspective on this, but as to the costs that would be required to offset that, we have very expensive insurance now, the difference being there are a lot of people who are not insured, and while it would be a tax increase,arguably that should be offset in not needing to pay for insurance directly and I would certainly argue that the rich can afford to put in more than they have had to. If those holes were quickly addressed as they were discovered(assuming they weren't nipped in the bud with foresight), and the solutions brought to the people..."shit, we need more money to make this thing happen to fix your problem, but the GOP are standing in the way of us taxing the top 1 percent to fix your very concrete issue that you can feel first hand..." We should probably do a lot more pointing fingers ourselves. I have a feeling that if we weren't trying to play nice with our own democrats who are too often on the fence on these issues, there would be a lot more fight in our rhetoric.

[Expecting Rain]

130. But how can a person of good-will support massive and radical changes...

in healthcare without seeing an actual bill?

Supporting "hypothetical bills" in the absence of details seems like is it pandering on a vitally important issue.

We can't move forward on the basis of "hypotheticals." Nor can we move forward by "saying Country X does it."

We've got to do better than this.

[JCanete]

135. she is hypothetically voting no for a hypothetical bill. She's already come down on it on principle

alone. It matters that other countries can do it. People saying it can't be done have to account for how it is done and why those places have better health care for cheaper than we do. Sure, we can do better than what I"m putting out there, but why is that a losing point?

[Expecting Rain]

143. A responsible Senator can't support massive changes based on hypothetical bills IMO.

Saying "other countries do it" isn't a plan.

No one has yet come up with a workable plan. Vermont failed, California passed.

We need something tangible to support, or we've just taken on a sort of "faith-based" ideology rather than relying on evidence and reason. And that's a bad road to take.

[sprinkleeninow]

138. You are correct.

We still have coverage thru an employer for the near future anyway included in the % of others you quoted.

It would be detrimental for ACA to be trashed. ACA should be tweaked, fixed, made more better.

My 25¢.

[Generic Brad]

163. She is also considering all those currently employed in the health insurance industry

If the reason for that industry ceases to exist, that creates a lot of unemployment.

[Orsino]

71. Sight unseen? She must really fear for her seat.

Of course, it's a safe enough uttterance with no bill actually up for a vote yet.

[Hekate]

83. Sounds like you are leaving out a LOT of context here, new person. Claire McCaskill is a stalwart...

...and I will not believe she has given up in accessible health care for all without a great deal more evidence. Do you have any idea what's going on in the Senate and House? With the GOP in charge it is a snakepit. All Dems must tread warily.

[bronxiteforever]

87. No shit Sherlock. GOP controls congress so meaningless vote.

[Demsrule86]

88. I have told you...now is not the time. People like the ACA even in red states...not sure that is

true for single payer.

[Doreen]

104. Well she can afford good health insurance so it

will never affect her. As long as she get hers who gives a fuck about everybody else. Sounds to me like she is claiming to be a Democrat but she might as well go to be a repuke.

[bronxiteforever]

112. sure an Elizabeth warren or Bernie sanders type could run in Missouri

But hey they would get their asses kicked by the GOP.
She is pro choice and voted against repeal of aca. I really don't think there is rethug in Missouri that would take either position.
If you want to look at a typical Missouri rethug look no farther than Roy Blunt. 45 won the state 57-38 in 16.
Last time I checked, we held aca by one vote. Turn Missouri red in the Senate in 2018 and that puts us for sure in the minority with no chance of blocking lifetime 45 judicial appointments who will be anti choice.

[workinclasszero]

113. This is hugely disappointing

to me.

[pnwmom]

116. I'm grateful that we have a Democratic Senator in a red state and I trust

that she knows HER constituents more than those of us who are out of state.


I also don't understand what is wrong with the idea of having a push for the much-more-doable PUBLIC OPTION as a part of the ACA, which would work be working well everywhere if the Rethugs would stop trying to wreck it.

[KTM]

129. Just to be clear

If she had come out and said she was personally pro-life but would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care, because that was what her constituents thought, would you still support her ?

What if she had come out as being against "common-sense" gun-control legislation, like background checks or limits on ownership of certain kinds of weapons ?

Are you making the argument that it is OK for there to be some grey area in our platform planks to win Democratic seats in moderate areas ?

[pnwmom]

136. Yes, I am. I don't have a problem with politicians who are pro-life personally, like Joe Biden,

as long as they are ALSO pro-choice -- i.e., they think it should be a personal decision of the woman, not the government.

I think our platform should be strong but it's self-defeating to require that all of our legislators, even those in red states, adhere to every single plank in it (other than those bearing on equality and civil rights). When we had control of the House for decades, and when we've had control of the Senate, we did it with the help of some legislators who people here denigrated as DINO's. Give me a DINO any day, a DINO who can help us control the Congress, over a Rethug from a swing or red state.

[KTM]

142. Thank you

I agree in many ways.

[BannonsLiver]

127. She's in a tough re-election race and single payer is deeply unpopular in Mo.

Nothing to see here.

[matt819]

154. You know, we just play into the Rs hands

There are more delicate ways to phrase that without handing the Republicans (and Russians) more ways to widen the wedge among Democrats.

[WoonTars]

162. Oh, she's disappointed me plenty before now, but she's at risk of standing by herself pretty soon..

...judging by the number of well known Dem senators that ARE jumping on board that train...