I have a concern that democrats will lose on this healthcare gambit. Now hear me out.

[boston bean]

In 2010 the healthcare debate rolled in the tea party and start of our losses.

They framed govt healthcare.

Liberals want it. Does this country want it? I am not sure it is politically feasible.

We just hung an albatross on republicans neck over obamacare. They now owned healthcare failure or success.

Now they can campaign as they did in 2010 and use it as a bludgeon that democrats want govt controlling healthcare choices.

Half this fucking country couldn't stand for the ACA.

Can we be strategic? Can we get majorities back and then just fucking do it. What the hell good does it do for any liberal/progressive/democrat to pick this fight right now over this lightning rod issue that motivates the other side like nothing fucking else we have seen in recent history??? Can we focus on saving obamacare and making republicans look like the heartless bastards that they truly are??


Medicare for all has NO chance with republicans controlling everything. There is no need strategically to give republicans ammo right now.

[haveahart]

1. You beat me to it. Good observation.

[BigmanPigman]

2. It will have to be the Dem Party consensus for 2020

for it to really become reality. They have time between before then to work out the logistics. Shit, the GOP supposedly had the "cure" for the ACA for 7 years yet they actually had nothing. They sold the idiot Americans, who didn't even know that the ACA and Obamacare were the same thing, a bogus line of BS successfully. Now the ball is in our court but not right now. Right now we have to make sure the ACA isn't repealed (2 weeks left) and it is fixed and ready for next month.

[LexVegas]

3. Its free college all over again. nt

[boston bean]

6. True.

It also sets up a very real potential of failure and then claims can again be made how the party is in the hands of big money.

This shit is a vicious cycle.

[MoonRiver]

4. I agree, but it makes me sick that we have to strategize like this.

If only our country actually cared about its citizens we would have had national health care for all decades ago.

[boston bean]

5. I agree. But we have to be smart and realistic.

Everything else is just feel goodism.

[MoonRiver]

35. I know bb, but still makes me sad for how low we have sunk.

[Blue_true]

29. Maybe we should have a war on our soil.

Europe largely went to national healthcare just after WWII as a survival mechanism. Countries associated with European former colonial powers like Canada, Autralia and New Zealand followed suit after a few years.

[DonCoquixote]

7. OK, let's fill some blanks

_________is an issue the right wing favors, we better leave it alone, or else they will clobber us."

You could fill this blank with

abortion
slavery
Gay marriage
black right to vote
women's right to vote
Freedom not to have to belong to an approved church to avoid mistreatment

because this excuse was used to stop all of the above. You may have good intentions, and i cannot dent the logic, but logic only works when all the data is included, such as the fact that the GOP has only given up anything when pressed to the wall. as many better people have said before me , Power concedes nothing without a fight, and right now, for all the bumble and stumble of Trump, the GOP is working to roll back EVERY one of the things on the list above, and then roll back more.

I am not staying there is no room for moderate, but even if the moderates say "medicare for all is bad", they should at least let the wing farther right get their message in, so that they can play "good cop" to the Sanders "bad cop." It is the same weapon used succsfully against us by the GOP, where a Romney or Kasich would say "hey, we are not loonies" and act like nice people, despite the fact that they are for most things trump is for.

If we define our own boundaries based on fear that the right imposes, they frame us, and we lose. If nothing else, the moderates should use this as a chance to say "look, you GOP, you tried pushing so far to the right that our lunatic fringe is becoming less fringe, why not save the aca, and it will work out better for all of us."

[boston bean]

8. Ummmm defending and expanding obamacare will help millions more than a failed

Poorly thought out pipe dream.

It is not like democrats don't want people to have healthcare. They do.

They also want everyone to have healthcare. It is just not smart to ignore a reality. Look at what we lose with trump in power. I want power back so good things can happen again.

This is not the same as saying democrats should oppose healthcare for all

[NurseJackie]

25. Precisely.

[DonCoquixote]

33. indeed you are right

and the best way to get that power back is not to shush our own when they demand 3/4 of the loaf, the moderate jobs is to say "hey GOP, gives us half so we can shut these people up. " If they see you rail against the sanders folks, they will automaticly assume they can push you into accepting the crumbs

[shadowmayor]

9. Does this country want it?

About 60% say yes. This really got moving in the 1980's when GM told the Reagan administration that they couldn't compete with the Japanese car makers due to the burden of health care costs for their employees and retirees while Japan lived under the umbrella of socialized medicine. Rather than follow the rest of the world, we chose to follow Wall Street and wah lah - we got the Heritage Plan which was Bob Dole's plan and later became the ACA.

Yes, there will be bumps and bruises, but look at how Britain did it in the 70's. It was so successful, saved the average person so much money, was so efficient that even Thatcher wouldn't touch it.

I think it's a battle that should be fought, and can be more easily won than many realize. The average person will see their taxes go up somewhat, but their annual medical costs will drop. At the end of the year, Americans will actually be giving less money for better care and everyone will be included. The working class and middle class Americans will have more money in their pockets at the end of the year.

[boston bean]

10. I don't mind a battle. What is at stake is getting in power

To effect postive change and policies.

[guillaumeb]

11. 2010 was a low turnout election.

THAT was why the GOP won the House. And the ACA approval numbers are climbing, but the ACA still allows Insurance companies to set the terms on healthcare.

The Democrats need issues, and Medicare for All is an excellent issue.

[boston bean]

12. all midterms are lower turn out however there was an increase in turnout in 2010.

Political analysts in October 2010 predicted sweeping Republican gains this election, but despite a reported "enthusiasm gap" between likely Republican and Democratic voters,[7] turnout increased relative to the last U.S. midterm elections without any significant shift in voters' political identification.[8] The swaying views of self-declared independent voters, however, were largely responsible for the shift from Democratic to Republican gains.[9]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010

[guillaumeb]

13. The Democrats can either fight to change the debate, or fight on the GOP's terms.

The ACA accomplished a lot, but the insurance companies are still in control. Single payer is cheaper than the US system of profitized healthcare. That is a fact. And the Democrats must repeat that fact, and state that Medicare for All is a US crafted plan that works better than the current system.

[boston bean]

14. Fighting for the ACA is not fighting on republicans terms.

[guillaumeb]

15. Indirectly it is, because the ACA allows the insurance companies

to continue to control healthcare. A Medicare for All single payer type system would change that debate.

[boston bean]

16. Fighting for positive change to the ACA is a winning issue.

[guillaumeb]

17. And fighting for an even better change is also a winning issue.

The ACA insures that Insurance company profits will continue to rise.

[boston bean]

18. You do realize private insurance companies are fully involved in meedicare.

[guillaumeb]

21. They are Medicare Advantage.

An unnecessary add on because Medicare itself could have been modified to cover what it currently does not cover. The coverage gaps, including drugs, are not an inherent weakness, they are a deliberately designed weakness.

[boston bean]

22. Ok???

[guillaumeb]

23. A thought.

Nothing says that Democrats cannot or should not support subsidies for the continued ACA in the short term. But long term, to avoid constant fights over the subsidies, Medicare for All is the only real solution. Single payer works better than the US system and it is cheaper.

[boston bean]

24. I think the point many people miss is that all democrats want healthcare for all.

[guillaumeb]

26. Agreed.

[Docreed2003]

28. To play devils advocate for a moment...

Let's say "Medicare for all" is the answer...

What about perinatal care or pediatric care, neither of which is covered under Medicare.


In order to pass a bill that provides "Medicare for All" the issues of women's healthcare and the healthcare of children must be addressed.


Also, it's extremely naive to think that a single bill will do away with health insurance companies with a snap of the fingers. It simply won't happen, they are just that powerful. Now, incrementally it might happen, but it won't happen with one bill.

A reasonable response to our current situation would be a public option for Medicare, and then take steps to reduce the power of the insurance industry.

[guillaumeb]

30. Good questions, to which I respond:

Medicare was designed with these gaps in coverage. It can easily be redesigned with better coverage. And, as I mentioned in other posts:

Even conservatives in countries with single payer support the concept because it works better and is cheaper.



I personally feel it is naïve to believe that the current system can be saved without massively subsidizing the very insurance companies that created the problem.

[Docreed2003]

31. Good points...

I would reiterate that we can only feasibly work within the constructs of our current system because of the immense power they hold. If LBJ couldn't pass universal coverage in the 60's because of their pushback, we will be no more successful today. We may ultimately dismantle the powers that be but it will be a long, slow process.

[Trust Buster]

19. I couldn't agree more. After repeal and replace failed, many Republicans were willing to look at

Fixing the ACA. Now those Republicans will run for their bunkers. If the ACA fails, 30 million Americans will lose their insurance. Does Sanders really believe that such a cost is worth his political posturing ? The timing could not possibly be any worse.

[Bad Thoughts]

20. So long as people have problems paying for heath care, Dems need to keep fighting to improve access

I think that those improvements can be made in the context of ACA, but I don't see how moving to a different system would be a problem. The American public will lose faith in Dems if it seems that all they are doing is playing a political game and are not actively working to make their lives better.

[Docreed2003]

27. Any push from Dems right now is purely symbolic...

That may be hard for some to hear but it's the unadulterated truth. Any bill proposed by a Dem, in the current Congressional construct is DOA, because neither Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan nor McTurtle will agree to bring such a bill to the floor for vote.

Secondly, here's the harsh truth brothers and sisters, the quagmire we find ourselves within right now in regards to healthcare organizations was built up over many many decades. The power of the insurance industry was so powerful that LBJ backed away from universal healthcare in order to save Medicare. Arguably our country's best shot at universal health care was during the Truman administration and it was shot down.

I'm not trying to discourage a push for universal coverage. While single payer might be our goal, I think we need to be realistic and accept that a compromise might be required where we have a dual private/public system. Just my 2c.

[kentuck]

32. Much is about how it is branded and sold.

Like a business model, in a marketing campaign.

1) Repubs want to get rid of ACA (Obamacare).

2) A single -payer is unlikely to pass at this time.

3) The best way to get rid of Obamacare is piecemeal, such as Medicare for All, but give people the option of "Obamacare" or "Medicare for All".

4) It's marketing.

[QC]

34. "Trying is the first step toward failure." -- Homer Simpson

Who knew he was a political strategist?