Bernie Sanders supported the ACA. His support was crucial.

[Jim Lane]

Bernie has long supported single payer. When the ACA was being debated in Congress, many single-payer supporters urged that it be voted down. Their argument (which has some merit to it) was that enactment of the ACA would further entrench the role of the big for-profit private insurance companies, and make getting to single payer that much harder.

If Bernie had agreed with them, he could easily have said, "I want single payer, I won't settle for anything less, and on that basis I'm voting Nay on invoking cloture to end the GOP filibuster of President Obama's bill."

On December 23, 2009, the vote on cloture was 60-39. Cloture requires a minimum of 60 affirmative votes. The bill just barely scraped by. If Bernie had voted Nay he would have strangled the ACA in its cradle.

This has been a message from the Department of Looking at the Actual Goddamn Record. We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame war.

[JI7]

1. Single Payer failed at the state level in Vermont and Colorado. the problems with it have nothing to

do with the ACA.

[Jim Lane]

3. I'm addressing the idiotic smear against Bernie Sanders.

There is on DU a school of thought -- giving that word an extremely broad meaning -- according to which Bernie has covertly set out to sabotage the ACA, presumably because he wants single payer and thinks that will help.

My point was simply that Bernie Sanders voted for the ACA. He has also voted against every repeal bill.

My post did not concern the merits of single payer. If you want to go there, however, I'm quite content with the obvious comparison: There are different ways of implementing single payer, just as, among other industrialized countries, health care systems differ; but all of those other systems are better than the one we have now. That two states decided they couldn't implement single payer in one state does not convince me that the United States is for some unexplained reason incapable of achieving what every other industrialized country has done.

[HarmonyRockets]

5. It was shitty post

It was not up for very long at all before getting taken down, but there were already quite a few people saying "I agree" and "K&R." I don't think it's most Clinton supporters on this board, it's a small group that have really gone off the deep end.

[Eliot Rosewater]

102. You should call out in person, to their FACE these OFF the deep end people you talk about

Or


...

[Demsrule86]

22. I was angry that single payer was introduced. And if we lose the ACA, it played a role.

Turn on the news.

[KPN]

87. Your anger is misplaced.

Why be angry at those who vocalize what is right and just? Where would we be without them? I really feel like you underestimate the socially beneficial role of so-called idealists, or perhaps you mistrust their motives. Hard for me to figure.

[Demsrule86]

91. What is right and just is not risking the ACA until you have the votes to pass your ideal bill?

If we had a chance, it would be one thing. We give up what we have for what? Nothing.

[KPN]

99. Well, we disagree on that I guess. I should probably add --

at least from my perspective, strongly.

"Risking the ACA" my ass. It does the opposite. Pushing Medicare for All right now is exactly what we need to do in order to get any workable universal health care system. The ACA is economically unsustainable as is and you know it. In the face of a self-centered, greedy, bigoted majority, starting where we are currently will only put us further back in the fight for universal health care.

[Demsrule86]

117. The ACA is all we have and is certainly sustainable...single payer is not doable at this moment.

[KPN]

310. You'll have to explain the sustainable part to me.

If it were truly sustainable, the GOP wouldn't be on the verge of actually being able to repeal it.

The real problem is greed. The trend in and current costs of health care in America are unsustainable over time. There aren't enough rich people to sustain the present level of profiteering. The ACA has been woefully inadequate in addressing that fact. Access is one thing, sustainability is another. Maybe it can be fixed if in fact it is saved, but campaigning on "incrementalism" is not a winning slogan by any stretch. Bold visions are.

[Demsrule86]

312. That's not true...it is because it is sustainable they need to kill it.

[Demsrule86]

313. The ACA has been sabotaged repeatedly by the GOP...and still did much good and it is all we have for

now, and we need a super majority to get single payer...and even then I have my doubts. We can build on the ACA and get to universal coverage in some form.

[KPN]

315. We obviously have different perrspectioves on what sustainability means.

It is sustainable to a point, but at great and growing costs. Without significantly improved cost controls, it is not sustainable over the long term. For many folks, it has already reached that point, i.e. from the standpoint of their own pocketbooks.

The sustainability issue goes beyond health care in my view. The two party's have failed to address this. For the average American, the economic trend has been downward for going on 40-45 years. That's not sustainable. Continuing to do what we've done in the past (I call it ignoring the big picture while attending to window dressing) will only get us more of what we've already got. Saying we can't because ... Republicans, because we need a majority in order to make incremental improvements i.e., (what we've been doing over the 45 year downward trend period) is not a solution. It's the problem as I see it ... as do many voters and recent non-voters obviously.

I'm done with that. Lived through it. Time for change. Hope you will join me/us as we go for real change.

[ehrnst]

180. Sanders said that "Medicare for All" isn't possible now....

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/11/542676994/bernie-sanders-knows-his-medicare-for-all-bill-wont-pass-thats-not-the-point

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

279. I hear you KPN, but some around her never let facts get in the way of throwing Bernie under the bus!

[KPN]

308. Seems that way doesn't it.

Thanks for the post -- good to know we are not crazy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

316. Definitely not! Here we are, our party in the worst shape electorally, in my LIFETIME...

... and the one guy, Bernie, who can get us out of the proverbial "ditch" - practically OVERNIGHT in my opinion - is being treated like a heretic!!

Talk about crazy!!!

[KPN]

323. Personally, I'm beginning to understand why

the right labeled liberals "elitists". Wonk-ability is favored over common sense and appealing to common people. I kind of feel like they (to be euphemistic, the "establishment&quot think that they are playing chess while we only play checkers, when in fact, they are not even in the game.

It's discouraging but I'm persistent and don't intend to go away.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

325. Glad to hear... neither is Bernie, thankfully.

[Adrahil]

304. Well let me help you.

This may surprise you, but politic is quite often NOT about what is right and just. It's about the ugly, sloppy work of pushing forward and achieving what we can, when we can.

I am uninterested in noble defeats. I want actual progress for actual people.

Sometimes that means fighting for what we CAN do as work towards what we SHOULD do, and sometimes that means some strategic thinking and delayed gratification.

[KPN]

309. Oh poo!

Must be nice to be go through life feeling certain about how righteous one is. What is it they say about people who question things including themselves?

You obviously don't have a clue about why we (the Ds) are in the shape we are in -- perhaps because you are too privileged and comfortable to see the forest for the trees. But I'm optimistic that someday the light will come on.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

326. Right there with you KPN!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

162. Your point is well taken.

[ehrnst]

175. Politifact gave it a "mostly false" ruling.

Not a smear, just stating the facts.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/18/bernie-s/fact-checking-bernie-sanders-claim-he-helped-write/

[Madam45for2923]

216. Unbelievable that you just proved the opposite but this thread continues.

WTF?

[Jim Lane]

225. Your post is a lie. See #223.

Yes, it is a smear, and no, you are not just stating the facts.

You are lying. Be ashamed.

[Ninsianna]

261. I think the people resorting to ad hominems because they cannot accept facts are the ones

who should be ashamed.

Accusing those presenting facts and links to back them up of "lying" is a smear, a denial of facts and something that deserves shame.

[ehrnst]

262. +1000. (nt)

[George II]

263. "A lie"? "Not just stating the facts"? Did you read the article that was linked?

[George II]

324. Just went looking for #223, couldn't find it.

[Cary]

296. Why do this us versus them shtick?

You could phrase your point of view in a less confrontational way, if you don't want conflict. Bernie Sanders is one person. Democrats are more than 55 million strong if we can stop the nonsense and focus on policies rather than personalities.

We either coalesce or we get divided and conquered. We can't afford righteous indignation.

[PatrickforO]

13. No the problems in Colorado, at least, had to do with the way the initiative was worded,

and lots and lots and lots and lots of out of state money coming in from big pharma and insurance lobbies telling the same old bullshit story.

Single payer.

And you know, Bernie did support ACA in 09. And he will act now to save ACA from the axe. But he, like me and so many other Americans are for Medicare for all Americans.

[KPN]

89. You speak the truth. I appreciate that.

[Demsrule86]

126. I have heard multiple explanations for why single payer failed in Vermont and

hasn't been passed in other places like Colorado. Does it occur to you, we simply don't have the numbers to pass single payer at the moment? What do you think will happen if we run on it in 18 or 20. The same demonetization will occur and we could lose. If we run on the ACA (hope we save it), we could win as people support and like it...a 'fixed' version would be difficult to demonize.

[ehrnst]

178. So where is the analysis on those obstacles?

And the obstacles that caused Green Mountain Care to fail?

I hear nothing on lessons learned about this from Sanders, and he brushes off any questions about this, especially about Green Mountain Care.

That is not productive for ensuring that those mistakes won't tank "Medicare for All."

[CherokeeFiddle]

17. Single payer and Colorado

failed because of many reasons. Lots of outside money poured in to defeat it which basically overwhelmed those of us who were on the ground here fighting for single payer. There was a campaign of disinformation which injected a lot fear and scare tactics into things.

It's not so cut & dry as you think.

[ehrnst]

153. Can you direct us to that analysis of why it failed?

And who was pouring money into fighting ColoradoCare from out of state?

Also, can you point to the misinformation campaign?

I ask because if those things are successful obstacles to Single Payer, they need to be addressed.

You don't move forward without understanding what causes previous iterations of it to fail.

[CherokeeFiddle]

198. I wrote a very big thing on here but I can't seem to find it

It was a response and outlined why it did. I'm new so it shouldn't be difficult to find but for whatever reason, I can't locate it. If you do, link me please

[karynnj]

210. Single payer did not "fail" in Vermont, it was never enacted

The problem on the state level is that they need to work within the framework of the federal level and a system where many people currently have employer paid or subsidized insurance.

In the other industrialized countries, they did not start with a system where over half the people had insurance from their employer, who then could deduct the insurance payments from their profit meaning the government subsiized it. They created plans that were paid for by taxes. LBJ created Medicare for seniors as they did not have employer health care and created a pay roll tax which people would pay in their working years to pay for it. No one argued then for Medicare for all as the majority of workers had employer paid insurance.

I know Vermont had to work out things like how to treat people who already had as a benefit health insurance from their employer or former employer who might not be in Vermont.

[Jim Lane]

4. Excuse me, did you say "is GETTING downright insane"?

I'm less charitable than you. I think it's been downright insane for quite some time now.

[Demsrule86]

24. This is exactly what is wrong...most of these posts deal with 'It's not his fault' maybe it is,

and maybe it isn't. I have my ideas, and you have yours. But this is and always was about saving the ACA and winning in 18 which we must do to save any progressive policy...one man is simply not important. Those who are upset about this realize, we may lose health care for decades after waiting a hundred years for it. We know single payer is not around the corner...maybe never. We could have worked with the ACA, offered a public option and lowered medicare to 55...but now we will have nothing unless we can save the ACA.

[NurseJackie]

64. Bright shiny unfulfillable promises distract lawmakers AND discourage or suppress public activism...

Last edited Wed Sep 20, 2017, 11:15 AM - Edit history (2)

... it's the "perfect storm" that will give the GOP the advantage they need to cripple and destroy the ACA. The voices of protest that would otherwise be calling and rising up are silent... confident in their belief that MFA is right around the corner, because a favorite politician said so (or because a respected politician "signed-on'').

-----
ETA: Typo correction. Wording.

[Demsrule86]

97. Exactly, all this excitement over a bill that could never become law. It gave the GOP an opening.

[KPN]

120. Right, lawmakers and the public can't deal with more than one idea at a time.

Sigh.

[bettyellen]

139. Unfortunately people have a hard time with it- cannot suss out what's worthwhile or possible when

There are similar ideas presented in sound bites. Most people think "emails" were both her private server, missing and they he DNC wrapped in one. Three no big deals became huge because people prefer things to be simple.

[KPN]

146. Oh, so you don't have faith in people coming out strongly enough

against Cassidy-Graham? ... Gee, and I thought I was a glass is half empty person.

[bettyellen]

220. I'm concerned that activists are already feeling burned out as well- but regarding the general

Public, I certainly think it confuses a lot of voters for the same politicians to be supporting two different things. Amd of course people might think they should pick one.

[ehrnst]

290. This (nt)

[NurseJackie]

143. I know. You're absolutely correct. They're only human after all...

... and they can't give 100% of their time and effort to everything simultaneously.

I have the least confidence in the ability of the "public" to remain focused on the more important issues. They are easily deceived and distracted by shiny objects and grand promises. Many are gullible and will believe whatever is told to them. Others are unrealistically optimistic and see the world through rose-colored glasses.

Sigh.

I share your frustration. As a nation we need to focus on saving (and strengthening and growing) the ACA. Everything else is just grandstanding and showboating... a distraction... a waste of time. It leaves the ACA vulnerable and the GOP will exploit that weakness of conviction and sloppy coordination.

[KPN]

152. So apparently the public paid attention to the Medicare For All News but not the

Cassidy-Graham/GOP health bill news. Who'd a figured?

Come on.

This stuff is really getting disingenuous.

[NurseJackie]

160. Apparently so. Sad, isn't it?

There's nothing disingenuous at all about the fact that MFA will NOT happen in my lifetime, NOR will it happen without a strong ACA. Pollyannaish claims to the contrary are what can be accurately labeled as being disingenuous.

[CherokeeFiddle]

206. It'll happen

Probably a lot sooner than you think and hopefully you'll be rejoicing with us when it does!

[NurseJackie]

211. No. I'm being realistic. It will be 25 years or more before it happens. And...

... if the ACA is destroyed, it will be even longer. Either way, I'll be dead. But in the meantime, the "let it burn" mentality exhibited by some (with the misguided notion that it will bring about the desired results sooner) will only cause more suffering. It's a vain and selfish strategy that will fail, and it comes at the expense of the most vulnerable among us.

Probably a lot sooner than you think

I'm an old woman. I know more that you think I do. I put zero stock in wishful thinking and blind optimism that ignores reality. The "it's happening!" kind of giddiness is intoxicating, I agree... but it accomplishes nothing.

[CherokeeFiddle]

217. 25 years until we have single payer isn't realistic

and I'm unsure why you think it would take 25 years until we have single payer in this country. It is a wildly popular issue on both sides of the aisle. Within 8 years we'll have it.

[NurseJackie]

218. LOL --- Like I said, it's an intoxicating fantasy.

Within 8 years we'll have it.

Such a short timeframe is wishful thinking. It's not realistic.

[CherokeeFiddle]

229. Wishful thinking?

I would counter with "nope" enables the deaths of people.
The ACA was done in a shorter time frame than 8 years. Single payer is even more popular and will be a massive campaign issue come 2018 & 2020

[NurseJackie]

234. LOL. Stop it.

The ACA was done in a shorter time frame than 8 years.

Time is not the issue. Votes are. This is NOT going to happen without the votes. The votes won't be there unless the ACA is intact. This will also require a MAJOR and MASSIVE and TOTAL overhaul of our tax system AND it will require participation from states that currently have no state income tax. What you longingly imagine happening in eight years simply WILL NOT HAPPEN. It's not realistic. It's a fantasy.

I would counter with "nope" enables the deaths of people.

Except, you'd be wrong. Allowing the ACA to fail is what enables that to happen. Allow the ACA to fail in the hopes of some "revolution" or "uprising" only makes matters worse and vulnerable people suffer as a consequence of other people's vanity and cockiness and their belief in a fantasy. It's not as easy as some people believe it to be. So, again, yes... What you're describing is wishful thinking. It's unrealistic.

I'll go ahead and give you a heads-up and advance warning: my response will be the same no matter how many different ways you try to reword your question or arguments. Enjoy the rosy pictures... I agree with you, it would be nice. But the road to get there isn't as smooth or easy or short as you imagine.

[CherokeeFiddle]

237. LOL nope

Time is not the issue. Votes are. This is NOT going to happen without the votes. The votes won't be there unless the ACA is intact. This will also require a MAJOR and MASSIVE and TOTAL overhaul of our tax system AND it will require participation from states that currently have no state income tax. What you longingly imagine happening in eight years simply WILL NOT HAPPEN. It's not realistic. It's a fantasy.

A fantasy? Nope, it is reality. It will be a huge campaign issue and look at all the names already behind Conyers & Bernie's bills. It is 100% realistic and the time to begin the entire argument is now. It is a lightning rod that will bring people to the polls in 2018, and we need that desperately as voting turnout is always low for us in midterms. It will be also be a major campaign issue come 2020 and a defining factor in who we elect to represent us.

Except, you'd be wrong. Allowing the ACA to fail is what enables that to happen. Allow the ACA to fail in the hopes of some "revolution" or "uprising" only makes matters worse and vulnerable people suffer as a consequence of other people's vanity and cockiness and their belief in a fantasy. It's not as easy as some people believe it to be. So, again, yes... What you're describing is wishful thinking. It's unrealistic.

I'll go ahead and give you a heads-up and advance warning: my response will be the same no matter how many different ways you try to reword your question or arguments. Enjoy the rosy pictures... I agree with you, it would be nice. But the road to get there isn't as smooth or easy or short as you imagine.

No I am 100% correct. Under the ACA 28 million plus are sill uninsured and millions more are underinsured. Red states right now lead the death count and it is due to not expanding Medicaid under the ACA. It is time we quit enabling death in this country period and insure EVERYBODY.

That's fine then we will agree to disagree. The road isn't easy, it never has been but the majority of America is now behind it and they vote!

[NurseJackie]

238. Enjoy your fantasy.

[CherokeeFiddle]

240. Enjoy your Republican talking points about single payer

As was written today in the Daily Beast

[lapucelle]

284. "The Republican National Committee Is Weaponizing Bernie Sanders Single-Payer Plan"

That's the headline for the story at your link.

The Republican talking points are specific to the Senate proposal rather than to single payer itself. (The talking points say nothing about the House Medicare for All bill introduced for the 8th time last January by John Conyers.) It's probably easier to go after the proposal because we still don't have the actual text of an actual bill.

It's been a week since the Senate proposal was announced. I wish that the Library of Congress would hurry up and publish the actual legislation.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676

[ehrnst]

295. Right. Anyone who doesn't agree with Sanders

= GOP talking points.....

Because it's not like there is any valid criticism of his bill anywhere outside the smoke filled GOP lair...

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/9/8/16271888/health-care-single-payer-aca-democratic-agenda

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/

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/single-payer-healthcare-pluses-minuses-means-201606279835

That GOP must have mind control rays.

[Eliot Rosewater]

244. Did someone posting on DU just blame Obamacare for the uninsured and deaths?

Wow, I knew I didnt want to do this anymore, I was right.

[NurseJackie]

257. I believe so. Now *that's* what I'd call RW talking points...

... and a departure from reality. I'm a little surprised that "Death Panels" weren't tossed in for good measure.

Hang in there Eliot... I love ya!

[Ninsianna]

265. Those are the talking points of the day, it seems.

[ehrnst]

267. It is 100% realistic? Bernie says it won't pass...

I believe that he would know if it was realistic...

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/11/542676994/bernie-sanders-knows-his-medicare-for-all-bill-wont-pass-thats-not-the-point

[George II]

276. The ACA itself may have been done in a relatively short time frame, but it was the culmination...

...of decades of work to get there. Remember, Ted Kennedy was pushing for it years before the ACA was passed and Hillary Clinton herself worked on healthcare when she was First Lady in the 1990s. As a matter of fact the first iteration of universal healthcare was introduced in the House way back in 1943. If we use that as the benchmark, it took 63 years to get to the ACA.

[CherokeeFiddle]

281. Oh sure

but at the same time single payer has been decades too, nobody will deny that. The end goal is to have everyone insured, correct? I don't care of it's multipayer, single payer, whatever, everyone should be insured as health care is a human right in my eyes.

[George II]

282. A form of single payer was introduced by John Dingell SR. back in 1943, so yes it's been around....

....for decades (like 74 years?) If you don't care if it's multipayer, single payer, whatever, why is everyone frothing about this new plan that will be introduced in the Senate (I don't think it has been yet, by the way) that we all know won't go anywhere?

The current ACA, if all the states were to cooperate and embrace it, would result in everyone being insured,correct? And, unlike the proposed plan, we all know how it would be funded.

[CherokeeFiddle]

283. There are a couple reasons why people are excited

Because for the first time it is actually getting traction and getting co-sponsors. It is now at the forefront of the conversation, something which has never happened before. This is important for a few reasons;

At our local meetings we have on Thursday evenings, people are very excited. We have had numerous new people show up since the election and many of these people are quite young. Last week we had over a dozen new members and the one thing they were all talking about? Single payer.

See, it goes beyond just making it a reality within the new few months. We know it won't be. However what it does is energize people, it is a lightning rod to get GOTV and the timing is dead on the money because in another 6-8 weeks time, midterm campaigning will be in full swing. And the more that single payer is at the forefront of the conversation, the better.

People want something to vote FOR, not simply AGAINST and messaging is an integral part of how you motivate people to get out & vote.

If all states co-operated, yes mostly however it still leaves insurance companies largely in charge, something which I have a huge problem with. This is one reason why our cost is so high, among many. How would you address the cost of premiums under the ACA? That is something which has to be tackled if we decide to completely ditch single payer and go only ACA route. Many can not afford their premiums, that is a reality and many don't qualify for subsidies.

You have to recall what Harry Reid said; "The ACA is absolutely a stepping stone to single payer".

[ehrnst]

292. The ACA was also not as sweeping or disruptive as what is being proposed as "m4a"

[Ninsianna]

245. Well, single payer has been introduced every single year since 1935, it's a Democratic

thing that John Dingell (who is 83) and his father who held the seat before him have been trying to make happen, it's 2017 and it's still not looking like it's going to happen.

So, perhaps "popularity" isn't how we should be making laws in this country? How about one with the details worked out, a CBO score and some specifics?

We're not having anything within 8 or even 25 years unless people get beyond the slogans, learn about health care reform and come up with a plan that will work and get the people who will vote that in, into office.

What we have now are slogans and people who are "wild" about "popularity" and don't seen to understand how government works and why solid policy details have to be put into a bill, including funding planks. Also, the repeated attacks on the people who have been favorable towards Universal health care, single payer is only one of many methods to achieve it, is not going to do anything to help achieve it.

Perhaps more homework and less repetition of attacks on Democrats that sound more like Republican attacks rather than allies who actually wish t achieve Democratic ideals, like Universal healthcare coverage and Single Payer?

All this punching left is unproductive and it's leading to dangerous times when people's healthcare coverage is being threatened. Destroying the ACA does nothing to bring about Single Payer, but it does threaten to kill a lot of people who are already dealing with pre-existing conditions, who have been putting off going to the doctor to get diagnosed and who cannot wait for some fantasy of a plan that its creator won't flesh out.

[ehrnst]

291. And if it doesn't - like it hasn't despite the many times it's been brought up? (nt)

[ehrnst]

182. When people find out they have been lied to about a promise

it gets used as ammunition against everything else in that promise...

"You can keep your doctor."

Sigh.

[KPN]

184. Promise?

[ehrnst]

203. Yes.

When people are promised something, and it turns out not to be true, they lose confidence in other things you might say.

sigh.

[KPN]

233. What promise?

[ehrnst]

145. See also: "You can keep your doctor."

That became ammunition that allowed a lot of people to say he lied, and that the ACA was not what he said it was.

[KPN]

116. How about we wait and see what actually happens before blaming

Bernie and those who share his views for something that hasn't even happened. Geesh!

The sky is falling!

You know, one of the big reasons the Democratic Party has been losing membership and votes is its penchant for treading carefully around the fringes of issues that are important to people. People want leaders who stand for something other than just getting elected. The public is with us on universal health care and we already have nearly a majority with us on single payer. We need to represent the people.

[Demsrule86]

119. I hope it doesn't fall, but it is not looking good for our side...call and call some more.

Use twitter and Facebook...everything.

[ehrnst]

150. Democrats do represent the majority of people. Universal health care is already in the platform.

Securing Universal Health Care

Democrats believe that health care is a right, not a privilege, and our health care system should put people before profits. Thanks to the hard work of President Obama and Democrats in Congress, we took a critically important step toward the goal of universal health care by passing the Affordable Care Act, which has covered 20 million more Americans and ensured millions more will never be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Democrats will never falter in our generations-long fight to guarantee health care as a fundamental right for every American. As part of that guarantee, Americans should be able to access public coverage through a public option, and those over 55 should be able to opt in to Medicare. Democrats will empower the states, which are the true laboratories of democracy, to use innovation waivers under the ACA to develop unique locally tailored approaches to health coverage. This will include removing barriers to states which seek to experiment with plans to ensure universal health care to every person in their state. By contrast, Donald Trump wants to repeal the ACA, leaving tens of millions of Americans without coverage.

For too many of us, health care costs are still too high, even for those with insurance. And medical debt is a problem for far too many working families, with one-quarter of Americans reporting that they or someone in their household had problems or an inability to pay medical bills in the past year. Democrats will also work to end surprise billing and other practices that lead to out-of-control medical debt that place an unconscionable economic strain on American households. We will repeal the excise tax on high-cost health insurance and find revenue to offset it because we need to contain the long-term growth of health care costs, but should not risk passing on too much of the burden to workers. Democrats will keep costs down by making premiums more affordable, reducing out-of-pocket expenses, and capping prescription drug costs. And we will fight against insurers trying to impose excessive premium increases.

Democrats will fight any attempts by Republicans in Congress to privatize, voucherize, or “phase out” Medicare as we know it. And we will oppose Republican plans to slash funding and block grant Medicaid and SNAP, which would harm millions of Americans.

We will keep fighting until the ACA’s Medicaid expansion has been adopted in every state. Nineteen states have not yet expanded Medicaid. This means that millions of low-income Americans still lack health insurance and are not getting the care they need. Additionally, health care providers, clinics, hospitals, and taxpayers are footing a higher bill when people without insurance visit expensive emergency rooms.

Democrats believe your zip code or census tract should not be a predictor of your health, which is why we will make health equity a central part of our commitment to revitalizing communities left behind. Democrats believe that all health care services should be culturally and linguistically appropriate, and that neither fear nor immigration status should be barriers that impede health care access.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#universal-health

[KPN]

156. So what's the problem?

It's what we said we'd do. Some are actually keeping their word by proposing something as opposed to just putting fingers in the dikes to slow the backflow.

[ehrnst]

168. I was going to ask you the same thing....

You said:

You know, one of the big reasons the Democratic Party has been losing membership and votes is its penchant for treading carefully around the fringes of issues that are important to people. People want leaders who stand for something other than just getting elected. The public is with us on universal health care and we already have nearly a majority with us on single payer. We need to represent the people.

and I pointed out that we do represent the people on universal health care. Already. In the platform.

[KPN]

173. Seriously? You think voters' views of parties/candidates are formed

primarily by platforms?

Platforms mean squat in comparison to actual action and follow through. Plans are meaningless without implementation -- people get that.

[ehrnst]

186. Oh. Do you think that the Democrats are lying in the platform?

Because the ACA is as far down the road as we have ever gotten to UHC.

And the ACA got passed.

Can you show me where that's not implementation of what people want in the way of getting actual things done towards universal health care coverage?

[KPN]

190. I think the Democratic Party has failed to follow through on its platform

repeatedly in the past, and has leaned on the "but there's the GOP" argument for too long now ... and voters have moved away from the party because of that.

[ehrnst]

204. Can you give some examples?

The ACA was a followthrough on the promise to work towards secure Universal Health Care coverage.

A successful one. That bill got passed - so that's not something you are talking about.

Now if they were to have offered up that bill for years and years, and it never got anywhere, would you call that failing to follow through?

Are you saying that when a politician or party says "but the GOP..." they are just giving a lame excuse for failure to follow through on their promises or platform?

[Ninsianna]

280. This is true, I guess that's why there is so much hostile pushback when

the actual actions, the "follow through" and the voting record is mentioned for some people who don't bother to actually inform themselves. They get awfully touchy about facts, even when fact checking websites are evoked, evidence, facts, reality etc, doesn't matter to some people who choose to be as uninformed as possible.

You actually have to have a plan in order to implement anything, most adults with functional brains who are not being actively ratfucked by nefarious actors get that. I think the vote totals in the past election made that clear. The majority went with the person with the plans, not the vague slogans that had literally no meaning whatsoever.

[NurseJackie]

151. "wait and see" equals "let it burn" #Sad.

"Sigh."

[KPN]

155. Saw that one coming, but surprised it took so long.

You do realize, I hope, that change is coming -- in fact, has already come to the Democratic Party. Can't turn back that clock on this one.

[NurseJackie]

165. "but surprised it took so long" --- Huh? What does that even mean?

What purpose does it serve to take personal swipes at me?

You do realize, I hope, that change is coming -- in fact, has already come to the Democratic Party. Can't turn back that clock on this one.

[ehrnst]

166. ???? (nt)

[R B Garr]

231. Thanks, Katy Tur just asked someone on MSNBC if this single payer bill "galvanized"

the GOP to submit this new bill. It's obvious to anyone that it did, and you make complete sense. It's all about the poor timing.

Stephanie Miller's show this morning had a call from someone whining about "Bernie bashing", and they let him have it by saying the cult of personality has to stop.

This has gone on too long with "issues" being cast as nothing more than personality and beauty contests. The majority who reliably vote are getting sick and tired, completely fed up with this charade anymore. Enough. This is all about changing reality, and it's just petty, juvenile and useless.

[NurseJackie]

241. Wow!

Stephanie Miller's show this morning had a call from someone whining about "Bernie bashing", and they let him have it by saying the cult of personality has to stop.

Good! That false accusation has been used to short-circuited many truthful discussions, or to deflect and distract by changing the subject. I'm happy to see that people are catching on to the tactic and are willing to address it head on in an honest and frank manner.

Looks like her podcasts are available for free streaming on my Amazon Echo (via Tune In) ... I'll have to give her a listen.

[R B Garr]

247. Yes, Stephanie's show is great. She addressed the caller by saying there was a new poll

out that showed both Hillary and Bernie are popular. She then addressed the caller about the cult of personality. It sounded like she was tired of the accusations about anyone who questions him and that's why she brought that up. I usually don't get to listen to a whole show in the morning drive, but yes, there are those podcasts I forget about.

[ProfessorPlum]

43. couldn't agree more

and the inmates are running the asylum.

thanks for this post

[left-of-center2012]

109. "it's been downright insane for quite some time now"

Amen !

I've begun to think the Bernie haters may be GOP or Russian trolls
set out to weaken us in 2018 and 2020.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. BEYOND insane... how does dissing THE most popular active politician...

among DEMOCRATS (and Independents) no less, help your cause? I don't get it.

[Demsrule86]

60. If the ACA fails...will that still be true?

I am even not sure it is true now.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

122. Yes, even MORE popular for the reasons I've given you in other posts.

I see where you're coming from, I do... I just honestly believe you're underestimating the intelligence and the WILL of the American people to provide accessible, affordable healthcare to all.

[Demsrule86]

127. We shall see.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

130. Yes, and I will certainly credit you if you turn out to be right.

[Demsrule86]

307. No need for that, all I want is to get the damn GOP out of of as many office as possible!

We may have slight differences in terms of policy, but we are all on the same side. I would crawl across broken glass to vote for Sen. Sanders if he was the Democratic nominee in 20...and work my heart out for his campaign.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

317. Feel the exact same way... we can do this!

[ehrnst]

171. The ACA is the farthest down the road we have ever been to UHC.

And if that will sinks below 50%?

Will that be the basis for giving up on M4A bill?

[brush]

115. Why couldn't this Medicare for all push wait until Oct. 1 when the repugs could no longer...

repeal Obamacare with just 51 votes?

This roll out of a bill with no chance of passing now takes the focus off of defending the ACA and gives repugs a lever and talking point which repug Lindsay Graham jumped on, saying something to the effect, and I'm paraphrasing: "We'd better pass this new bill now or will have socialized medicine."

Timing, as they say, is everything. Why wasn't that simple, strategic detail thought of? Do not give the repugs any ammo to repeal the ACA.

This roll out could've waited a couple of weeks.

[KPN]

125. So you don't trust the judgement of Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, ...

Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkley, Tammy Baldwin, Kirsten Gillibrand and the other 9 Senators who co-sponsored the bill. Okay, got it.

[brush]

133. You know very well they are positioning themselves for 2020 and had to sign on to this

I see you didn't address the question.

Why couldn't this wait until Oct. 1 when all the focus could be on it and not on the repugs using this Medicare for all roll out as a talking point to try to repeal the ACA?

You do know that after Sept. 30 the repugs need 60 votes to repeal, not the 51 they need now, right?

This could've waited.

[KPN]

167. It could have. But I think strategically/tactically it makes more sense

to push it now in contrast to the Republican effort to repeal. What better way to show how ridiculous the GOP position is?

Here's how I hear your argument: The GOP wants to roll back/repeal the ACA. Oh, that means we better not propose anything that actually would be better than the ACA, that would actually achieve everything we say we want to achieve regarding health care in our platform. .... Silly ... and directly or indirectly (depending upon the issue/circumstances) why we get rolled all the time.

[brush]

174. What's silly is to endanger what the millions of newly insured have now.

The focus should be saving the ACA from the repugs getting rid of it.

Medicare for all is a worthy goal but let's get real, it's not going anywhere with the repug-controlled Congress.

The ACA is in place. Let's focus our efforts on trying to save it, then take back Congress if we can then pass Medicare for all.

We all know the repugs won't, at least we should all know that.

[KPN]

181. Our views differ significantly.

I think I'll just leave it there and do something more productive.

[brush]

183. I think we can agree though that the repugs won't pass Medicare for all, right?

[KPN]

185. Right -- but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be fighting openly for it imo.

Fair enough?

[brush]

188. Fair enough.

[George II]

215. Their judgement was that the bill shouldn't have been introduced at this time, otherwwise....

...maybe they would have done so themselves.

Once introduced, they supported it.

But if the issue hadn't been raised now, republicans might have snoozed through the end of the month. That's not going to happen now.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

128. So are you sayin all those potential 2020 presidential candidates that co-sponsored Bernie's bill...

are not that swift when it comes to political strategy? Could they not have waited too?

Actually, I think they're very wise in seeing the value in lending their support to Bernie's push for Medicare for all now. Kamala made the argument very well in the recent presentation she made to supporters. Did you see it?

[brush]

135. Most probably would've preferred to wait to make repealing the ACA harder for the repugs...

(60 votes instead of 51 needed after Sept. 30) but felt compelled to sign on to Sanders' bill to appeal to his supporters.

Who isn't in favor of Medicare for all but why muddy the ACA repeal issue with this when Oct. 1 is so close?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

140. So why couldn't all those potential candidates - starting18 MONTHS from now - wait a couple weeks

to appeal to Bernie's supporters? Maybe they know it was the smart and RIGHT thing to do?

[brush]

148. Maybe smart for their presidential positioning but is the roll out of this smart now...

instead of after Sept 30?

Believe me, if the repugs are successful in repealing the ACA (Lindsay Graham hinted at this roll out by sayiing "if we don't appeal this now we'll have socialized medicine.&quot there's going to be blow back at this distraction away from the fight to save the ACA.

This could've waited until Oct. 1.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

154. If what you're saying is true, don't you think these candidates are politically adept enough...

to wait a few weeks before signing on to Bernie's excellent bill? Come on, give our future candidates a LITTLE credit.

[brush]

170. If they didn't sign on they would've been vilified by many of you know whose supporters...

before the 2020 campaign even gets started.

The "corporate whore" and "crooked and corrupt Hillary" bashings are still fresh in the memory.

They know how that works.

[KPN]

103. I agree. It is getting insane ...

it's definitely close minded and self absorbed.

[leftstreet]

6. +1

This is a really good point

[Jim Lane]

8. Bernie could have won anyway.

You're free to call it "the most progressive piece of legislation regarding healthcare in over forty years" but that opinion was not universal on the left. If Bernie really were against the ACA, he could have justified a vote against it as being a vote for more progressive health care.

In 2012, Bernie won re-election with 71% of the vote. That is not a typo. Seventy-one percent. He could have afforded to lose a few votes over health care.

Here, the most plausible explanation for his record on the ACA is the simplest: While continuing to advocate for single payer, he sincerely concluded that the ACA, flawed though it was, was still better than what it replaced.

[SaschaHM]

9. Bernie ran without significant Democratic opposition in 2012.

If he scuttled a Democratic president's major legislative achievement, he would have seen some actual opposition and backlash that could have easily cost him his chairmanships/ranking member status.

He might win a 3 person race, but the Democratic caucus is under no obligation to give him ranking member status or a chairmanship on any committee and the influence that comes with setting the agenda. It's the price of admission. He gets an oversized role for a junior senator from a small solid blue state and the Democrats get a reliable vote on must pass legislation.

[CherokeeFiddle]

18. Bernie in his home state is widely popular on BOTH sides of the aisle

He isn't going anywhere nor would he have

[SaschaHM]

149. He wouldn't be widely popular if he joined the Republicans and voted down Obamacare.

Nor if the VT Democratic establishment actually treated him like an outsider and challenged him. He isn't widely popular because he has a history of sticking it to the Democrats legislatively. He's not Lisa Murkowski. He's widely popular because he's a reliable vote for Democrats.

[CherokeeFiddle]

199. On that we agree

[KPN]

129. He didn't do that. Did he?

Sounds to me like you assume that Bernie would not have supported the ACA in 2010 if he thought he might pay a price for that.

If so, I would guess you haven't paid much attention to Bernie. I really don't think you would assume that had you.

[zentrum]

10. Thank you....

...for the actual Goddamn record.

[pnwmom]

11. At this point the only thing that matters is what he does NOW, not what he did then.

And introducing his single-payer bill on the same day he knew they were introducing their ACA repeal wasn't the greatest idea. It provided a distraction at a time when we need everyone to be focusing on saving the ACA. And I've heard more than one person right here say they don't care about what happens to the ACA -- they just want single payer.

[sheshe2]

14. That was said here?

That breaks my heart.

Here is one group that will suffer and die without ACA.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and civil rights organizations have fought tooth and nail to preserve the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and for good reason. Before the ACA became law, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people faced incredible barriers to accessing professional and appropriate health care -- from overt discrimination to outright denial of coverage, and unaffordable costs for treating chronic conditions like HIV. It was the ACA’s unprecedented (and necessary) federal anti-discrimination protections that allowed millions of LGBTQ people access to health care coverage without fear of discrimination. Expanded coverage through health insurance exchanges and Medicaid has provided life-saving health care to people living with HIV.

And the others

Now, Donald Trump, Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell are hell-bent on repealing this life-saving law and undoing the eight years of progress we have seen in ending health disparities for communities of color, women, children, seniors and LGBTQ people. Hatched in secret and with no public hearings of committee debate, their plans to repeal the ACA would strip key patient protections, slash Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars, and defund Planned Parenthood -- one of the country’s largest providers of transgender-inclusive health care and a primary site for HIV testing.

MORE:https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/opinion-repealing-affordable-care-act-direct-threat-millions-lgbtq-americans-n786341

At this crucial time ACA should be front and forward. It is the law of the land, the healthcare of millions is at stake. The GOP is planning to take it away, a healthcare plan that exists and is functioning. That SHOULD BE OUR SOLE FOCUS. Next week...next Wednesday, they say they will vote. This is where the focus should be and it pains me that it is not.

[pnwmom]

15. Multiple times. Someone said it to me just today. n/t

[Demsrule86]

27. I have seen it too...

[pnwmom]

16. Another group: VoteVets tweeted that 1,750,000 veterans will lose Medicaid coverage. n/t

[LostOne4Ever]

12. K&R nt

[Ninsianna]

19. That's nice and all, but in September of 2017, his SuperPAC is pushing his bill

and not saving the ACA.

So perhaps he could do more than pay lip service and get his peeps on message?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

34. Love Peeps... especially the chocolate-covered ones!

And, yes very hard to get them on message... almost impossible once you've eaten them.

[Weekend Warrior]

69. Defining them as "peeps" in the manner in which you have...

Is spot on. Solid analogy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

163. Thanks... was hopin someone would get it.

[Ninsianna]

172. When I said the same thing, I was attacked.

[Ninsianna]

161. So you think the people who make up the Revolution who are cheering on the demise

of the ACA are equivalent to marshmallows and should be disposed of, since they cannot do anything productive?

What an interesting commentary Our Revolution.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

164. Obviously, this person didn't get the analogy like Weekend Warrior above...

Nice strawman argument though! My positions, as stated here for YEARS, are just the OPPOSITE of the way you misconstrued them.

[Ninsianna]

169. Obviously, you forgot what you typed.

That's not what a strawman argument is, please go learn what things mean before you start using words you don't understand.

You might want to read over what you wrote about the Revolution and their IQs, chocolate covered marshmallows who can't do anything on message?

Harsh. Especially the "chocolate covered" thing, twitter people consider that to be racist, they say so when they see the only donut icon on twitter has chocolate frosting. Apparently that's a racist attack on Nina Turner.

Chocolate covered marshmallows who won't do anything useful because they're unmanageable, that's literally what you said. That was your analogy. The person who wrote that didn't get his own analogy. The Revolution people will be quite upset, they enjoy throwing tantrums at people who say such things.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

176. Didn't forget... was talking about the original Bernie's "peeps" comment... and the throwing of them

under the bus that goes on around here on a daily basis. Has nothing to do with the complexion of his supporters btw - ironically accused of being chromatically monolithic - I actually just happen to like a particular variety of peeps.

Hope you get it now.

[Ninsianna]

242. Nope, you seem to be talking in riddles. What "original" peeps comment?

You were the one who threw them under the bus, with your comments. If it was meant to be a joke, um ... keep your day job.

I think you're not getting the irony, nor do you seem to be getting the reference, which ironically was all about frosting, just as you used it.
Peeps are just superficially dyed, non substantial chemical filled stuff that has no flavor, bland as heck.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

271. Wow, talk about throwin peeps under the bus! ...

No need to be rude... you have yourself a good evening.

[Ninsianna]

273. I wouldn't bother with ruining a bus's tires with that nastiness.

I'm never rude, and there never is a need to be rude, but some people cannot seem to help themselves.

[Demsrule86]

20. You can say what you want, but I heard more than one GOP Senator saying , we have to pass

the health care bill to stop 'Bernie's socialist healthcare plan'...and the implication was out there that Dems don't like the ACA. I hear commentators talk about how unwise it was to put out single payer before the ACA was secured.If we lose the ACA, it will be in part because we put out the single payer bill. It was a bad idea as many warned (including me). However, that is not important Sen. Sanders is not important...none of the Dems who signed on are important...the thousands who will loses healthcare are what is important. We have to fight for them and stop the GOP now. Also, do not run on single payer in 18. This is but a taste of the shit coming our way if we do. I would like to win this time.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

36. Yes, it's all Bernie's fault for tryin to guarantee healthcare as a basic human right

for all Americans. Grab the pitchforks and go after The Monster!!

[Autumn]

49. God forbid Bernie put up a bill contrasting real health care that provides actual heath care in

contrast to what the Gop is trying to pass off as healthcare. It was a smart move.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

50. Exactly! Ironically, Bernie is the one politician who can lead us out of this morass.

[Autumn]

52. I haven't seen a single one of my Democratic Senators out there defending the ACA.

But Bernie is all on it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

92. Mine too cannot be found... but there's Bernie leading the way, while being thrown under the bus.

[Demsrule86]

63. How exactly? I have seen no signs that a super majority is possible and that is what it will take

to get any sort of healthcare again. The ACA is all we have, and if it goes there will be hell to pay...before it was the GOP who would be held accountable that may no longer be true. It was a mistake to introduce single payer before the ACA was safe...but it is what is ...please call Congress and help save millions of lives.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

98. Nope, if GOP repeals ACA, tRumpCare will be the noose that hangs 'em in 2018 & 2020.

And it looks like Bernie has most if not ALL the potential Democratic candidates for 2020 signed on as co-sponsors of his healthcare bill - you gonna blame them too? - which will be the defining issue that wins us back the White House... guaranteed healthcare as a human right being favored by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

You can thank Bernie later.

[Demsrule86]

121. I see...and the thousands that die because Trump or some GOP is in office until 2020?

I don't think we will have the numbers anytime soon. Are you one of those who think the ACA's demise will usher in single payer? If so, you are wrong.

[Skidmore]

132. That is the coldest, most cynical statement

I've read on DU, and I've been here a long time. The lack of compassion for those who are fragile and need ongoing care as part of a political ploy does little to recommend this conscious choice or those who are making this crap shoot to me. No, I won't be thanking Sanders later. I will hold him responsible for every bit of suffering and each death he helps Republicans cause by destroying healthcare in a highly risky bit of grandstanding. It's my opinion. That anyone on the left who claims to hold caring for the sick and poor could hold the thought of using them as pawns is mindboggling to me. Nothing progressive about it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

147. You do know the meaning of the word "IF"? That's a far cry from wishing something would happen!

I've NEVER advocated for repeal of the ACA... just the opposite... so why use that strawman argument?... talk about cynical!

I'd laugh if the situation wasn't so serious due to a madman in the White House trying to destroy this country and undo ALL that Obama accomplished. IF (note the word "IF&quot that happens - and I hope that DOES NOT happen!!! - and that leads to the Fuhrer-in-Chief's downfall, I for one will not shed a tear!!

Anyway, no apology is necessary Skidmore for misconstruing my words... this is what I've come to expect in the fight to make universal healthcare a human right.

[Skidmore]

157. Besides the madman in the WH,

there is a clear majority of Republicans in both houses of Congress who have nothing to show for their efforts this year. I have seen several trot out Sander's bill as the bogey man to sell GC against. Why pick now, when ACA has achieved support by the majority of Americans to muddy the water and risk it all? You don't gamble with crazy. Ill conceived and untimely.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

159. As long as you got my drift... thank you.

[George II]

138. We have no idea who will be our candidate in 2020, most of us are not thinking about that yet....

....we're concerned with keeping the ACA the law of the land, legislating in 2017, and saving our country so we'll have an opportunity to vote for a president in 2020.

I'm certainly not rooting for repeal of the ACA so we can get a leg up on elections in 2018 or 2020.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

142. Who said they're rooting for repeal of the ACA? Nice try with the strawman argument...

I never said that! I said if the GOP were to do that, they would surely hang themselves in the upcoming 2018 and 2020 elections... that's all.

[Demsrule86]

76. I have seen many Dems defending the ACA. I have not seen Sen. Sanders doing so.

I watched CNN and MSNBC last night.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

101. Oh okay, so because you didn't see Bernie on 2 cable channels last night, he's AWOL...

... that's a novel argument, I must say.

Furthermore, you do realize that, without Bernie's leadership, it's doubtful that the ACA would ever have been passed? Maybe it's time to give the Bernie bashing a rest.

[Demsrule86]

105. Give me an example. You say he is doing this...I have not seen it. I hope you are right.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

114. No, I didn't say Bernie appeared last night on the 2 cable shows you mentioned.

Can't stand CNN and the right-leaning bullshit they spew... so I never watch it anymore. And I missed Rachel's show last night, so I can't comment on whether she mentioned Bernie's defense of the ACA, sorry.

[Demsrule86]

136. I am not a fan of Sen. Sanders...I know shocking but he caucuses with us and if I am being unfair...

I want to know. This is why I asked. I also googled and found nothing recent.

[CherokeeFiddle]

288. You haven't seen Bernie defending the ACA?

What the heck is all this then? I think your blind hatred for Bernie may be getting in the way there some. He's been fighting for the ACA for YEARS.

From 2013




To this week on twitter.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

302. I don't see a word defending the ACA...just about stopping the GOP...he should talk about how

we fix the ACA because it is all we have for years. But I am glad he is on twitter.

[Demsrule86]

74. If we lose the ACA who's fault is it? The GOP's of course. But what has given them cover?

I will allay believe and so will others that the single payer bill being introduced on the same day impacted our fight to save the ACA in a negative fashion. It would be great to get guaranteed healthcare. But it is not possible right now. I believe in getting what you can and going back for more when the time is right. I will never understand why this bill was introduced before the ACA was secured. In my opinion, it was madness.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

104. Bernie is the solution, not the problem.

[Demsrule86]

107. That remains to be seen...depending on what happens with the ACA which is our only path

to single payer in my opinion.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

118. I respect your opinion, but totally disagree... as I already said, the GOP'S repeal of the ACA...

if it happens, would lead to its demise in the 2018 mid-term and 2020 presidential election. Guess we'll soon find out if these Nazi Rethugs pull it off.

If they do, in the end, you'll be singing Bernie's praises.

[Demsrule86]

131. Even if repealing the ACA lead to the GOP' demise in 18 or 20,

we still need a 60 vote majority...and people will die in the meantime. I won't be singing Sen. Sanders praises in any case because I disagree completely about introducing single payer now...if the ACA survives, it will be in spite of this. Listen, I respect your views as well and truly hope you are right...but I just don't think you are...the GOP is willing to risk losing office to stop healthcare...they know this is their chance to kill it for decades.

[yodermon]

93. "do not run on single payer in 18" holy fucking shit.

where am i.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

106. We must be in Bizzarro World!

[Hoyt]

21. As he said, after ACA debate "[Single Payer] would have had 8 or 10 votes and thats it" in Senate.

It might be more now, but he really didn't have much choice but to vote for ACA in 2009.

But, I don't think he introduced his Single Payer Bill to hurt chances of ACA. He's probably been working on it for some time and the last ditch effort to repeal the ACA came up rather suddenly. But, I'm sure GOPers will advance the argument that if they don't stop ACA, Single Payer will be next. If the Graham-Cassidy Bill had not come up, Sanders' Single Payer Bill did produce a lot of good debate.

[Demsrule86]

28. I think it it may cost us healthcare...more convinced after watching the news.

All that great talk for a bill that is years from happening is not worth one life that will be lost if the ACA goes down...the bill gave the GOP cover...it just did. if we lose healthcare now, it could be decades before we have anything. And some who post here think that if the ACA goes down...why single payer will happen. It won't. There are serious issue with single payer in this country...our work insurance system to name one... I think we could have ended up with a non-profit universal system like Germany or Switzerland by building on the ACA...with nothing to build on... all healthcare goes away...who knows how long.

[Hoyt]

208. After the ACA was finally enacted, I always thought a Pubic Option was

best way to get us close to Single Payer without having to cram it down throats of stupid right wingers opposed to a government plan. If the PO was any near as good as we think, people would have taken it. Within a few years, we'd have at least an 80% public plan, with 20% sticking it out because they detest the government.

But here we are.

[Demsrule86]

306. I do also because I think that eventually fewer employers will offer health coverage.

if we made it so even people with work coverage could use the public option, it would help also...we have a catastrophic policy from work that pays little...but it is all we have.

[Hoyt]

319. Yes. But, even that is probably wishful thinking nowadays, but it sure makes sense.

[GaryCnf]

23. Perhaps here

where the OP is reasonable and fact-based is not the best place to ask, but are there actually DU members claiming that the introduction of Medicare for All bill lessens the chance of preserving the ACA because a handful of INSANE right wing senators from blood red States who face ZERO threat of losing their seats are telling their Trump-loving constituents that MFA is "proof" that the ACA is the first step toward godless Communism?

I hate to dismiss anyone's opinion, but get back to me when the Republicans who actually have a chance of losing start talking like that. The introduction of MFA, as its co-sponsors, including some who are facing tough re-election battles, know, tells reasonable voters how much Democrats care about health care. The Republicans whose votes we need to save the ACA and can actually get know that too.

The MFA will SAVE the Affordable Care Act, if it can be saved. If it can't, THAT is on a national electoral strategy of appeasement that handed the House and Senate over to Republicans.

[Demsrule86]

25. Yes that is exactly what I am saying...the single payer bill is essentaily a replacement bill

and to put out a replacement bill during the fight to save the ACA was foolish. It helped those blood red GOP Senators you refer to...turn on the TV if you don't think what I am saying is true. Listen to what was said yesterday. Today will be worse.

[GaryCnf]

30. We aren't getting

John Barrasso's (or any other RWNJ's) vote and we are not taking their seat. They don't count and their opinions don't count.

The only Republican senators we care about are the one's whose votes we CAN get and those senators are not repeating Barrasso's Red-baiting. In fact, the ONLY place you see it repeated is . . .

That is why our rising stars are behind it. It's brilliant politics.

These is a sad attempt to shift the blame for a predicament created by the politics of appeasement's electoral disaster to the backs of Booker, Harris, Sanders and Gillebrand.

[Demsrule86]

32. It is not brilliant politics if we lose the ACA...we have no shot at single payer at t his moment...

and unlike some, I place people's live above ideology. Also, single payer has a fatal flaw...and it has to do with workplace insurance...the same forces that killed Hillarycare will destroy any single payer bill.

[GaryCnf]

40. The brilliant politics

is that it cements Democrats as the party that wants health care for all and moderate Republicans looking for cover as part of the party that wants to take it away.

What's more, it does so without having to explain the complex set of shenanigans the GOP has used (Supreme Court, Rubio killing the pools, refusal to expand Medicaid, etc.) to create the very issues with the ACA they are using to justify ditching it.

With the introduction of MFA, it's good guys (except to a handful of anti-communists who can't get past the Cold War) versus bad guys.

Harris, Booker, Sanders, and Gillebrand did not become the early favorites for our 2020 presidential nomination by being as venal or banal as some people seem to accuse them of being.

[Demsrule86]

67. If we run on the ACA assuming we can save it after this fiasco, we could

ride it into taking the house and maybe even the Senate. But if you turn on your television...you will see the beginning of the demonetization of single payer...it will work just as it did in the 90's. It is being used as a reason to pass the GOP murderbill to save the country from 'socialized medicine'. It will only get worse. This is not smart politics and will not help us in 18 or 20. And even if it did, I am unwilling to sentence thousands of people to death because they have no health care in order to improve our electoral chances; of course I think just the opposite happens. We could lose the ACA and Medicaid. This is a disaster.

[Demsrule86]

35. What makes you think I blame the Democrats involved?

There has been a single payer de facto litmus test for presidential candidates. Purity politics will be the end of progressives if we are not careful. I understand the Dem's motivation...if there had been no single payer bill, we could have all rallied behind the ACA...and that is what should have happened.

[GaryCnf]

41. You accused those introducing this bill

which includes the very people I mentioned of creating a distraction that will cost us the ACA.

Not only are you wrong . . .

[ucrdem]

42. She isn't wrong. She's being polite.

We're all being polite.

[Demsrule86]

48. Exactly right...we all know why Democrats who are running for president supported this bill...and I

don't blame them...purity politics are destructive.

[Demsrule86]

44. This bill was sponsored by Sen. Sanders...he has co-sponsors for the reasons detailed in original

post. However, it was his bill, and I believe it endangers the ACA because essentially it is a repeal bill put forth during a time when we are desperately trying to save the ACA. It should never have been attempted until the ACA was safe. I will also say that if we run on single payer, the GOP will demonize it and we lose 18...it has already begun. The Democrats won't be blamed nor should they.

[Demsrule86]

51. The sponsor of the bill is Sen. Sanders...the others are co-sponsors and I understand why this is

the case. I have heard Lindsey Graham make the case that murdercare has to pass because the alternative is 'Bernie's socialized medicine single payer bill". Turn on the TV...the single payer bill is hurting the ACA. The GOP uses it as an excuse to not reach a compromise with Democrats to save the ACA as well (no compromise is possible why look the Dems introduce a socialized medicine bill-untrue of course but it gives the GOP cover and an excuse.) They could not make any of these claims if the bill had not been introduced until after the ACA was safe.

They have repeatedly claimed the new murdercare bill is all that stands between them and horror or horrors ...socialized medicine....the last conservative stand. Say what you want but in my opinion, there is no doubt the single payer bill is hurting our attempt to save the ACA and if we lose it most definitely will be part of the reason.

[ucrdem]

26. He voted for it, reluctantly. Evidence of support I frankly haven't seen.

He rarely mentions it and if one relied on Sanders one wouldn't know the ACA existed. Instead he refers vaguely to "health insurance" and that infrequently. And introducing competing legislation at a moment when the ACA is in peril can under no circumstances be considered support. And all the memes in the world can't rewrite history.

[Demsrule86]

29. I have not seen much support either.

[ucrdem]

33. Telling the truth is a thankless task

But at times it's essential so don't go changin'!

[Demsrule86]

45. It is true. I have no clue why some here who will really be hurt by losing the ACA

seem indifferent that we may lose the ACA and any chance at universal coverage because a single payer bill was introduced prematurely.

[aikoaiko]

37. Bernie has always supported the ACA over lesser solutions. Always.

When the choice is ACA over nothing or a Republican plan, he vigorously defends the ACA.

But he also says we can do better than the ACA.

I've not seen him say otherwise.

[Demsrule86]

46. Not enough...you don't sponsor a replacement bill and then say you are for what is being replaced.

Last edited Wed Sep 20, 2017, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

It just doesn't work that way.

[GaryCnf]

55. You realize

You're entire argument rests upon your characterization of MFA as a "repeal bill" and/or the incorrect premise that the fear of "creeping socialism" is a meaningful force with reachable voters in those pink/purple states where we have a shot of taking a Republican seat OR in the minds of the Republican currently holding that seat.

NOT ONE REPUBLICAN is calling it a "repeal bill" or trying to argue that it "proves" they are right about there being problems with the ACA (other than those created by Republican sabotage). That pejorative is ENTIRELY the product of Democrats (who are so opposed to single payer, or are so opposed to . . ., that they are willing to sink the political futures of our best and brightest) trying to turn DEMOCRATS against it.

Furthermore, in my humble opinion, these arguments are also being raised to divert from the inescapable fact that the ONLY reason we are even close to losing the ACA are the devastating losses suffered by "moderate" Democrats in both houses of Congress who were swept into office by the greatest president of all time, Barack Obama, and then ran away from him and his accomplishments when they came up for re-election.

[Demsrule86]

77. I would support single payer if I thought we could get it into law...it would take work but I would

support it in a heartbeat. I don't care what the GOP says...The single payer bill is an alternative to the ACA; thus, it is inherently understood to be better than the ACA and is in fact a replacement bill. Single payer may be the best thing since slice bread, but we can't achieve it right now. There was no compelling reason to introduce any single payer bill now. The timing was disastrous for the fight to save the ACA. And some are now convinced that single payer is achievable so they won't call Congress. I have seen people say it right here. If we lose the ACA and medicaid...we are looking at decades without any national healthcare...it was damn tough to pass the ACA. It is ironic that those who are passionate about single payer, may have cost us the only path forward in order to attain this...I always thought a public option and a lowering of Medicare for those over 55 was possible and would have eventually lead to single payer or some form of universal coverage...if the ACA goes with get nothing.

[uponit7771]

134. +1

[mythology]

38. He's still voting in favor of it.

Yes he'd prefer single payer, but he votes no on every crappy replacement the Republicans come up with.

[Demsrule86]

47. How he votes is not relevant. I am sure he will vote to retain the ACA. All Democrats and

Democratic allies will do so. We are talking about introducing single payer the same day the GOP introduced another version of murdercare...it was bad timing. The bill should not have been introduced (if at all, I am against making yourself a target by introducing bills that can't pass) after the ACA was safe.

[LexVegas]

39. Bernie invented the ACA decades ago. nt

[NurseJackie]

61. I'm not surprised.

[Bettie]

53. Thanks for this

but there are a few who don't care about the Actual Goddamn Record, they only care about their hatred of one particular man.

Doesn't matter what he does or says, those few will follow everywhere his name is mentioned to sow division.

[LonePirate]

54. Oh, please! His support was no more or less crucial than that of the other 59 supportive Senators.

He was no different than any other senator in the Dem caucus at the time.

[GaryCnf]

56. Obviously, if you need 60 out of 60 votes

Every vote is critical.

I think the point is that it was "moderates" who held the ACA ransom to get rid of the single-payer option.

It was liberals, including but not limited to Senator Sanders, who compromised on this issue.

[Demsrule86]

59. After Kennedy became ill and Byrd as well, there was never a chance for single payer in 09. We got

what we could...and it sure is a hell of a lot better than the nothing that we ill get if the ACA is repealed. And it also gives the GOP a chance to get rid of medicaid...this is a disaster. To introduce a single payer bill during the fight to save the ACA and as it turned out Medicaid was foolish since we have no chance of achieving single payer at this time. This bill hurt our efforts to save the ACA...and if you doubt my words, turn on the news.

[LonePirate]

68. Regardless who did or did not compromise, the ACA still needed 60 votes. Every vote was critical.

[Demsrule86]

78. That is not the point. The point now is that the ACA is endangered...and the single payer bill

should not have been offered at this time...a valid point.

[LonePirate]

84. Yes, it does seem to have spooked the Repubs as much as the Kochs' $400M threat.

Still, that was not the topic of the OP.

[Demsrule86]

96. The OP is defending Sen. Sanders... I don't follow politcians, I vote for them...at

least those who are Democrats...so I wouldn't twist myself in knots to defend what I consider indefensible. Actions speak louder than words. I know how tough it was to pass the ACA and it won't happen easily again. And there will blame because it is a disaster if we lose the ACA and medicaid.

[LonePirate]

108. You may vote for them but others see it differently.

There's little to dispute in saying Sanders has a cult of followers who support him no matter what, much in the same way the deplorables blindly support and follow 45.

I share your view, though. I vote for candidates who share my views, or at least most of my views. If they stop supporting me or start voting against me and my views, I start voting for new candidates.

[Demsrule86]

112. Others can do as they choose. I admired Pres. Obama tremendously.

But he could not do what needed to be done by himself ...no one can. We don't need a 'savior' ...we need a majority. And I can't see how the cult you describe has helps in that endeavor.

[Demsrule86]

57. Yes it was...as many have pointed out, he has a following. And I have seen posts on this

forum by those who are supporters saying they don't care about the ACA but only single payer. While some Dems running for the presidency most likely co-sponsored the single payer bill...it was his bill. He sponsored it and introduced it. Trying to use Democrats to provide cover won't work. The bill was a bad idea at this time.

[LonePirate]

66. No it wasn't. He had only a smidgen of the following in late 2009 compared to now.

He had very little influence in the 2009 Senate. Any claims otherwise are revisionist history.

[Demsrule86]

81. I am talking about now and the damage being done to the ACA by this single payer bill...and the

timing. He has influence now and by introducing this bill, I believe many think there is some sort of a chance and there isn't. We would need a super majority...and that could be decades away. We also lose Medicaid. It was a foolish thing to introduce a bill for single payer during the fight to save the ACA.

[LonePirate]

86. Dems could push through M4A via reconciliation with just 50 votes and a VP.

As long as it does not increase the deficit (i.e., fully fund it) or violate the Byrd rule (which a Dem VP could do).

Everything the Repubs are doing now can be done by Dems once we regain the majority and the WH (hopefully no later than January 20, 2021)

[Demsrule86]

95. No they can't because it would increase the deficit...the bill is being scored now but previous

estimates show a large price tag. Enacting a stand alone healthcare bill is very difficult and we would need 60 votes...it will cost way to much to do in reconciliation. And please note there are things even now the GOP can not do during reconciliation. No, if we lose healthcare, it will be decades before we have the votes for anything...we could have used the ACA to introduce a public option under reconciliation adding it to the existing bill...maybe even Medicare for those over 55...if it was done carefully...but not a full on bill. The ACA could not be passed under reconciliation...no healthcare bill could.

[LonePirate]

100. I repeat, they could pass it w/50 & VP if it is fully funded. They can and should make that happen.

[Demsrule86]

110. It would increase the deficit no matter how it is funded. No stand alone health care bill can

be passed in reconciliation...Medicare for all needs 60 votes in the Senate.

[LonePirate]

113. We can agree to disagree. If GC passes via reconciliation, so can M4A.

[Demsrule86]

123. GC leave much of the AC in place...it sets it up for failure...and there is money to be had by

killing Medicaid. This is how it works...we won't have anything to work with. By the time we have majority...it will be too late.

[Eliot Rosewater]

200. You meant to say

and there is money to be had by killing Medicaid and the people who rely on Medicaid.

I hope the nation either storms the castle or goes on a GENERAL STRIKE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_strike

if Graham kill the poor bill passes.

[Demsrule86]

305. That is what I meant..thanks!

[TCJ70]

65. Considering that many here like to paint Sanders as the non-Democrat, evil, Satan of the Senate...

...Eternal Underminer of Democratic values, who's not REALLY with the Dems on anything. I would think they'd be the first to acknowledge how vital his support was. He certainly didn't HAVE to vote for it. He's not a Democrat...remember?

[LonePirate]

70. He's neither the Satan or the Savior of the Senate. Too many here think he is one or the other.

He's not a hero to be worshipped or a misbehaving child to be punished. Reality and context need to be introduced to the discussion here.

[TCJ70]

72. I agree...

...from what I've observed the Satan view is still firmly embedded in a few loud posters minds so deep they can't see anything past it. I see very little hero worship in comparison.

[LonePirate]

75. I see exactly the opposite of what you're seeing.

Most of the posts I see on DU about him are of the hero worship type. A lesser but still noticeable amount of what I see are critical of him. I typically stay on the first page of the Latest Threads section so ymmv, of course.

[TCJ70]

85. I dont really venture out of GD and a bit of LBN...

...but I would submit into evidence Demsrule86 as a prime example of what I’m talking about. The narrative they’ve built in their own mind that it will be Sanders fault if the ACA is repealed is...specious at best.

You don’t see anything at that level on the “savior” side.

[LonePirate]

90. Well, Cassidy has said he's adding an amendment to prevent states from creating single payer systems

So, it is certainly not specious to say that Sanders' M4A announcement hasn't motivated Repubs to pass the GC bill.

[irisblue]

141. is this a callout

of Demsrule86?
I am asking for clarity.

[TCJ70]

144. No. N/t

[Demsrule86]

71. What support?

I have not heard much about it only single payer. I am sick of hearing about a bill that does not have a snowball's chance in hell of passing while the ACA and Medicaid are about to be repealed. I don't give a damn about one guy. I care about the thousands who will die over the many years we don't have health care if the ACA and Medicaid are gone.

[TCJ70]

73. Blah, blah blah...

...your posts are all the same anymore. If it has Sanders name on it, you hate it.

Yes, it will be very bad if the ACA is repealed. Literally no one here doesn't agree with that. At this point, however, there is nothing anyone can do to stop the Republicans from doing it if they decide to. If they do, it's no ones fault except their own. They've only been trying for 8 years.

[Demsrule86]

82. Not only will it be bad but in one of life's greatest ironies...it will end our chances to

get single payer for decades...the public option combined with lowering the age of Medicare over time was always the way forward...now we have to get a super majority and push a new bill through (if God forbids the ACA goes down). I don't see that happening anytime soon... We have had two chances in the last 20 years for enough votes to pass a healthcare bill and that was after almost 100 years of trying. And of course the cherry on top is we also lose Medicaid. It was a disastrous move to introduce a single payer bill during our fight for the ACA.

[Weekend Warrior]

58. Glad he sided with progressives and Democrats.

It was clearly the right move. Not sure why he should get special thanks. Seems that is what it's about these days.

Wish he would have joined Democrats in '07 in the fight for a pathway to citizenship. As you say, "from the Department of Looking at the Actual Goddamn Record."

[Jim Lane]

83. I'm not saying "he should get special thanks" -- let me clarify.

There is a theory floating around that Bernie is covertly working to destroy the ACA, that he knew that supporting single payer (which covers more people) would somehow strengthen the case for Graham-Cassidy (which covers fewer people), and that he also cunningly realized that the choice of specific date on which to introduce his Medicare for All bill would cause some (unnamed) Senator(s) to vote to repeal the ACA.

My point is that this theory is utter bullshit.

So it's not that he should get special thanks, but neither should he get special condemnation for supporting Medicare for All as a change for the better compared with the ACA, while of course continuing to oppose the changes for the worse offered by the Republicans.

The people who should get thanks are all the elected officials working to improve health care -- including Booker (whom I generally dislike but credit where it's due), Gillibrand, Harris, and over in the House Conyers and his 117 co-sponsors.

[Weekend Warrior]

137. If that is the theory by some, as you state, I fully agree with you.

I believe Sanders is not a strategist in any way. Therefore, I could not believe said theory to be accurate. I believe many of Sanders actions are damaging. I also believe it has to do with his inability to coalition build and lack of understanding when it comes to sound strategy. Over his career I believe his desires bern strong to make this country a better place. I do think he is now a full blown politician so his motives are a bit different than they have been. I still think in his mind his goals are righteous and thoughts are based in my best interests. He just doesn't know how to get from point a to point b in a constructive manner. Overall, what motivates him is something I take zero issue with over the span of his career as a politician. IOW, I do believe his track record is strong enough for me to not question his motives.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

62. So what does he want

A cookie?

[Jim Lane]

79. HE probably doesn't want anything, not giving a damn about smears on DU.

For my part, however, I lack his breadth of vision. I want the silliness to stop.

This thread has not been complete flame war, though. It's been instructive. We can now see that, if the Graham-Cassidy bill passes the Senate, the "We aren't refighting the primary but we still hate Bernie" brigade will blame him.

[Demsrule86]

88. You don't think putting up a single payer bill during the fight to save the ACA was a bad idea?

I don't think it is an attack to say that it was unwise in the extreme to do this. But yes, I will consider the single payer bill as contributing to the loss of the ACA and of course medicaid...should that happen. I don't "follow" any politician so I truly don't understand your point of view. I am a Democrat... I like most of them and would vote for all of them.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

272. Some of us don't hate Bernie.

We're just baffled by the Bernie Worship.

He was one of 60 Senators who voted for the ACA. I'm glad he did but he doesn't deserve anymore credit than the rest.

In addition he's not the first person to sponsor a single payer bill. I believe John Conyers has done so every years since 2003.

[Me.]

80. No More Crucial Than Any Other Senator

[vi5]

94. I love how many of the people on here.....

...love to fall all over themselves to tell us how much we have to support and tolerate folks like Manchin or any other conservadem because "they vote with us 75% of the time!!!!!" but many of those same folks spend as much if not more time bitching about Bernie Sanders who votes with Dems way more than that and also votes for a Dem majority leader.

So a guy who votes with Dems 90+% of the time and votes for a Dem majority leader is somehow "less" than a guy who votes maybe with Dems 75% of the time and votes for a Dem majority leader simply because of some letter after their name. O.K. sure.

[Demsrule86]

124. Bit different that... Manchin didn't introduce any single payer bill during a critical time for the

ACA.

[kstewart33]

111. Stop it.

So tired of this. Just stop.

[ehrnst]

158. Politifact checked this and gave it a "Mostly False" ruling.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/18/bernie-s/fact-checking-bernie-sanders-claim-he-helped-write/

[KPN]

177. My you really do have it in for Bernie.

This is disheartening to say the least. What will come of this if it continues is fewer democratic party voters in the end. Either we become more inclusive or less inclusive.

I happen to be in strong agreement with Bernie's view about our party ... as are many others. The party has moved way too far right on economic policy issues over the past 35 years. Some here think we should shut up (or Bernie at least should). How is the party more inclusive/stronger by telling others in effect to shut up about this? How is the party going to recover from its losses?

[ehrnst]

179. Fact checking is "having it in for Bernie?"

Really?

Fact checking is "telling Bernie to shut up?"

Are you aware of the implications in those points of view?

[KPN]

187. Yes, in this particular instance.

Especially since we all know that all politicians embellish if not outright lie. Bernie did not lie.

[ehrnst]

189. I'm talking about an analysis that Politifact did. And the claim got a "mostly false" ruling.

Are you saying that Bernie shouldn't be expected to hold up to a fact check of his statements?

I mean, I know that you seem to equate Bernie with all that is good and right, and to be shown otherwise is difficult...

But your implication isn't complimentary to Bernie at all.

[KPN]

191. No, I'm responding to your previous question, and my answer to that

was YES.

[ehrnst]

193. So you say "yes, Fact checking Bernie is indeed "having it in for Bernie."

Because Bernie should not be expected to hold up under a fact check, if it's not something you want to hear?

I mean confirmation bias is one thing, but to savage the messenger is something else....

He's human, and he's a career politician. A long time career politician.

[KPN]

196. No, because you have consistently criticized

Bernie at just about every opportunity here at DU and have gone above and beyond in finding and posting articles/blurbs/etc. that in any way reflect negatively on Bernie.

In my experience -- and I've been here for almost 67 years -- that pretty closely aligns with "having it in for" someone or something.

[ehrnst]

197. So now you are saying that you've changed your answer to the question

"Are you saying that Bernie shouldn't be expected to hold up to a fact check of his statements? " to NO? After you said one post up that it was YES?

I'm getting whiplash here.

Or are you saying that whenever EHRNST presents a fact check on Bernie, it needs to be shot down?

Is Politifact "out to get Bernie" by "fact checking" him too?

My experience here has shown that when people don't want to hear something about someone they idolize, they will double down.

I see it with DT's supporters.... When you view facts as "an attack" on someone, it's time to take a look at what your confirmation biases are.

You do Bernie no favors by trying to quash any and all dissent and facts that aren't complimentary to him. He can take it...he's been in politics a very long time now.

[KPN]

205. Lol. Whiplash? Talk about projection.

Stop putting words in my mouth. My answer is YES -- I believe that you have it in for Bernie. It's that simple. Clear enough?

[ehrnst]

207. And you think that "fact checking Bernie" equals "having it in for Bernie."

Your words, not mine.

Look at the thread if you don't believe me.

I know that it sounds bad when it's said back to you, but you should own your confirmation biases, not try to scurry away from them when pointed out to you.

And do you think that Politifact has it out for Bernie? It was their factchecking. I was just the messenger...

[KPN]

209. Lol. Just the messenger. That's a good one!

[ehrnst]

212. Yeah - Politifact did the fact checking, and you flame me.

Because it's easier that acknowledging that Politifact knows their fact checking.... and is considered a very reliable source on DU.

But just keep on trying to deflect, and dance away from your claim that fact checking Bernie is "going after him," because you don't like the messenger.

[tonedevil]

221. It is much simpler...

to trot out that Politifact gave him a mostly false on that statement rather than go into the reasons they gave. They admit he added not insignificantly to the bill including $11 billion in funding for community health centers, but won't allow that he helped write it because they don't feel he was involved enough with crafting the core elements of the bill. That isn't an unfair analyses you just skip the analyses, which is much more positive to Senator Sanders, and trumpet the much more sensational mostly false rating. What you say is true as far as it goes, but it ignores parts of the Politifact article that give a different impression than you have presented here.

[ehrnst]

222. I think that the headline and "mostly false"

sum up Politifact's conclusion.

"Bernie Sanders exaggerates with claim that he helped write Obamacare"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/18/bernie-s/fact-checking-bernie-sanders-claim-he-helped-write/

He also said that factchecking Bernie = "having it in for Bernie," and doubled down before he then said that was not the case, decided to post some non-sequiturs, and left...

But it's nice of you to come in and stick up for KBN when he's not doing so well.

[tonedevil]

226. I just like the full truth...

not sound bites.

[ehrnst]

248. You mean edited "truth"

and not the kind that Fact Checking presents.

OK....

[tonedevil]

251. You pointed out the headline...

and ignored the explanation in the article that accompanied. That is some severe editing.

[ehrnst]

252. No. I pointed out that the headline summarized the content.

Last edited Wed Sep 20, 2017, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Is that clearer?

[tonedevil]

254. Yes it is crystal clear...

you pointed to a headline and it summarizes the content. That summarization is necessarily editing so it is you who is proffering edited truth. I am just pointing out there is a lot more in the article than the phrase mostly false.

[ehrnst]

255. Are you saying the headline is fake? Or doesn't summarize the content? (Nt)

[tonedevil]

258. I have very clearly written...

the headline is true, but it is not the full story. Leaving out the part where Politifact does acknowledge Senator Sanders had significant input to the bill ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

[ehrnst]

264. Well, the full text would be apparent to anyone who clicked on the link

Last edited Thu Sep 21, 2017, 07:57 AM - Edit history (1)

and read it prior to firing off a rant, wouldn't it?

The OP also implies that he never opposed it, or threatened to hold his vote if he couldn't get what he wanted into it.

"If Bernie had agreed with them, he could easily have said, "I want single payer, I won't settle for anything less, and on that basis I'm voting Nay on invoking cloture to end the GOP filibuster of President Obama's bill."

That is directly refuted in Politifact analysis:

Politico went on to quote Sanders saying, "I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed."

That's why I provided the link.

Is that clearer?

[ehrnst]

213. So are you saying that about Politifact, too? It's their fact check...(nt)

[Eliot Rosewater]

239. And here you thought the facts would matter...

[ehrnst]

249. My bad.

[ucrdem]

227. psst, your meme generator is in need of servicing.

[NurseJackie]

192. OMG! LOL!

179. Fact checking is "having it in for Bernie?"
Fact checking is "telling Bernie to shut up?"

I know, right?? This whole thing is surreal! Funny and sad at the same time... but mostly funny!

[ehrnst]

194. And KPN doubles down......

I don't understand how this is different than the right wing refusing to listen to DT get fact checked....

[NurseJackie]

201. You're correct. It's not different. (Funny & sad. Sad & funny.)

[ehrnst]

202. ..... (nt)

[George II]

219. How is that "having it in for Bernie"? You're not interested in facts and truth?

As for where the party is, apparently it "is" where most it's members want it to be, otherwise it wouldn't be there.

In 2016 we lost to candidates to the right. So what would moving even further left accomplish other than suffering greater defeats?

How can the party "recover from its losses" by candidates who lost to those on their right by moving even further from them?

[sheshe2]

195. +++

[GaryCnf]

228. I was going to mention that the post in question was materially inaccurate

But it was so much fun watching folks knocking down the straw man they had created that I just let it go.

I apologize.

[ehrnst]

253. The post relaying what Politifact had to say? (nt)

[GaryCnf]

275. It is correct that Politifact

called Bernie's claim that he helped w-r-i-t-e the ACA "mostly false." It is materially incorrect that Politifact said that it was "mostly false" that Bernie's vote was critical to ACA passage or that he supported the ACA. Because the OP said only that Bernie's vote was critical to ACA passage or that he supported the ACA and not that he had helped write the ACA, the reply stating that Politifact had determined that the substance of the OP was mostly false was likewise materially incorrect.

Might I suggest that next time you use crawdads or cheese.

[ehrnst]

293. I posted it in response to the OP which stated that Sanders was "crucial"

to the passing of the ACA.

The post also implies that he never opposed it, or threatened to hold his vote if he couldn't get what he wanted into it.

"If Bernie had agreed with them, he could easily have said, "I want single payer, I won't settle for anything less, and on that basis I'm voting Nay on invoking cloture to end the GOP filibuster of President Obama's bill."

That is directly refuted in Politifact analysis:

Politico went on to quote Sanders saying, "I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed."

And on Dec. 18, the New York Times quoted Sanders saying, ''I don't sleep well. I am struggling with this issue very hard, trying to sort out what is positive in this bill, what is negative in the bill, what it means for our country if there is no health insurance legislation, when we will come back to it. … And I have to combine that with the fact that I absolutely know that the insurance companies and the drug companies will be laughing all the way to the bank the day after this is passed.''

And I pointed out that Sanders' own statement on his involvement was fact checked by Politifact.

The article also included the fact that he used witholding his support as a threat in order to get what he wanted into the bill.

I included the link so that people could read the full text.

All relevant to the claim made by the OP.


Might I suggest that next time you want to flame a post that includes fact checking of Sanders, use crawdads or cheese.

[GaryCnf]

297. The post, of course, "implied" no such thing

It stated correctly that Sanders' vote was critical to the passage of the ACA, a fact no one denies, nor could deny.

Politifact neither "checked" nor found "mostly false" the statement of the OP that Sanders' vote was critical or that, in the end, he supported the bill. Your reply was materially false.

Your current post is also inaccurate by way of omission. You state:

The article also included the fact that he used witholding his support as a threat in order to get what he wanted into the bill.

While Sanders, as would any erudite politician, used his critical vote as a bargaining chip for the addition of provisions which would have dramatically improved the bill AS THE BILL WAS BEING NEGOTIATED (making your statement accurate, but at the same time merely describing actions which are unremarkable in the context of the legislative process), it omits the fact that it was Sanders and other liberal politicians who sacrificed their personal goals for the bill and the centrists who did not.

Still not rising.

[ehrnst]

298. Perhaps you missed this in the OP

"If Bernie had agreed with them, he could easily have said, "I want single payer, I won't settle for anything less, and on that basis I'm voting Nay on invoking cloture to end the GOP filibuster of President Obama's bill."

Actually he did say that if he didn't get his plan to implement single payer into the bill, he wouldn't settle for anything less, and would vote nay.

From the Politifact analysis:

Sanders pushed hard for a more liberal version of health care reform -- the American Health Security Act of 2009, which would have implemented a national single-payer system. (Under a single-payer system, the government, rather than private health insurers, pays all medical bills, along the lines of Medicare.)

Sanders backed down after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., used a procedural move to force a full reading of Sanders’ bill, a move that would have taken hours of floor time and imperiled passage of a more moderate bill backed by Obama and his allies.

.......................................................................
"Public-option proponents, including Sanders and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, say they already have given up enough," Politico reported in late November 2009. "They agreed to forgo a single-payer system. They decided not to push a government plan tied to Medicare rates. And they accepted (Harry) Reid's proposal to include the opt-out provision. That's it, they say."

Politico went on to quote Sanders saying, "I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed."

A few weeks later, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank reported that Sanders was still undecided on supporting the primary Democratic bill. "I am talking to the Democratic leadership, trying my best to salvage some positive things in this bill, so I am not on board yet."

So Sanders' actions were 'remarkable.' I don't recall reading about any other politician that usually caucused with Dems threatening to tank the bill with a no vote if they didn't get their way - other than Lieberman, who threatened to filibuster if the Public Option was included.

Perhaps you have some information on others that did so? Please share.

Erudite does not = "my way or the highway."

[GaryCnf]

301. Appears that Lieberman

was not the only problem

Unlike the Republicans, who remained unified in their opposition, the Democrats split. Ideological divisions between progressive and more moderate Democrats made progress in Congress difficult, despite majority-party status. Speaker Pelosi was able to pass legislation with a public option in November 2009, notwithstanding concerns from conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was never able to find the support of sixty senators required to prevent a threatened Republican filibuster. The Democratic senators who expressed the greatest concern were from more conservative states, such as Arkansas and Louisiana.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/6/1117.full

"My way or the highway" is what centrists demanded and got in 2009. "For the good of the country" is what Sanders and other liberals gave in 2009.

[ehrnst]

311. So three Senators are called "key" and that means that all the other dems,

including those who fought for the public option in the ACA, including Pelosi (who got it in), Schumer and Reid are the "my way or the highway centrists" and not Liberals and Sanders - who threatened to hold his vote if he didn't get his way, then settled for less - was the "good of the country."

Because the post that I was responding to was saying that the only reason that the public option wasn't in was "key senators voted it down," as if every other dem just shrugged their shoulders and said, "OK."

So tell me - who are the other "liberals" that you are talking about?

[George II]

270. But it wasn't factually incorrect.

[R B Garr]

230. Speaking of "brigades"...people can see the posts on JPR

LOL

[Voltaire2]

243. What is that supposed to mean?

Seems like some sort of personal attack on somebody, but who?

[R B Garr]

246. I think you meant to respond to post #223...

[Voltaire2]

287. No I meant your post. Seems like you are referring to something somebody posted somewhere else.

But what? Perhaps a link would help.

[ehrnst]

250. It was the "crucial" part that was addressed by the Politicfact analysis.

And yeah, you called me a liar.

[ehrnst]

260. I think you may have missed the "crucial" portion of the post. Are you saying Politifact's pants are

Last edited Thu Sep 21, 2017, 07:56 AM - Edit history (1)

on fire? Because if you are not saying they are lying, you are saying that my pants are on fire, are you not?

The Politifact analysis said that his statement that he "helped write" it was exaggerated.

"So there’s a good case to be made that Sanders made an important contribution to the final legislation.

Still, when Sanders says he "helped write" the bill, it would be reasonable to imagine that Sanders was an integral player in the crafting of the bill over a long period of time -- an insider in the process. And that’s not the reality."


The OP also implies that he never opposed it, or threatened to hold his vote if he couldn't get what he wanted into it.

"If Bernie had agreed with them, he could easily have said, "I want single payer, I won't settle for anything less, and on that basis I'm voting Nay on invoking cloture to end the GOP filibuster of President Obama's bill."

That is directly refuted in Politifact analysis:

Politico went on to quote Sanders saying, "I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed."

"Politico went on to quote Sanders saying, "I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed."

I would say that those who wrote the bill were vital, and those that threatened to pull support if they didn't get their way were not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

268. The OP isn't about whether he 'helped write' it; it's about whether his vote was crucial

Politifact notes he voted for the ACA. And the vote was 60-39, so his vote, like every one for it, was crucial. That's what the OP said. And not what Politifact said was 'false'. So your post is a red herring.

[ehrnst]

294. No more crucial than anyone else's

The post also implies that he never opposed it, or threatened to hold his vote if he couldn't get what he wanted into it.

"If Bernie had agreed with them, he could easily have said, "I want single payer, I won't settle for anything less, and on that basis I'm voting Nay on invoking cloture to end the GOP filibuster of President Obama's bill."

That is directly refuted in Politifact analysis:

Politico went on to quote Sanders saying, "I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed."

[muriel_volestrangler]

303. No, that does not 'refute' the OP

You keep on reading into the OP things that aren't there. So much so that it seems all your posts are irrelevant in this thread.

[ehrnst]

314. OK - lets go through the OP

"Bernie has long supported single payer. When the ACA was being debated in Congress, many single-payer supporters urged that it be voted down. Their argument (which has some merit to it) was that enactment of the ACA would further entrench the role of the big for-profit private insurance companies, and make getting to single payer that much harder.

If Bernie had agreed with them, he could easily have said, "I want single payer, I won't settle for anything less, and on that basis I'm voting Nay on invoking cloture to end the GOP filibuster of President Obama's bill."

Actually, he did indeed do very similar to that...which him not doing is the basis for the claim in the OP headline.

He tried to make changes to the ACA that would transform it into single payer, and threatened to withold his vote if he didn't get his way.

From the Politifact analysis:

As our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker have noted, Sanders pushed hard for a more liberal version of health care reform -- the American Health Security Act of 2009, which would have implemented a national single-payer system. (Under a single-payer system, the government, rather than private health insurers, pays all medical bills, along the lines of Medicare.)

Sanders backed down after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., used a procedural move to force a full reading of Sanders’ bill, a move that would have taken hours of floor time and imperiled passage of a more moderate bill backed by Obama and his allies.

However, as negotiations were in their final stage, Sanders successfully pushed for the inclusion of $11 billion in funding for community health centers, especially in rural areas. The insertion of this funding helped bring together both Democratic lawmakers on the left and Democrats representing more conservative, rural areas.

However, he once again threatened to pull support over the the lack of public option, which was being fought for very hard by Democrats (and which Pelosi had secured in the Congressional bill):

"Public-option proponents, including Sanders and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, say they already have given up enough," Politico reported in late November 2009. "They agreed to forgo a single-payer system. They decided not to push a government plan tied to Medicare rates. And they accepted (Harry) Reid's proposal to include the opt-out provision. That's it, they say."

Politico went on to quote Sanders saying, "I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed."

A few weeks later, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank reported that Sanders was still undecided on supporting the primary Democratic bill. "I am talking to the Democratic leadership, trying my best to salvage some positive things in this bill, so I am not on board yet."

So, no. That part of the OP is not supported by the fact checking that Politifact did on Sanders' role in the ACA.

[muriel_volestrangler]

318. "Actually, he did indeed do very similar to that" - No. He voted for the ACA.

That's the basic fact you are desperately trying to ignore. Because of that, your whole outlook is slanted away from reality and into some neverending fight you want with people who like single payer. And your posts continue to be red herrings that aren't worth further analysis.

[ehrnst]

320. Again....

The OP:

Their argument (which has some merit to it) was that enactment of the ACA would further entrench the role of the big for-profit private insurance companies, and make getting to single payer that much harder.

If Bernie had agreed with them, he could easily have said, "I want single payer, I won't settle for anything less, and on that basis I'm voting Nay on invoking cloture to end the GOP filibuster of President Obama's bill."

That implies that he didn't say anything like that, but he did demand single payer, and threatened to withold his yay vote.

Which is much closer than saying he didn't say something like that.

This has been a message from the Department of Looking at the Actual Goddamn Record. We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame war.

Rather self-righteous, but not quite right. The record actually showed:

As our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker have noted, Sanders pushed hard for a more liberal version of health care reform -- the American Health Security Act of 2009, which would have implemented a national single-payer system. (Under a single-payer system, the government, rather than private health insurers, pays all medical bills, along the lines of Medicare.)

Sanders backed down after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., used a procedural move to force a full reading of Sanders’ bill, a move that would have taken hours of floor time and imperiled passage of a more moderate bill backed by Obama and his allies.

However, as negotiations were in their final stage, Sanders successfully pushed for the inclusion of $11 billion in funding for community health centers, especially in rural areas. The insertion of this funding helped bring together both Democratic lawmakers on the left and Democrats representing more conservative, rural areas.

However, he once again threatened to pull support over the the lack of public option, which was being fought for very hard by Democrats (and which Pelosi had secured in the Congressional bill):

"Public-option proponents, including Sanders and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, say they already have given up enough," Politico reported in late November 2009. "They agreed to forgo a single-payer system. They decided not to push a government plan tied to Medicare rates. And they accepted (Harry) Reid's proposal to include the opt-out provision. That's it, they say."

Politico went on to quote Sanders saying, "I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed."

A few weeks later, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank reported that Sanders was still undecided on supporting the primary Democratic bill. "I am talking to the Democratic leadership, trying my best to salvage some positive things in this bill, so I am not on board yet."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/18/bernie-s/fact-checking-bernie-sanders-claim-he-helped-write/

People who proclaim that "the actual goddamned record shows" get more credibility when they provide the documentation, instead of simply posting an applause line.

Is that clearer?

[muriel_volestrangler]

321. No, you're still getting it wrong (nt)

[ehrnst]

322. No, I'm not. (nt)

[George II]

224. The vote was 60-39, not 1-39.

To quote you, "This has been a message from the Department of Looking at the Actual Goddamn Record. We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame war."

[NurseJackie]

269. Thank you for that reminder.

[Adrahil]

300. Yes! Exactly!

Every one of those 60 votes was "crucial."

Bernie is not entitled to an ass-kissing for his vote.

[Lordquinton]

232. The fact that they have been trying to take it away

As long as it's been around has absolutely nothing to do with any success they have. If they succeed this time it is 100% Sanders fault!!!

[George II]

266. +1,000,000

[Progressive dog]

235. The ACA is again in danger of repeal

and Republican votes are needed to stop repeal. Meanwhile, a single payer health care bill is introduced which has no chance of being anything other than a way for Republicans to rally their base against ACA.

[MadDAsHell]

236. And in a major way he would have been right to vote it down.

The irony of the ACA will always astound me. You take the health insurance system that for decades you've been saying is terrible, and you pass a law that literally DOUBLES DOWN on that system.

When I learned that the ACA was not only going to preserve employment-based insurance but actually REQUIRE that employers provide it, I thought I was going crazy.

[ehrnst]

256. And yet it has gotten us farther down the road to universal health care than we have ever been.

An incremental approach shouldn't "drive you crazy" if it works....

[MadDAsHell]

277. Doubling down on a broken system is "incremental?" nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

286. So you're going to be dancing for joy if the ACA gets repealed next week.

[ehrnst]

289. Are you saying that you want it repealed? (nt)

[guillaumeb]

278. Good luck extinguishing the eternal flame!

Recommended.

[TomCADem]

285. Bernie Will Take Credit If ACA Is Saved, Blame Democrats If It Is Repealed

It seems like once every two weeks, Bernie Sanders will say that the Democrats are failures as a party and blame whatever Republican atrocity on the Democrats failure to follow his lead on something or another.

[Weekend Warrior]

299. Obama was a prize fighter who pushed a better plan through.

He whipped up support among Democrats and held them.

Guess it's about Sanders.