General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPelosi declines to endorse Single Payer bill
Nancy Pelosi said she will not endorse Bernie Sanders' single payer bill:
"Right now, I’m protecting the Affordable Care Act," Pelosi told a small group of reporters at a meeting Tuesday in her Capitol Hill office. "None of these other things, whether it’s Bernie’s [bill], can really prevail unless we have the Affordable Care Act protected."
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-pelosi-declines-to-endorse-bernie-1505230000-htmlstory.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)“Sanders, the Vermont independent, is drawing support from top Democrats, including with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and others often mentioned as possible presidential contenders.
Pelosi, though, downplayed the bill as a gauge to measure progressive bona fides.
"I don’t think it’s a litmus test," Pelosi said. "To support the idea that it captures is that we want to have everybody, as many people as possible, covered.
And I think that’s something that we all embrace."
Pelosi defended her position at a time when some progressives are taking aim at her leadership, noting that she has backed a single-payer system since before she entered Congress.
(but does not now support it?)
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I know some health policy analysts, who work for a self-funded, non-partisan health care policy think tank.
They say that they would love it to be possible, but there are few countries that have single payer (most are multi-payer), and a gradual expansion of the ACA is the best possible hope for universal health care coverage.
It's good to know that there are some representatives who will vote for what is possible than what is politically expedient.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Most countries have single payer, with private pay add-on options.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Single payer is a specific term. And I'm sure that Sanders switched to talking about "universal health coverage" and "medicare for all" instead after Single Payer failed in Vermont, because that doesn't reflect well on Single Payer's chances.
Most countries with universal health care coverage did not start by retrofitting a huge health care delivery system like ours. Even Canada didn't go federal with health care until all the provinces had established their own single payer separately, which took nearly 20 years, then a very liberal federal government was voted in and they had the much, much lesser task of switching those local payers to a federal payers.
Taiwan had no system whatsoever, public or privat to pay for health care coverage to switch over, they have a fraction of the population we do, and they are all crowded into one small area, making delivery of health care centralized and much easier and cheaper.
In Australia, 80% of the population is in urban areas, making delivery of health care centralized and cheaper - however those in the rural areas, whose residents mostly indigenous people have very poor access to health care. The US has 62% of it's population in urban areas.
Holland, Germany and Switzerland all have mandatory insurance systems from private sector insurance companies. Germany has some 130 of them for example.
This is not what is being proposed in the US. It is being proposed to be managed at the federal level. Notwithstanding current problems with delivery in Medicare (which HAVE to be addressed before anyone will tolerate it being the way most Americans recieve health care) most Americans are covered, and while it is expensive, they have expectations that people didn't have in the 1940's Europe (they were just happy to afford to see any physician, and would not have demanded that they keep their current physician, if they had one), medicine didn't have the expenses it does today - no MRI machines, no NICUs, etc. Americans think of government offices like DMVs - and the local office where I lived in London did indeed look more like a DMV than a waiting room of my physician now.
You have to address the issue that most Americans would have less service than they have now with private coverage, and the freakout when workplaces either changed their insurance, or told them to go on the exchanges the fury was directed at Obama, who said, "you can keep your insurance" was very real. And it fed into the "GET GOVERMENT OUT OF MY DOCTOR'S OFFICE" sentiment supporting the dismantling of the ACA that we see now.
Things are very, very different in the US than they were in countries that did it in other eras, and other situations.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The VA already offers a version of socialized medicine. The problems with the VA are directly related to GOP defunding.
So the solution already exists, if there is the political will to do what must be done.
With Medicare for all, private insurance would simply not exist for most people and doctors would not have the option of refusing to treat patients. Except possibly for high profile celebrity doctors.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Anyone who tells you that's all it takes doesn't know what they are talking about.
Your framing doesn't know what the reality of the health care delivery system is. The GOP learned that the hard way when suddenly they had to come up with something to "replace" the ACA.
The VA is a system designed for a population that comes to it, not it to them, and serves a limited number of people, with a limited number of health issues.
No, a solution does not already exist, and no there is no the political will to do what is incredibly complicated and won't have a quick positive outcome for them prior to 2018, and ignoring people who know more than you do doesn't make them wrong.
I think that you are also confusing socialized medicine with single payer, which explains why many other things are not clear to you.
Socialized medicine is where the government delivers the actual medical care, such as on MASH. Single Payer is a description of how medical care is paid for, not delivered..... in Medicare, private physicians deliver care, and they are paid via a federal system. This system is set up for a limited % of the population, and any expansion would need to be very gradual, over decades. Which is why the current proposal to let people buy in at 55, for a higher premium than the current participants do, let the sytem adjust, then re-evaluate what needs to happen at that time, taking into account newer medical treatments, where population centers are, etc.
Simply dismissing anyone who presents the very real obstacles that the bill doesn't address as "corporate shills" or "corporate stooges" will not change reality.
Too many progressives and others fail to distinguish between “universal coverage” and “single-payer.” The terms are used interchangeably in private conversations and in the national arena.
As we consider the most effective strategy for achieving universal coverage, progressives should keep two admonitions in mind. First, we must not conflate our foremost health care goal (universal coverage) with competing pathways toward achieving that goal. Second, recognizing that our differences are about strategy and not final goals, the dialogue should be undertaken with mutual respect.
...........................................................................................
America’s unique history and politics make the successful promotion of a single-payer system an unlikely pathway to universal health coverage. There are three reasons. The first involves the inevitable strong and well-funded opposition of special-interest groups.
Since the 1930s, associations representing the pharmaceutical, insurance, hospital, physician, and medical-device industries have consistently and vehemently opposed attempts to reform health care through any approach perceived as leading to single-payer. Their only defeat on this front occurred in 1965, after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination and the Barry Goldwater electoral fiasco, when Medicare and Medicaid were enacted at a time of huge Democratic majorities (68-32 in the Senate, 295-140 in the House). Such Democratic dominance of national politics seems unlikely in the foreseeable future.
The second political impediment is the potential backlash to the cost of single-payer, and how it will be financed. Although a single-payer system would almost certainly be more efficient than the continuation of a multi-payer system, such a system would require a tax increase of a scale likely to cause the public to balk — especially when anti-tax groups mobilize.
The size of the necessary taxes cannot yet be determined, since it would depend on the precise design of the new system (such as the benefits covered and the portion of those benefits paid through consumers’ premiums, deductibles, and copayments). But the failed attempt to establish a single-payer system in Vermont, perhaps the most progressive state in the union, gives a sense of the challenges ahead.
............................................................................................
Incrementalism should not be considered a four-letter word. It produced numerous expansions and improvements in Medicaid, which now covers more than 70 million people. It led to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which resulted in historically low uninsured rates among children. It added much-needed prescription drug coverage for seniors and people with disabilities in Medicare. It added home and community-based care as an alternative to nursing homes. And it helped people with preexisting conditions combat insurance company discrimination.
As we consider the next incremental steps to promote, we should focus on expanding health coverage to the nearly 30 million who remain uninsured, and we should strive to lower health costs while improving quality of care. The following goals meet those criteria.
Expanding Medicaid in 19 states: Now that Republicans have at least temporarily lost their fight to repeal the ACA, and since extraordinarily generous federal subsidies remain to expand Medicaid, progressive advocates should renew their efforts to secure added coverage for low-income adults in the 19 states that have not yet approved the expansion. Of the 31 states that already expanded Medicaid, 18 are currently led by Republican governors. Since refusing federal money is unlikely to lead to ACA repeal at the national level, we should now expect other state Republican leaders to be more amenable to expansion, too. Activists and voters should push them in that direction.
Providing coverage for immigrants: Because of the ongoing national controversy about immigration, it is unlikely that federal legislation will extend health coverage to immigrants. But there are opportunities to do so at the state level. California, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington already use state funds to cover undocumented children through Medicaid. In California, approximately 200,000 children have gained coverage through this expansion, and many more are eligible. Now the state is debating extending such coverage to undocumented adults. Progressives elsewhere should push their representatives to make similar efforts.
Fixing the so-called “family glitch”: People with access to affordable employer-sponsored health insurance are ineligible to receive ACA premium assistance in the individual marketplace. Unfortunately, due to an ACA drafting error, “affordability” is gauged by examining what it would cost the worker to cover him or herself at work — not the coverage costs for the worker’s family. As a result, many families who ought to be eligible for subsidies are not getting them. This is an acknowledged, unintended mistake, and activists should work to have it fixed. This would help millions.
Extending CHIP: Under current law, funding for this popular and effective program, which provides health insurance for low-income children, is only authorized through September 2017. The program was adopted on a bipartisan basis and is very popular among Republican as well as Democratic governors. Progressives should push hard to secure a funding extension as soon as possible.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/9/8/16271888/health-care-single-payer-aca-democratic-agenda
oppressedproletarian
(243 posts)I think yours is a very realistic assessment. For what it is worth I am on Medicare myself and am very happy with it, but not so sure how well it would work if expanded for all. Simple slogans do not necessarily translate to simple solutions.
clu
(494 posts)stockholders and CEOs, and incorporate them into medicare.
edit - my dad is very happy with medicare also. gee what do we do about healthcare 
what ever we do, lets make it politically expedient - we can't lose an election due to a populist message
peggysue2
(10,839 posts)is smart enough to know that Sanders' bill is going nowhere, is merely being used as a litmus test for our sitting members of Congress. The Dems are not in power and have no reasonable way to effect anything like single-payer. Even though it's the best remedy out there.
What Pelosi and the other Dems can do at this point is protect the coverage that people do have and rely on, so we aren't faced with millions losing healthcare altogether or patients with preexisting conditions being dumped into prohibitively high-cost risk pools. Because then, we're talking life and death. Symbolism doesn't mean much in extreme situations.
The way to correct this is winning the next two elections. Until then, we protect what we can. Pelosi is absolutely correct.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Democrats more able to "protect the ACA" than pass a bill to create a single payer health care system? I'm not seeing how either one precludes the other.
peggysue2
(10,839 posts)But they managed on the first round (with a lot of help from witless Republicans) and have a far better chance of protecting the coverage that is than passing a healthcare bill that isn't.
We win the next two elections, resume power then the story changes. Until then, this is Pie-in-the-Sky. I have no problem with strategizing how we get there because though passing single-payer is the only direction that makes sense, it will not be easy. Anyone who thinks passage is going to be a hallelujah moment is kidding themselves. We're talking nearly 20% of the US economy with a whole lot of vested interests who will fight like hell.
I think the wheel is turning but it's not there yet. And there's simply no way of getting it done until we're the majority.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)since every elected official is getting earfuls on a daily basis when it looks like they are taking votes that will harm little kids and sick old people in their own districts. Protecting what we have now is of vital importance, single payer sounds nice, but we don't know what is in the bill. What we do know is that people who are seeking to kill the ACA will never be moved to support SP and without GOP cooperation, it won't even get to the floor. Meanwhile, we can force GOP cooperation through other means, and if they choose not to, then we've got 2018 when all those angry people who are yelling at them in town halls etc. will put us in a position to have enough Democrats voted in. It's an election where everyone is up for reelection.
This purity test crap and the fake Dems seeking to focus time, energy and money on attacking Democrats in office will endanger that. If the goal is universal coverage and a Congress where Single payer is even possible, there is no time for this vanity exercise that's calculated to harm Dems.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Tammy Baldwin, Richard Blumenthal, Corey Booker, Al Franken, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Mazie Hirono, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Elizabeth Warrnen are all involved in a purity test that is recklessly destroying the Democratic party because of their vanity? I don't see how working on this bill means not protecting the ACA.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)The issue is that Democrats support Single Payer, it's a lie to say that this is some brand new thing that just occurred to someone last year.
It's a purity test and if I was saying any of the things you've decided to put in my mouth, I have the ability to type them out. The fact that I did not might give one a clue as to my intent.
It's a vanity bill pure and simple, everyone involved knows that it has no chance at all of going anywhere, that might be why its contents are not available anywhere for anyone to see and the only page that references it is one that is soliciting campaign donations. I'm saying that this is a distraction and does nothing to provide care or protect it for anyone.
That's the difference between what I'm saying and what I'm not, the first clue is that the words I use are not arranged in odd ways that have nothing to do with my point, which has been missed it seems.
peggysue2
(10,839 posts)
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)saying the bill is a purity test. I hope I haven't misunderstood that part. In this post you are referring to the bill as a useless distraction, but in the earlier post you were more pointed and said this is a vanity bill that is calculated to harm Democrats. My inference from that is anyone who is co-sponsoring or supporting this bill is acting in a way that will harm Democrats and their motivation for that behavior is to stroke their vanity. That is why I compiled a list of Democrats who are co-sponsoring or supporting the bill asking if your vitriol was aimed at them. Other than to infer that your anger at the bill extends to the co-sponsors and supporters of the bill I haven't added or subtracted from what you have written.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)It's a vanity bill, which is a useless distraction, not sure why that's confusing.
That's quite an inference there. It's about political game playing, it has not chance, but people will be attacked for not supporting it and it will be used by the GOP to defend themselves from anyone saying that their votes against ACA harmed their constituents.
It's not about getting anything done, it is thus merely a vanity thing, and it's not going to produce anything to help Americans. My "vitriol"? The only vitriol is what's being aimed my way for daring to point out the blatantly obvious by someone who sought fit to "infer" things in as malicious a way as possible, to impugn particular people. At least no attempt was made to deny that's exactly what the intent was, so congrats for that bit of honesty.
I have no anger, so once again an inference based on projection and not actual understanding, the anger here is from the one with all the vitriol who seems have some issues with accepting the reality of what this bill is and what its point is.
When one makes up stuff out of malice and accuses others of vitriol that's "inferred" from one's malicious thought process, one cannot honestly that they have not added anything. When what's added is not what's written, such a claim can only be inferred to arise from a truly malignant anger, no other reason for such vitriol. I wonder where that anger comes from, and why it can only be dealt with by projecting it on someone who blandly pointed out what everyone already knows? Perhaps some time away from all these silly and ineffective "inferences" is in order, if only to learn how to do so with some degree of accuracy and with a lot less emotion that can only be managed by using defensive mechanisms poorly.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)makes you think I am confused at your statement that this is a vanity bill? If you are suggesting I am confused because I don't view this as a vanity bill I would call that a difference of opinion and still reject the conclusion that I am confused. I find that calling it a vanity bill and a distraction is an expression of vitriol if you find differently again it could be called a difference of opinion, but it seems to fit the definition as I know it.
The question you keep avoiding is are the Democratic Senators who are co-sponsoring or supporting this bill damaging the Democratic party? If you think they are do you think they are doing it from vanity?
If you can point out where I have written with malice I would be curious if only to try to understand where you are coming from.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)that convinced me of the confusion and the ill intent.
It doesn't matter how you choose to view this vanity bill, it is what it is.
I'm sorry that correctly labeling it what it clearly and obviously is upsetting. It's a political game and nothing more.
None of these Senators think this bill is going anywhere, including Sanders. He had intended it to be a purity test to hold over people. All the people his revolution had attacked have signed on, so what's the move now? I think that it was very much vanity, and that the move will backfire.
Well accusing someone of "vitriol" when the words and the "inferences" were not of their creation, that's somewhat malicious. It wasn't necessary and it's clear intent was not a pleasant one.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)something a vanity bill doesn't make it a fact. You have completely failed to make a case for me being malicious you just like to declare things and then unilaterally conclude that you are correct. I don't value your opinion over those of Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and Al Franken to name a few of the Democratic Senators you are accusing of damaging the Democratic party with a useless distraction to stroke their vanity.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)I'm sorry but the malice is self evident in the hostile tone of the posts. Denying what's patently obvious seems to be a habit.
I don't really care what you value, since my opinions don't seem to be actually understood, since they're replaced with "inferences" which are actually strawmen. It's cool when one can just ignore what's being said, make up things, and abuse someone, that's what we call malice.
I've made no such accusations and it's downright dishonest to pretend I did. I'm sorry you don't agree with the script you've created from an inability to understand words, the need to be as malicious and rude as posssible seems to have overtaken honest reading comprehension.
It's cute how you just like to pretend that what you said I said matters more than the words I typed. Wel, no not actually, in fact that's what that malice thing is about. My statement was fact, the "accusations" you've attributed to me are of your own creation. I'm not sure what's behind this malicious need to lie outright about what I actually said, or why you think "inferences" are not you "declaring things then unilaterally concluding" something, but denying that this malicious action and the attacks based on that are something other than what they are doesn't work.
Vanity and dishonesty seem to be playing a large part in this argument you've picked and had with yourself. Too bad it was a failed one. Thank you for demonstrating my point about the level of malice and dishonesty at play here.
The bill is pointless, and the people who signed on were well aware of that.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)you presented the opinion that Senator Sanders "Medicare For All" bill is a vanity bill, a distraction, and damaging to the Democratic party. There is no objective metric for calling any bill a vanity bill it is an opinion and labeling it so is malicious. At this time you can only speculate the amount of distraction or damage that may occur so it is your opinion those things will come to pass. Again they are malicious accusations to make about a Senator and you have at this point explicitly made those accusations about the 17 Senators who are signing on to this bill in the last sentence of your post #79. I happen to think highly of many of the Senators who have signed on and I support their action in this matter. On that we obviously have a broad disagreement.
You are really holding on to the word inference. It is amusing as I actually pointed out where I had inferred and what I based it on. All I accused you of is saying that the Senators who are signing on to this bill are damaging the Democratic party, the bill is a distraction, and they are doing it to stroke their vanity. If you aren't saying that what am I getting wrong. My tone is no more hostile than yours and if you can point to a straw man I have created in this thread please proceed.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)and defensive about not understanding what a vanity bill is, there would be more of an ability to understand what facts are.
This is a vanity bill, the people cheering this on were pretty clear about it being a purity test, and these actions were to damage the party. The Democrats you pretend I've attacked (dishonestly, I must add) defanged that threat.
I'm sorry that the dedication to malice and dishonesty overshadows any understanding of reality.
I don't care who you think highly of, it has no bearing on this political stunt or the motives of those who were pushing it. The 17 Democrats who jointed this bill to nowhere effectively ended the game the Revolution folks were trying to play. It has no logic, is poorly crafted and not well thought out, so it gave ammunition to the GOP, it was meant to be wielding against Democrats which is all the so-called Revolution ever attacks.
Inferences and accusations based on things you wish were said as opposed to what was written are poor covers for bad argument, and worse reading comprehension. They're excellent tools for malicious folks who cannot defend an argument and in their anger at their failure to do so must lash out.
My tone is a response to dishonest, malicious attacks by someone who was lying outright about things I never said. The tone devil is in the details and the screen name alone is a dead giveaway as to the intent here.
The strawman is the stuff you claimed I said, which I did not. I've made that clear, but since nothing I've written seems to be read since you prefer whatever you've decided to make up on your own without reference to my post, I can see why you keep missing that, despite my repeatedly pointing it out.
Sorry the vanity bill fails and the damage that was intended by people who can't propose anything that's well thought out, who are not capable of crunching numbers themselves was neutered by Democrats who saw the game and won it.
False accusations, blatant dishonesty and a malicious need to create hostility seems to be how people still fighting the primary are planning to go on. This is tiresome.
The vanity bill is what it is, no amount of denial, lies or attacks will change that.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)and I have mine that is all this boils down to. You say in every way possible that I am lying and creating straw men, but you don't actually have any thing specific you can quote that shows that. Too bad you don't like where the Democratic party has gone on this. I am happy to see the Democratic wing of the Democratic party coming to life.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)This is no different than arguing with someone in the tea party about climate change being about "opinion."
There are people who know far more about this than politicians who are trying to cover their ass and not be the target of disapproval of someone who is not even a Democrat, and refuses to even discuss lessons learned from it's failure in his own home state...
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/9/8/16271888/health-care-single-payer-aca-democratic-agenda
https://www.thenation.com/article/medicare-for-all-isnt-the-solution-for-universal-health-care/
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)that is not just opinion? You can rest easy knowing that I am well aware my opinion does not make it(whatever the it is you are referring to) a fact. Of course that means I am also aware that your opinion or the opinion of Ninsianna is not necessarily fact either. It is too bad that about 40% of the Senate Democrats have acted against your wishes, but as someone who is pretty far left I will say you get used to the Senate and Congressional Democrats disappointing you. As you reflect philosophically on why Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, and Corey Booker are Senators and you are commenting on a political blog it is good to remember the Democratic party is still the better choice.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)who has trashed Democrats for decades, and who seems to think that he invented single payer legislation, and any discussion of Universal health care in the US, let alone in the party.
When you say that Democrats are "acting against my wishes" you are attacking a straw man. I'm relaying the opinions of the experts, who know more than you, me or the "40% of Democrats" you claim are supporting. You reduce the information that I have provided to "my wishes" and therefore no more valid than your opinion. In other words, "It's all just opinion, so facts aren't really relevant." And more than 40% of politicians were on board with keeping segregation in the 50's to keep their jobs, so that's not really a reliable measure of whether a policy is based in fact or data, no matter what party they are.
Your argument is really no different than the climate change deniers that reduce the reports of actual experts - especially that refutes their confirmation bias - to "opinions," or wishes. It's really sad to see that so rampant on the left now.
As someone who is really far left, I will say that you will get used to non-partisan experts who aren't politicians trying to cover their asses for re-election not agreeing with your opinion.
Hopefully you will learn this faster than the climate change deniers.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)you don't care for Senator Sanders. If I am misstating the theme of your first paragraph there let me know, but it seems pretty obvious. When I say the Democrats are acting against your wishes I mean you have made your dislike of Senator Sanders bill known and yet about 40% of the Senate Democrats are endorsing it. The appeal to authority is really weak you can rely on the opinions of "experts" all you want, but they don't have any say on the Senate floor.
Comparing me to a climate change denier is not very effective as you are spewing opinion and wanting your opinion to be recognized as fact. Finally you can take your condescending "Hopefully you will learn this faster than the climate change deniers" remark and take a long walk.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)you are protective of Sanders.
The appeal to authority fallacy is when one appeals to a false authority. I have not done that.
I am comparing your rejection of experts in defense of Sanders or some political dogma that Single Payer is the only way to universal health care to climate change deniers, yes.
I would suggest that you take a long walk yourself.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)and you are wrong. The appeal to authority fallacy makes no mention of the authority being false. If you say Fred is an expert and if Fred says something it must be true that is an appeal to authority. Fred may be the leading authority, but he can still be wrong even in his area of authority.
I am not wedded to any political dogma including one indicating Single Payer is the only way to universal health care. I do think it is a way, but there are certainly others. If you look over the thread my argument is with those saying Democrats who are introducing or supporting Senator Sanders' bill are damaging the Democratic party and doing so out of vanity.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And yes, it's an appeal to a false authority. Otherwise, it's considered a citation....
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, appeal to false authority, appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority, ipse dixit)
Description: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
So, why don't you tell me what is false oe irrelevant about the authority I cited.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)as a modifier previously and in a way that makes it so one can say my authority is not false so my appeal to them is acceptable. My way of looking at the fallacy is more like this:
Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called the appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct
From here: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority In this case I am not trying to say that source is the "authority" just as a way to indicate I'm not pulling my definition out of thin air.
To try to be really clear, I am not asserting anything other than I support Senator Sanders' bill and I am very happy to see a significant group of Democratic Senators signing on. I am somewhat astounded to see several people on this Democratic web site willing, maybe even happy, to throw 17 Democratic Senators under the bus.
clu
(494 posts)thanks for speaking out and sharing
thanks for sharing
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Yes, when I state that it was an untruth that I said what I was accused of saying, that should have been clear, no inferences necessary, when one makes up words, pretends that someone else has said them and proceeds to rail against them, that's what a strawman argument is.
Well, all I have are the words that appear in your posts that do not appear in mine, and every single post that talks about "inferences" made that don't match words in mine. Sorry if the concept of you saying stuff and pretending I did, doesn't compute.
Too bad you don't understand what's going on here, even after it's been explained, I'm happy that the DEMOCRATS have seen what the non-Dems are up to and have taken measures to neuter the non-Democrats from their sad little plot to attack and undermine Democrats.
Keep up the 'inferences" and missing what's actually going on, it seems all those donut rants and strawman construction has confused those who have a bit of trouble thinking things through.
Vanity law, going nowhere, and now blunted as a way to attack Democrats. Yah Democrats, you really are bringing the Democratic wing (which is all members of the party) to life, fighting the people who stand on the outside and fight progressives and Democrats.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)did I infer that was not what you meant? If you have a specific instance that would be great so far you just lament that I made inferences. As I read over the thread the single inference that I made was that you think the Democrats in the Senate who are sponsoring or supporting the Medicare For All bill are damaging the Democratic Party which you have pretty well stated at this point. If you have another example of me inferring please put it up.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)I'm not going to mine through your fiction to explain to you what you made up, I'm pretty sure you're well aware of what that is.
Which I didn't state. So there you go, you built up on that inference and went off from there with all the strawmen.
Apparently calling a vanity bill with zero chance of passing a vanity bill was upsetting. From there there was a whole of ranting on the term.
The bill was an attempt at a purity test, which is what I said, and which is what you keep not getting, since my words don't matter to you when your inferences and strawmen appeal to you more. It's pretty well stated that you have not actually understood what I said, because of some veil that seems to drop when the term "vanity bill" is applied to a vanity bill.
This is getting quite boring, honest conversation and debate is welcomed, but that doesn't seem to be the goal here.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)you can't point out any incidence of me inferring anything about what you said beyond what I already indicated. How am I not getting that you say the bill is a purity test? You said it I have acknowledged it, is your beef that I'm not willing to agree with you?
I'm holding out that this from you "The bill is pointless, and the people who signed on were well aware of that." plus this also from you "This is a vanity bill, the people cheering this on were pretty clear about it being a purity test, and these actions were to damage the party." is equivalent to this that I wrote " the Democrats in the Senate who are sponsoring or supporting the Medicare For All bill are damaging the Democratic Party".
You have expressed clearly you are not in favor of this bill and that you think it is damaging to the Democratic party. That's what I have inferred if you could show differently I believe you would have by now. If you really like honest conversation and debate you should practice it yourself.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)I've explained numerous times, and you keep doubling down after I pointed out that you attributed things to me that I did not say.
I don't care about what you agree about, I'm just asking that you stop stating I said things I did not. The malice is clear.
You are incorrect, agree or don't. No need to lie about what was said to buttress a failed argument that vanity bills are something substantial.
I have expressed clearly that it's a bill that's going no where, you've decided that I'm against this bill and that I've said things I have not to justify the malice and anger you're directing at me.
You are simply wrong, your agreement is not required. I have not seen this bill, I know it's going nowhere as does anyone with a functional understanding of reality.
I've explained why this bill was being pushed, what the people who were cheering for it intended (didn't mention Democrats or sponsors since the cheer leaders are neither).
Inferring thing accurately is not a skill you have demonstrated you possess, so it behooves you to stop insisting that you somehow speak for me, you don't. You're really bad at putting words in my mouth, and even when you do, you can't seem to win an argument. This seems to have upset you, so you keep attacking me.
Your inferences are the work of a fervid imagination that rejects reality, is based on poor reading comprehension and a need to engage in ad hominems against someone who disagrees with your fanciful redefinition of words you misread and didn't understand.
I do really like honest conversation and I abhor liars, when someone is lying about me outright and repeatedly I'll call it out, as I'm doing here. Despite the evident malice, the false accusations and the vitriol from a very angry person who can't seem to read what's written, I've tried to remain polite, despite repeated attacks.
When you are caught lying, and admit it's your "inferences" that you're basing your attacks on, figure out that you're admitting the fault is with you, and stop bashing those who tell you that your fantasies of what you wish I had said are simply not reality.
Perhaps you could stop with the abuse and the dishonesty and replying back to me, because I truly don't enjoy any of the nastiness being dished out after someone loses a debate and can demonstrate no ability to figure out what's even being said.
Kindly take the lies, the attacks, the dishonesty and the sheer hostility and direct it elsewhere.
If you can't deal with being wrong and can't deal with being called out for obvious lies and deliberate misunderstandings, that's not my problem.
You have a blessed day and I hope you find someone willing to humor the devlish tone, and the factless attacks, because I have desire to engage any longer with dishonest trolling with zero substance or grasp of simple words.
Oh and it's a vanity bill, it's going nowhere because it's poorly thought out, badly written and political tactic is a silly one that has already backfired. These are simple facts. Embrace them or not, they won't change if you choose to disagree.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)yet you provide no quote of mine that is a lie. You accuse me of hostility and yet all you can do is say it is my tone. The final sentence where you say these are simple facts those are not facts they are your opinion or speculation into an unknown future and you would do well to learn the difference.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)and I"m not required to explain to you repeatedly how and why your lies are lies.
I'm sorry that you were wrong and that you could not understand what was typed and decided to make up things on your own and that you're upset that I objected to what you did.
These are simple facts. When you "infer" nonsense and type out fiction, attribute it to someone and then attack them for your words, that's dishonest.
So the fact is, you were lying, your inferences were your own false beliefs, your opinions are not mine, your misreading has nothing to do what I said, your speculation on what you wish I had said or what you believe I believe are just a lot hogwash.
I would suggest you figure out what words mean and the difference between what you've decided they mean, and the difference between what someone else wrote and believes and what you claim they do. When you repeated fail at this and make false accusations, I'd also suggest that you not follow through with trollish vitriol, and repeated personal attacks that double and triple down on both the dishonesty and the anger.
This how you might avoid being correctly accused of dishonesty: do not lie.
I'm sorry that your facts are wrong, but taking it out on me just makes your dishonest thread just more ridiculous.
You have a nice day, sorry if the referring to the vanity bill as what it was upset you. Reality is hard, but lying about it to pick fights you keep losing won't change it.
Try to get all that hositility and malicious vitriol under control, all the lying in the world won't do much to change facts you don't like or win arguments you lost.
Bye now, try very very very hard to accept that trolling like this really underscores the desperation of someone who can't argue facts, and that it's doing you no good. Resist the urge to reply and prove to me once again why facts and honesty are beyond those whose hostile animosity drives their malice.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)to understand if you accuse someone of lying you should be able to point out their lie. At no point have you posted so much as one fact. Some day you may mature enough to distinguish between fact and opinion. That day is not today, but you keep trying little fella.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Sadly neither seem to be part of the repertoire here, merely lying, hostility, malice and an inability to understand facts, words or when one has lost an argument badly.
Someday you might learn how to engage like a mature person but that was not today.
The malice and hostility and the vitriol you keep seeing, it's coming form you "little fella", even if you lack the honesty to admit it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Just lots of promises, like Jill Stein made, knowing she'd never have to actually make it a reality, but got the cred for being so much more "progressive" than actual politicians who got further than the town council.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)coming from with some people. It's almost like they forgot they were dealing with a politician.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Even though he has shown no interest in learning from actual experiments with it...
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)It's sad that no one with any real intent of enacting a Single Payer plan will be allowed to put forth a bill to do so, just slogans and bowing to the totally irony free cult of identity.
Our healthcare system does need an overhaul, we do need to figure out how to get to universal coverage and that huge article in Time not long ago, showed us what we actually need to fix, the cost of care. Sad that people are busy being Don Quixote and tilting at windmills and failing to tackle the actual problems.
We need to get past this cult of identity, and do the work, but these people will do everything they can to snatch victory away in any way they can. We have the GOP on this, you'd think that they'd give a crap about actual people suffering right now, including some of our own members on DU, but nah. Screw 'em, we've got slogans and vanity bills and Democrats to attack!1!1
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It would be as awful as if the right was finally convinced that Planned Parenthood was actually NOT the cause of abortions, but the opposite.
The anger at anyone who dissented from that Dogma would dissolve into depression at the destruction of their unifying, simplistic solution that didn't have any drawbacks, so long as no one pointed out the real world ramifications.
And apparently it's just as likely.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)They make a mint from keeping those ignorant bubbles alive with the anti-choice movement, the anti-Dem movement has been monetized too.
Someone earnestly mentioned on twitter that the people like Nomiki Konst are not employed by the TYT and their GOP funders, but from people like himself who send them money so they can "hire investigative journalists". Um okay.
So much anger, much of it unhinged, and the people inciting it seem to have no clue how to harness it for any good, it's all about destruction and chaos. I wonder who that benefits? Hm....
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It's a feeding frenzy if someone dares to bring some actual data into the discussion.
I'm glad Nancy Pelosi is out there making sense.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)co-sponsoring or supporting the bill" is proof that this *is* a purity test. 
It looks you've manufactured an anger issue, too. Those aren't angry posts.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)It's sad that such an obvious purity test backfired, isn't it? All the people a certain revolution was targeting, attacking and planning on abusing further signed on. Pelosi is in the House, so it really has nothing to do with her, but every one of those Senators were to be targets. It's going nowhere, so it's utterly meaningless.
Ah well, this failure of the revolution strategy (if we're being generous) might help keep them from screwing up 2018 with their anti-Democratic attacks, so yay! Great bill no one has read, and let's applaud each Senator who signed on!
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)the Democrats who are declaring themselves on board with this are indulging in a purity test? Why do you insult such a significant portion of the Democratic caucus in the Senate?
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)Gonna find out who's naughty or nice. It's a purity test.
It's obvious what that means. Those who don't acknowledge Sanders will be targeted.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I will be targeting individuals who do not support Senator Sanders bill? Have you evidence for this?
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)Your words.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)with Sanders is evidence of corruption. We saw this when Sanders put a symbolic amendment on a bill, and Dems that dared not to vote for it were trashed on social media as whores for big pharma - no matter what their critique on the amendment's actual implication...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/other-98/viral-image-about-democratic-senators-and-big-phar/
So, yeah, there's some precedent, and I'm sure that's behind at least some of the "well, yes, I'm all for Senator Sanders' bill" especially seeing as how it has a snowballs chance in hell of passing. Much like the GOP reps that were all about voting dozens of times for a futile, pointless "repeal and replace" that they thought they would never have to actually implement.
Looks like Nancy Pelosi isn't someone with POTUS aspirations, so she can speak her mind about the actual topic...
And your reaction to those in the non-partisan health policy field that conduct polling and analysis that doesn't support the Single Payer or Bust dogma you defend so strongly indicates that you are basing your opinions on emotion and tribal thinking, rather than in an actual curiosity about what the consequence would be in the real world, outside the echo chamber of political dogma of said policy.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)it is in fact a lie that I said anything like I was making a list of Democrats who didn't acknowledge Senator Sanders. Your assessment of how I form my opinions and the condescending characterization of my basis for said opinions is pure slander and it is tiring.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)When did I say you were "making a list of Democrats?"
Perhaps your complaint of people writing words that don't please you being tiring is at the root?
I find someone who gets defensive and emotional when someone holds a mirror up to them as pure slander and it is tiring, in and of itself.
Perhaps you should get some sleep, if what has been said here doesn't make you too uncomfortable to sleep.
But people needing sleep is just an opinion I have, so there's that.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)were picking up the spot in the thread where R B Garr was was making a list and insisted that was my words. Now I see you jumped in where R B Garr said "No, I'm saying you are making a list, checking it twice. Gonna find out who's naughty or nice. It's a purity test." When you jumped in you went with the not necessarily you routine where somehow I am responsible for what someone else said. Why wouldn't I be able to sleep are you under the impression I am living and dying on your words? Have no fear you are of minimal importance to me I will get along IRL, but thanks for your concern.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And for someone who is "of minimal importance to you" you certainly feel a need to furiously type a response, no matter if it does or doesn't make sense.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)viewed on my phone and not a PC helped me make a serious hash out of the conversation. We are all typing furiously and none of us is of any particular importance to the other if the only connection is on this board.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)brush
(53,841 posts)with Sanders' purity test that some progressives are demanding.
They and Sanders know the bill has no chance.
Of course all Dems are for single-payer but repugs aren't and they control everything for now so until
we regain power it's a keep-busy-keep-my-name-in-the-news exercise.
I wish all Democrats were for single payer, but I don't think that is an accurate statement.
If they are then all sitting Democrats, might be asking for too much, but if a vast majority would get behind this bill, it would position them well for the 2018 mid term elections as standing for something very popular with the electorate.
I fail to see how being for single payer prohibits one from also protecting the more limited ACA. They are separate issues.
brush
(53,841 posts)As a party we can chew gum and do other things at the same time.
If we regain at least one of the houses of Congress single-payer will realize much more support.
The proponents of it in the meantime can educate the public. Many don't even know what single-payer is.
I was asked that recently by a knowledgeable person, a school teacher.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Until they actually had to produce something that worked, and had to run through the CBO for pricing...
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)The issue is that Single Payer is not a plan, it's a type of system, the actual plan needs to be hammered out, thought about and funded properly.
Being "for single payer" is like being for peace on Earth, which is also an excellent notion and an admirable goal, but just a slogan unless one has a workable plan for achieving it. Since there is limited legislative time, a minority party focusing on a nebulous slogan isn't doing what it takes to fight for the ACA, which is a specific plan, and which affects many people. We have a party actively trying to take away concrete things that people depend on every day, it's a dereliction of duty to ignore that to push this bill no one has seen yet, that has no chance of getting anywhere in this congress.
But hey, if you just want people to sign their names to something, sure, they'll do that. Pelosi isn't required to do anything for a bill in the other part of congress, so while I'm sure people will attack and abuse here, (the wingers love to do that and other do mindlessly parrot what they say), it's really neither here nor there.
brush
(53,841 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And are a CORPORATE SHILL!!!
Trust Bernie!!! He knows all about handling multi-billion dollar budgets - way more than those "health policy experts."
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If they don't vote for it every time it comes up, no matter how futile or potentially harmful to actual healthcare delivery as experts warn, they will not stand a chance running for higher office.
comradebillyboy
(10,174 posts)progressive purity testing and fending off attacks from the left.
George II
(67,782 posts)...to not endorse a questionable Senate bill?
Here's her statement - "Right now, I’m protecting the Affordable Care Act", which is the right thing to do.
still_one
(92,380 posts)republicans that voted against the ACA repeal, vote for Medicare for all, and even if they did would the House?
There is no doubt that Sanders is well aware his Medicare for all bill won't pass, but that is not his point either
clu
(494 posts)keep speaking up
demmiblue
(36,879 posts)in terms of party politics, so I am not surprised in the least. 
mcar
(42,372 posts)Demsrule86
(68,660 posts)I think we should be working on the ACA with a a public option...if Nancy is not for it having wanted it forever...you should ask yourself why. Also...don't smear Nancy. See TOS.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)seat in SF for it. Nothing about promoting it forces anybody else to fall in line, and as people KEEP harping on..oh you did it here, this is not going to pass, so what's on the chopping block, except for whether or not medicare for all gets more national attention? You can advocate for something better...for this as a further step taken by Obamacare without suggesting in any way that this is a vote of no confidence for Obamacare.
I guess I need this spelled out for me.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)the GOP did with dozens of votes to "repeal and replace Obamacare" when it wasn't possible?
Right - political expediency. I would be used to primary them if they actually stood up and said, "this isn't going to happen, why are we doing this?"
JCanete
(5,272 posts)something because it should happen maybe? You spend time and money on something because the more you push and the more you get an idea out there to the people, and the less it sounds alien to them the more they start to actually consider it? Can you think of any other progressive political achievement in history that you would have disparaged along its many stages towards actuality?
There is a huge fucking difference between what the GOP did and what pushing for universal healthcare does and I hope you know this. The issue with what the GOP was doing is that the more people learned about their "plan" the more they realized it was a big fuck you to them, while the more they relied on Obamacare, the more they did not want to lose it for whatever void of coverage the GOP was offering. That was something that they very well might have made happen because they had done years and years of the work getting half of the American people to believe them that the ACA was bad for them. It just so happens that when you have a bad idea like theirs you need to strike before people have enough time to consider it. The opposite is true for a good idea that can gain momentum over time.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)something that is being misrepresented as easily done in under 10 years, affordably, and without major disruption to health care delivery. Progressive doesn't make it possible - and single payer isn't the way that the vast majority of the rest of the developed world gets to universal health care coverage, no matter what memes you may have read on Facebook.
As with any complicated project, cheap, fast or good - you get to pick two.
You need time and money - a whole lot of each - to change something as huge as the current health care system in such a basic way. That's not me being a debbie downer, that's the experts. Tell them to stop harshing your buzz.
http://khn.org/news/democrats-unite-but-what-happened-to-medicare-for-all/
https://www.thenation.com/article/medicare-for-all-isnt-the-solution-for-universal-health-care/
When LBJ got Medicare and Medicaid passed, he had to lie to congress about what it would cost, because he knew they would never pass it if they did. The CBO makes that impossible to do now.
You seem rather angry at me for presenting some facts that didn't fit your current views. That's not my problem. That's yours for taking it very personally. Just an observation.
As I said, making Single Payer or bust Democratic dogma is no different that the GOP making "closing Planned Parenthood will end abortions" dogma. Both miss the obstacles and very real negative consequences of actually attempting them, and both are becoming sacred cows that are the test of whether or not you are primaried.
I know what a republican who tries to talk someone off the "DEFUND THE BABY PARTS SELLER" ledge must go through.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)In order to do that we have to get the people to demand it. As to the experts telling us why we shouldn't push forward with it because it is too hard, maybe if they were pushing forward with it and adding their expertise to the effort we would get through some of the road-blocks they are harping on.
Something being complicated is not a reason not to do it. We know what results we want. We don't have to wait around for 20 or 40 years to see if what we implemented is working or being properly funded. We can adjust as we go to shore up what wasn't quite perfect. I do agree, there are risks to ushering in something that can have too many early problems. That can be used as a hammer. But if we make something like this inevitable, those who are on the sidelines naysaying can get in there and start to help us address those holes, time-tables etc.
Demsrule86
(68,660 posts)You might not be able to pass single payer now, but more importantly you want the issue. Going into the 2018 mid terms, supporting the issue is more important. It's a great issue to hammer the Republicans.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)since that has actual effects on the people who have been upset with them in their town halls and in all those messages they've been leaving with their staff.
If they can say "the Dems want some "socialized medicine" which would lead to x,y and z and raise your taxes, that issue they were going to lose on, they have a defense for. Their base is not educated, they heal "socialism" they react, they react by voting in their gerrymandered districts and we lose our advantage.
It's not good politics in many districts. Senators might get away with it, but Reps won't. It has nothing to do with Pelosi or the House, so she's right to focus on the things that Democrats can hit Republican Representatives on in upcoming races, where the whole house if up for reelection.
Demsrule86
(68,660 posts)not our fault this happened...why it would have happened anyway" will not fly. Some on our side will be blamed. This is a big fucking deal in the words of Biden...a shrug and a "oh well it wasn't that great anyway" won't cut it as millions lose coverage and the GOP holds up the single payer bill as proof the ACA could not be fixed.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)there are still people who believe all the Russian Propaganda that was fed to them. Our side (Democrats) will always be blamed, that's just how this works. That's the RW tactic, it's been adopted wholeheartedly by those who apparently LOVE RW talking points when they attack Democrats.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Heath Mello and other right wingers.
peggysue2
(10,839 posts)What are you talking about? Or is this another oblique attack on Democrats in general: Pelosi should go--too old, DiFi is an enemy, Cory Booker is a Wall St. crony, Claire McCaskill is yada, yada.
Eyes on the prize: 2018, 2020. At this point in time, it's the only thing that matters. Tearing down our Democratic members wiil not get us anywhere.
Except in the losing pen.
And then all this gnashing of teeth on single-payer? You can tack it up to a pipe dream because I guarantee you Republicans will never, ever compromise on a single-payer system. They'd rather choke to death.
For all the flaws and imperfections, Democrats of all and any stripe are the best chance to usher in a single-payer, universal healthcare system. Because by and large we all believe in the simple idea: affordable healthcare is a right, not a privilege which should be extended to all Americans. And that Government is perfectly capable of running the program, as they have demonstrated with Medicare and Medicaid.
Nancy Pelosi has proven her leadership/legislative skills countless times. As she said herself: "I'm worth the trouble."
And indeed she is.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You'll of course, support your allegation with objective evidence to support it as such, yes?
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)
Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #5)
Weekend Warrior This message was self-deleted by its author.
Demsrule86
(68,660 posts)foolish...could impede our ability to take the House.
Expecting Rain
(811 posts)
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,437 posts)but I think that she is right. Republicans are probably not even through trying to repeal ACA and Trump is going to continue to try to sabotage it any way that his (mis-)Administration can. We need to protect ACA and get the numbers in Congress to fashion it into a better system. Endorsing SP is symbolically nice but if ACA crashes and burns, it will set back further improvements to the healthcare system, to say nothing of getting to SP.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Get the American people to want something better and to put the Republicans at risk for being regressive on this issue. They may just decide that their obstructionism to progress needs to be far more middling.
Lee Adama
(90 posts)ZX86
(1,428 posts)
Lee Adama
(90 posts)Current political conditions means politicians can support it in some states and districts, but in no way can it be supported in ALL.
The political naivete of some on the left is astounding.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)If Democrats had waited for women's rights, gay rights, and civil rights support in ALL states and districts abortion would be outlawed, gays couldn't marry, and African Americans would be drinking from separate drinking fountains.
Lee Adama
(90 posts)Incrementalism is how EVERYTHING has been accomplished.
I suggest a good history book.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)I suggest you read ANY history book.
The incrementalists actually accomplish things.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)American colonists freed from British rule.
Freed African American slaves.
Worldwide victims of WWII fascism.
Last time I checked incrementalism wasn't a part of the equation with any of these challenges Americans faced throughout history. Now I'm sure you can list some parking meter regulations or dog leash laws where incrementalism has been successful but on the important issues the American attitude has always been, "Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead!"
Lee Adama
(90 posts)None of that happened immediately.
You support incremenalism with your own examples!
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)statues, songs and holidays dedicated to them? Kind of a dumb standard. Incrementalists actually get stuff done.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)You made their argument while trying to differentiate. Once accepted among enough states there is a better chance of success at the federal level.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)for single payer universal health care? Universal health care is a human right. I support human rights. All day. Every day. I'm a Democrat!
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)current real pain and suffering, because you think only slogans are worth fighting for, while they live in fear of their own death or that of their loved ones?
Universal health care is indeed a human right, I support human rights too (for everyone, including the women whose human rights are excluded by the Hyde Amendment that all these fine warriors for slogans keep forgetting.)
I'm a Democrat too, and that's why I support sane and rational healthcare policy that is thought out and goes beyond slogans, and respects the Americans that are in pain now, today. Join Democrats in fighting for real policies not just slogans.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)I don't get the absurdity of the question. I simply stated a fact.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Universal health care is a human right.
I support whatever universal health care will be most affordable, and the most likely to get here sooner. I support human rights. All day every day.
I don't ignore what is doable now for some political slogan, like "repeal and replace!".
I'm a Democrat!!
ZX86
(1,428 posts)"most affordable, and the most likely to get here sooner" means as much to me as it does to a Pentagon official purchasing a new weapons system.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Not the same thing at all. Any overhaul of something that size will take 20 years at the least. And even the ACA wasn't safe from a GOP president and congress.
BTW - Roe v Wade turned over abortion bans, not federal legislators.
Passing the 19th amendment did not require a massive overhaul of something the size of the railroad industry.
Pulling down "whites only" restroom signs didn't require retrofitting all the plumbing all bathrooms in the nation.
That's just a start on the differences. There are obstacles to gutting the health care payment system that weren't there for social justice laws - political will being just one of them.
https://www.thenation.com/article/medicare-for-all-isnt-the-solution-for-universal-health-care/
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You haven't provided a link to the actual survey, with toplines and methodology. Just two out of context graphs. The graphs don't show if people were asked if the supported paying higher taxes for something that would cover less than what their current health plan would cover.
It depends on what the survey described as "single payer."
Here is another poll, from a non-partisan, self funded health policy think tank, which explores it a bit more deeply:
They could lose a one-time opportunity to tar Republicans with the damage their ACA replacement plan would have done to millions of people, according to the multiple analyses that showed lost coverage and higher premiums for vulnerable people.
By campaigning on their own sweeping health reform plan, Democrats could give Republicans a fighting chance to change the subject.
More targeted policy ideas, such as Medicaid buy-in options for the ACA marketplaces and a Medicare buy-in for 50-64 year olds, could also be popular on the left and the center, while offering far smaller targets than a sweeping single-payer plan would.
Reality check: Single payer is popular, but polling today doesn't tell us much about where the public will be if there is a national debate about actual single-payer legislation in the Congress. ACA repeal had the support of about half the public in Kaiser Family Foundation polling in late 2016 and early 2017, but fell to closer to 30 percent once there was an replacement plan under the microscope.
Support for single-payer falls by 10 to 20 percentage points when people are read common criticisms, such as that it will increase taxes or give the government too much control over health care. Arguments in favor, including that single payer will make health a basic right or reduce administrative costs, increase support by similar amounts.
We cannot simulate what will happen in a real debate, which depends on the actual details of the legislation and the power of the arguments made.
Be smart: This is more than just a health policy debate. It is also a proxy debate about the future of the Democratic Party. The party can swing left trying to build energy in the base, or it can move to the center, trying to capture the votes of many of the more conservative working people who voted for President Trump.
Don't forget: Most Americans are far less focused on sweeping health policy ideas than they are on lowering their out-of-pocket costs. Health reformers – left, right, or center – who make the connection between their policy ideas and these pocketbook concerns may capture the most voters.
https://www.axios.com/how-single-payer-helps-republicans-change-the-subject-2484804538.html
Medicare-for-All vs. Single Payer: The Impact of Labels:
http://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-modestly-strong-but-malleable-support-for-single-payer-health-care/
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Universal health care is a human right. Full stop. Every last one of those latte slurping MF'ers that wrote that analysis from their ivory tower office suites have quality health care. Excuse me if I've run out of fucks to give about what some nouveau riche, think tank, pencil pusher writes about inside the beltway, DC cocktail circuit, conventional wisdom.
Every day I step over people sick and dying in the streets. This morning I saw a homeless one legged man taking a shit in the gutter next to the Hilton Hotel. This is the richest nation in the history of richest nations. This situation is inexcusable. Americans are suffering and literally dying in the streets.
Universal health care is a human right. You're either for it or against it. Just like abortion rights, gay rights and civil rights.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The claim that if you state that there is any other better or more realistic path to universal coverage than "MEDICARE FOR ALL" means that you just don't want people to have health care, is a straw man of huge proportions.
Right up there with "If you think climate change is man-made, you are a liberal shill who hates business."
I deal in facts, not dogma. I think you are confusing Single Payer with "universal health care coverage" because certainly don't seem to understand that I am saying that there are other ways to get there....
Dogma won't save lives, even if it makes us feel good.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)You're seriously comparing peer reviewed climate change science to some corporate funded hack opinion piece on health care? You might as well compare astrology to astrophysics.
Health care is a human right. I'm for human rights. No excuses. No compromise. No retreat. No surrender.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Can you specify what you are talking about? Are you talking about the Kaiser Family Foundation? Do tell how they are corporate funded hacks, please. Show me how you get that - this should show us your fact checking skills. Proceed. Please.
Health care is a human right. I'm for human rights. No excuses. No compromise. No retreat. No surrender.
Agreed. But there are quicker, more cost effective ways to get there than Single Payer. I guess that's not as important to you as slogans, but its intellectually waaaaaaay easier, isn't it?
Clearly not as important as bumpersticker slogans. I go with peer reviewed science over politically expedient dogma.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)"It is also a proxy debate about the future of the Democratic Party. The party can swing left trying to build energy in the base, or it can move to the center, trying to capture the votes of many of the more conservative working people who voted for President Trump."
Anyone and I mean ANYONE who suggests Democrats should move to the conservative right to capture Trump voters is a hack. By definition.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Which corporation funded this "hack piece," since you say it's corporate funded?
"The party can swing left trying to build energy in the base, or it can move to the center, trying to capture the votes of many of the more conservative working people who voted for President Trump."
Not seeing where anyone is promoting one over the other. Reading something in a blind rage might make you miss a few things.
Let's see if you can back up your angry accusations with some actual sources.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Any suggestion that Democrats should or could "capture the votes of many of the more conservative working people who voted for President Trump" is a hack opinion. The mere suggestion that is an option I find highly and completely offensive, just as I would at the suggestion of selling my children to sex slavers.
If I so much as hear a murmur in the Democratic party of tacking right to capture Trump voters they can kiss my ass goodbye. As a lifelong Democrat I will drop them like a bad habit.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And that's a very informed opinion, even if you don't like it.
And your knee jerk reaction calling it him a "corporate hack" indicates that you don't really look at the source before declaring the source unreliable if it doesn't confirm your bias.
That's something you should really examine.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...in those who run this country. They show popular support for sure however there are vested economic powers at the helm at this point. Running and ruining our country.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)When nothing happens with it, the biggest name attached will be considered the failure.
It shouldn't be about getting sponsors. This bill isn't going to pass. It's about getting the message out that single payer isn't scary.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)It's not his bill, it's the bill of that other guy who gets all the credit, for stuff he doesn't actually do, but whose failures and bad decisions are always someone else's fault.
No need to malign Representative Conyers for a bill being introduced in the Senate under a whole other's person's name, and whose contents we don't know.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)The point of the poster was pretty obvious and had nothing to do with impugning Conyers. It was a question of whether or not promoting something that Conyers himself has promoted for years without legislative success is somehow something a failure would do, rather than somebody fighting for a principle and slowly eroding the opposition with patience and diligence. Why would you pretend the question was meant to impugn him in any way?
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)The poster was being pretty obvious indeed about attacking John Conyers.
It's about the Senate, so I don't get what the hostility is to addressing someone either being ignorant or just being a jerk.
Conyers has a bill, this is not that bill, I'm not sure why it's difficult to understand that the "concept" of single payer is not even "medicare for all" nor has the bill referenced been credited to Conyers atll. It's Sanders bill, what it says no one knows.
It might be helpful if one educates oneself about what all these words mean, beyond slogans. There is no "slow erosion" or "dilligence", principles are not bills, they are not plans, they do not provide healthcare. ACTUAL legislation does.
Why do you pretend that bringing up a representative that has nothing to do with this bill in the Senate and pretending that anyone who was questioning this bill is somehow attacking him or anyone else?
That's not just "shade" that's some pretty hostile, divisive nonsense. Such "unity", such "honesty" such "principle".
There is no need for this crap, stop playing victim and impugning Representatives by name over a blind fealty to a Senate bill that has not been released yet. There are many ways to achieve single payer, even different ways to do "medicare for all" since none of the plans or the principles advertised fit the "medicare" terminology at all. So WTF is all the poutrage about when someone points out that the hostile comment dragging John Conyers is ridiculous and silly?
The profound ignorance of simple terminology and the complex nature of the healthcare debate is not helped by these hostile interactions that seek to divide, sow discord and basically be jerkish.
Lay off John Conyers, he has nothing to do with this bill, it will stand or fall on its own merits, which no one knows yet. Calm the frak down.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)impugned by that question. The point that seemed obvious to me is that if you are going to lay the word "failure" at somebody's feet for trying to do something, where do you draw the line. Should people like Conyers, who has been fighting for the same thing for ever also be considered a failure by that stupid metric? Clearly the poster doesn't believe so and is trying to get the other poster to see that it is self destructive for us to attack those who try to move the ball forward.
The shade I was referring to is whatever crap you were putting out there about something I assume Sanders has done to which he then placed blame elsewhere. I have no idea what that is but that sounds like nonsense. There was certainly no need for that crap but you were happy to go there.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)as possible are the people impugning John Conyers, and who seem to delight in bringing in the crappy nonsense when the nastiness was pointed out.
There was no need to bring on the crap, there was no need for the name calling and there was no need for that much projection, if one doesn't like being called out for dishonest and abusive behavior, the choice is available to not engage in it, but those people who seek to divide, abuse, attack and delight in being crappy cannot seem to handle that.
Both the attack on Conyers and the demented attack on the person who called it out are way out of line. Get a grip and stop with the projection.
Honest debate isn't as easy to come by as it used to.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)You think Conyers is the biggest name attached when it comes to the public eyes?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...during his more than FIFTY years in the House?
Not half the name recognition of Sanders?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)going on in politics? Sanders emerged onto the national scene, drew huge rallies, and IS now well recognized. Not so long ago I'm not sure he was any more recognizable to the masses than John Conyers, but when SNL is impersonating you people probably know who you are at that point.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)a cell for decades?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Did you find a sale?
Why don't you re-read the post you are trying to misrepresent another time?
"His legislation has failed many times."
Are you going to reference Ghandi now?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)example of fighting for something even though its an uphill battle. Of course there are going to be losses on the way. Of course most of the time you are going to be losing, until you win.
You said his legislation failed many times as a point about whether or not he was a failure, since after all, that was the question that the answer you gave was responding to.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Your pearl clutching accusation was that I called him a failure, when I stated the fact that his single payer legislation failed many times.
Is that clearer?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)was I supposed to take from that answer? Why don't you explain it?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Please. That will settle it.
My answer to your question was that his legislation was.
It's more accurate to say that you think that he is no more than his legislation.
I mean, you can keep doing the discussion equivalent of flicking boogers, but you're not going to convince anyone that I said what I didn't.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)The question was this.
"So you consider Conyers a failure?"
That was the question you gave this response to.
"His single payer bill has failed many times. "
Now, I'll ask again, what am I supposed to take away from that response? You didn't say, No, but his bill has failed many times. Apparently this was intended to answer the question, or did you just decide to talk about something else?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Was a strawman of epic proportions
"Pelosi knows they are playing politics with this bill.
When nothing happens with it, the biggest name attached will be considered the failure.
It shouldn't be about getting sponsors. This bill isn't going to pass. It's about getting the message out that single payer isn't scary"
And then ZX86 replied "So you consider John Conyers a failure?"
I was responding to his outsized strawman with a statement that his Single Payer legislation failed - because that's not the same thing as "personal failure."
You have a knee jerk impulse to 'splain and contradict anything I post, even if it means calling a strawman a Vegas Showgirl.
You overreacted, and now you are trying to save face.
I expect another "but you said something that means I WAS RIGHT!!!!" post in 3....2....1.....
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Conyers should also be considered a failure for trying all these times to push forward on a Medicare for All bill.
I am not explaining your post. I asked you what I was supposed to take away from it in the context it was given. You declined to clarify. I'm willing to accept your answer. If your answer was not intended to mean, "well, yeah, his bills failed so that kind of means he's a failure"...just say so. I'm not interested in trying to trap you into anything. I'm willing to accept that I did not interpret you how you intended. I can't understand how you wouldn't expect me to interpret you that way, but that's an entirely different story.
Can you explain to me how you consider it a strawman? I just don't see that. The original post was not claiming that anybody thinking the face on the Senate bill would be a failure when the bill failed that that person actually thought that Conyers was a failure. The person was instead asking "so what about others who have tried, like Conyers, would you still apply that reasoning?"
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It's yours.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)was offered, so forgive me my confusion for thinking your statement was related to the post it was answering. Even of its own merit I have no idea what point it is making, and no explanation you gave cleared that up for me, but I take you at your word that you do not intend to suggest that Conyers is a failure for having put energy into single payer all these years.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Demsrule86
(68,660 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)failure.
Also, it is untrue that bills that fail are completely useless. They get people on record having voted for or against a thing, and having cosponsored or not, etc.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Even after I explained it.
I suggest a nap.
Bad Thoughts
(2,530 posts)Lump it together with climate change and gun control in the political time machine (too be opened sometime after it's too late).
The idea that she can only defend ACA is preposterous--she's certainly a better leader than that. And at least she could say that they can build upon the ACA, and that Democrats are working to improve it.
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)Not going to support it.
It has Sanders name attached to it.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)Single Payer is the most important issue of 2020
Demsrule86
(68,660 posts)I see know purpose in running on the what you can't get. What are you going to do if you win ? Say sorry just kidding can't really do this? There is no way to get single payer. And if we don't save the ACA,we never will.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I might have put it less politely but never mind. It's a tribute to the genius of the ACA that it can sustain hits from all sides.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Doing a frontal assault with single-payer *right now* would likely gain little in reality. As much as I want to raise the "Medicare For All" battle-flags and have at 'em, wisdom dictates that the ACA must be cemented in place first (it was made horribly vulnerable under #45, and it was nearly repealed this year).
Pick the battles. Single-payer gets closer to reality with an ACA that functions well and delivers what's promised.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 14, 2017, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)
told them to go onto the individual market, or switched to a policy that was more expensive, because the previous catastrophic only coverage didn't meet the requirements of the ACA - after Obama told them "they could keep their insurance?"
Well, that mistaken promise by Obama gave the GOP ammunition to start dismantling the ACA as soon as they got the White House.
If you promise the sky, and you deliver rain, you end up worse off than you are now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/upshot/how-single-payer-health-care-could-trip-up-democrats.html?_r=0
MineralMan
(146,327 posts)like to answer some of them. Or perhaps not...
Willie Pep
(841 posts)Pelosi is right to keep the powder dry on this issue. Right now the most important thing is preventing Trump and the Republicans from doing more damage and winning seats in 2018 which means appealing to as many people as possible which means in some cases trying to get Blue Dogs elected.
I support single-payer health care but I don't think it should be a litmus test going into 2018 when we need to win as many seats as possible. We are too weak to demand purity tests from politicians now.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I guess you showed all of us, huh?
I suppose that these well written, actually researched by health policy analysts are nothing in the face of a political cartoon.
tps://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/9/8/16271888/health-care-single-payer-aca-democratic-agenda
https://www.thenation.com/article/medicare-for-all-isnt-the-solution-for-universal-health-care/
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)You do realize that article was written over a month before any of the details came out about the bill, right? Almost everything he brings up in that article is addressed in the bill. You could actually try reading about the bill:
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-act-of-2017-executive-summary?id=943E7DB5-FCCA-4EA4-B215-A92F6642BA2C&download=1&inline=file
But I'm guessing this isn't really about the bill, so you don't care what's in it. You just care that the word "Bernie" is associated with it. That's enough for you to hate it, huh? You don't even need to read it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Which I will bet is way more than you have read.
And to save you the trouble of having to read through a bunch of data that you might not understandat all, here is the summary:
Summary:
However, many other issues would be raised by a single-payer system. Providers would be seriously affected. Hospitals would see only small financial effects in the aggregate because payment rates would be increased for those otherwise insured by Medicare and Medicaid and revenue from the otherwise uninsured would increase, but they would receive less revenue for providing care to those who would otherwise be privately insured. Different types of hospitals would be advantaged and disadvantaged, depending upon their patient mix. Growth in revenues over time would be slower than under current law, however. Physician incomes would be squeezed by the new payment rates because such rates would be considerably below what physicians are paid by private insurers. Again, whether providers were financial winners or losers from the reform would depend upon their current payer mix. The pharmaceutical and medical device industries would be squeezed perhaps more than is sustainable.
Behavioral responses by the range of health care providers to such a vast change are uncertain. If provider incomes fall, additional federal investment in medical education might be necessary to achieve a sufficient level of supply. Choices would need to be made about the treatment of existing private longterm care insurance contracts and the reserves the companies that issued these policies now hold.
We assume a 6 percent administrative cost across the board; this may be too low given the many functions that would need to be carried out, including a range of care management functions, rate setting, bill paying, and oversight responsibilities for a wide variety of providers across the nation. By eliminating copayments, coinsurance, deductibles, and service limits of all types, the Sanders plan would increase demand for services. We have assumed supply constraints such that not all of the increased demand would be met. But the failure to meet all demand could lead to public outcry. Any remaining role for private health insurance would also have to be determined. If higher-income people purchase private insurance, it could give them faster access to desired providers, increasing their satisfaction with the system. Yet it could also lead to longer queues for those relying on the remaining providers,
causing dissatisfaction in other quarters.
Finally, moving to a single-payer system would be highly disruptive in the near term. When the ACA required people to give up private insurance plans that were less costly than those available in the reformed nongroup market, some vocal complaints led to quick administrative action to increase opportunities for people to keep non-ACA compliant plans longer. The ACA’s changes to the health insurance system and the number of people affected by those changes has been small compared to the upheaval that would be brought about by the movement to a single-payer system.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000785-The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf?fref=gc&dti=880771098707085
I imagine that Bernie may have made a few changes inspired by Hillary, but he's acknowledged that he has anything more to learn concerning the issue, and this was what he planned to implement if he had gotten the votes for the nomination, and won the General Election, so I don't think that much is going to change.
Let me know if you have any more recent analysis of his plan.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...make sure you've fixed their typo. (brillion?)
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I think everyone else is scared not to....
