Bernie Sanders thinks everyone should have health care, what an asshole!

[liberalnarb]

Sanders believes that no one should go bankrupt or die because of where they fall on the financial spectrum, he's obviously completely selfish, only out for himself!

[SHRED]

1. Ponies and unicorns

[pangaia]

2. Well, he's not a Democrat, ya know. He even said so himself.

[liberalnarb]

3. *GASP!*

I've never heard so before!!!!

[moriah]

12. Just for clarity...

... yes, I do have some issues with his continued decision to stand outside our big tent rather than deign to step beneath it.

But it has to do with the fact he let Weaver promise for him that he would finally truly join the Party. Honestly, I think Weaver was a huge liability for Bernie in many events, but that one was a doozy for those who resented his efforts against the Vermont Democratic Party before accepting DNC funds to run for Senate. And those who believed that promise and so advocated for him to have the voice he deserved, if he was going to stick by the Party, in the platform creation process.

It's a lot easier to accept criticism when it seems like it's coming from a place of love and unity -- from the inside.

I still think some of his vision is narrower than I prefer in a candidate for President -- but there's absolutely no doubt that he is extremely passionate about economic justice. I think he could still be just as effective as a vocal critic and voice for change from inside the tent rather than just on its doorflaps, without making a "we have to clean our own house" sound like an attack from the outside with that all-too-prevalent theme that "both parties are the same".

[pangaia]

19. I must say, it is a pleasure to hear a rational, well thought out exposition.

One that actually sees the wide spectrum of the gray area between the black and the white.

[HughBeaumont]

21. I think the far greater detriment of the Big Tent is the Republicans who infiltrated it.

Oh, and took over the reins and the narrative.

That's the reason we're even having this debate in the first place . . . we don't HAVE a multi-payer system because OF these people who are supposed to be on our side.

[Demsrule86]

24. Go talk to Jill Stein and that loser Sarandon...they are the reason we don't have a public option

right now along with their foolish followers... who didn't support the Democratic nominee ...had she won, it would be different.

[HughBeaumont]

25. Wow, THAT'S not a ridiculous and brazen revising of history or anything . . .

The reason we don't have a public option is because 8 Democrats voted with Republicans to shoot it down in committee.

The votes, in the Senate Finance Committee, underscored divisions among Democrats and were a setback for President Obama, who has endorsed the public plan as a way to “keep insurance companies honest.”

The first proposal, by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, was rejected 15 to 8, as five Democrats joined all Republicans on the panel in voting no. The second proposal, by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, was defeated 13 to 10, with three Democrats voting no.

The votes vindicated the middle-of-the-road approach taken by the committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana. Mr. Baucus voted against both proposals, which were offered as amendments to his bill to expand coverage and rein in health costs.

"My Party, Right or Wrong" is bad form.

[Voltaire2]

49. Those 8 were in cahoots with Stein, Nader, and Sarandon.

Everybody knows that. Shame on you.

[CherokeeFiddle]

55. Susan Sarandon is now a public official?

[Voltaire2]

59. Joke fail. Sorry.

[HughBeaumont]

66. Extreme Leftits Deep Stake!!

[NurseJackie]

30. It's what Susan Sarandon wanted. Just LOOK at how giddy and animated she is...

... she can barely contain her delight at the thought of what will happen under Trump.

[pangaia]

40. We would not have a public option right now regardless of WHO was president.

[Demsrule86]

43. Why not? We likely would have taken the Senate...it would have been a 'fix' for the ACA.

Calm the markets...give coverage to those states without multiple insurers...we wouldn't be fighting to save healthcare either...fuck the Greens.

[Chasstev365]

53. You've always hated Bernie!

[CherokeeFiddle]

54. Susan Sarandon? What?

Susan Sarandon isn't anybody someone could vote for.

[moriah]

28. I hope I made it clear that I don't think Bernie is a bad guy.

But there *is* an issue in more conservative states about who can actually get elected. I fear our four districts have been gerrymandered beyond repair, but for ages Arkansas always sent up senators who had a D beside their name.

Then Blanche Lincoln was too conservative, her actions too divisive when it came to the ACA passage. People outside the state felt she'd betrayed the Party, and out-of-state money flowed in to support their primary challenge against the incumbent "Democrat". He didn't win the primary, but the attacks significantly weakened Blanche (a lot of liberals disappointed that Halter didn't win stayed home, there was a definite "Never Blanche" movement) and now John Boozman is in her seat.

And instead of just sending him as a rep and 5 other "conservative Democrats" who caucused with us 90% of the time, now we send six dedicated, determined Tea Party Republicans who won't bother to answer letters from liberal constituents -- and Mr. Boozman in particular uses his "experience" as an ophthalmologist to say he's an authority on the uterus.

Hell, the Democratic Party didn't even bother to FIELD a candidate in several of our districts, including mine. I voted for the Libertarian and cried in my heart as I did it.

[HughBeaumont]

71. Maybe it should go to prove that . . .

. . . . a battle between "Republican Lite" and "Republican" will inevitably be won by the Republican?

If someone runs as a member of the Democratic Party and is seen taking middle-of-the-road or not-at-all strong STANDS on issues important to it's constituents, the Republicans in turn will adopt populist stands (albeit in a way that adheres to their veiled and not-so-veiled fascist tendencies) and be seen as the stronger candidate. Just like Bush did . . . and just like Trump would inevitably do. We've seen this scenario play out since 2010. They used a small-state strategy to their advantage.

[moriah]

74. My personal take, being a resident?

First, if "republican lite" loses to Republican here, remember that "progressive" also lost to "republican lite" despite massive amounts of out-of-state donations. Blanche still won the primary, was just heavily damaged by it.

Second, since Boozman was the first Republican to defeat an incumbent Democratic Senator here since the Reconstruction, it made out-of-state GOP interests take the same actions that out-of-state progressives did -- raising money to field Republican challengers. Before, they mostly left our politics alone. Now instead of local people donating local money for local candidates they know, we are bombarded with giant ad buys from out-of-state donors that try to appeal to the "God and guns" demographic.

Sadly the failed primary also hurt Bill Halter's career -- he's given the divisive primary as reasons not to run for other offices. It's also led, as I said, to the Party not even bothering to field candidates in districts that used to be blue.

Essentially, if we want to truly engage in a "50 state strategy", in some places we're going to have to field at least someone who is going to be with us most of the time, instead of leaving seats unopposed and won by people who will be against us all the time.

Despite everything, it's possible for Arkansas to go blue again. We are a state in poverty and one of the few Southern states to accept a variation of the Medicaid Expansion -- by letting private insurers bid to cover people who met certain underwriting criteria with Marketplace Silver plans with 0 premiums and 0 copays, and traditional Medicaid covering the rest.

Yes, it was a giveaway to the insurers. But compared to other states, we don't have a large network of doctors who accept adult Medicaid here, and most of them work with the disabled or people with otherwise very complicated medical cases. Letting healthy adults get to see a wider range of doctors helped the physicians used to dealing with complicated conditions and knowledgeable of the other benefits of Medicaid (free transportation to the doctors, home health care, etc) keep serving that population without getting overbooked by an influx of new patients.

The fact we benefited so much from the "Private Option" is why there were so many people protesting repeal and replace here, and why Tom Cotton got his ass handed to him.

We shouldn't just give up on conservative districts and not even *run* candidates. It's sad.

[ehrnst]

67. Who are you referring to, when you say Republicans who have infiltrated? (nt)

[HughBeaumont]

72. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

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

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

To assert that a public option was some controversial "OMGZ TOO LEFTY COMMIE SOSHuLIST" issue that required courage to support is, in itself, ceding to a Republican narrative. 31 other countries have multi-payer health care systems. I REALLY don't think it was too much to ask (nor would it have cost too much) to at LEAST move to multi-payer in 2009.

There are other things as well - such as the support among a few of them for offshore outsourcing . . . or thinking occupations of aggression are a good idea.

[ehrnst]

73. So you can't name actual real individuals?

Just wikipedia pages?

[HughBeaumont]

75. You can only identify "progressives" as the supposed source of all Democratic problems.

All names are in the links . . . . And round and round we go.

[ehrnst]

77. I guess not.

[heaven05]

76. too much

of a 50's type socialist to ever want to be a part of the Democratic Party. He has always professed, HE IS NOT A DEMOCRAT. I didn't say it, he did... he leads a minority wing of our still great DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

[ucrdem]

4. Fine, but the ends do not justify the means.

If millions have their lives disrupted by Cassady-Graham, and Sanders plays even a small role in helping it squeak by, for example by speaking eloquently in defense of his own health plan, thus handing repukes the flag of Berniecare to rally around, he will have accomplished exactly the opposite of what he claims to value.

[JCanete]

6. That is a role he hasn't played, but if it does squeak by, you will say he did. The logic is

ridiculous. Fuck it, maybe I'm just not good at adding it up. Why don't you draw me a diagram as to how advocating for single-payer will have any impact on the Republican vote...you know...the one that can succeed on party lines without the democrats being able to do anything to stop it? What role does advocating for single payer have in getting people to want the republican defunding plan over Obamacare? How does that shit add up?

[ucrdem]

7. Whether CG passes comes down to a few senators with their fingers in the wind.

McCain, Murkowski, Paul. They know how the party wants them to vote, and if they think they can get away with it, they will. There's your diagram.

[JCanete]

9. having nothing to do with Sanders promoting Medicare for all. Nothing. Nobody has forgotten how

shitty the Republican plan is, and contrasting it to something that intends to cover people for less money is not going to do it any favors, and even if medicare-for-all is painted as too radical, that still makes Obamacare the safe middle ground between the extremes. You'll have to do better than that to make your point.

[ucrdem]

10. Sorry, that's as simple as it gets.

If you can't or won't grasp the basics, nothing I can add will make the slightest difference.

[JCanete]

11. ? You made no case at all. Somehow promoting medicare for all makes the republicans think

they can get away with passing their shitty bill, even though everybody knows its shitty already. Did I sum it up or did I miss a factor?

[ucrdem]

14. No, everybody doesn't know it's shitty. If the electorate was well-informed we wouldn't be in this

pickle to begin with, but we wouldn't need a CNN debate which will have a penetration far in excess of its actual viewership, either. If Sanders as the designated defender -- by whom I don't know, but it no longer matters -- gives anything less than an impassioned, full-throated, persuasive and well-informed defense of the ACA, note that last detail, then the perception propagated will be that it's indefensible. And that will give the waverers the cover they need.

You're welcome.

[chwaliszewski]

18. I strenuously object.

Bernie's proposal has nothing to do with what happens to the Republican bill. If they have enough votes to get rid of ACA, then there's nothing the Dems can do to stop them.

[Voltaire2]

52. There has been a serious investment here in the theory

that Sanders introduced his MFA bill, which he introduces every session of congress, in order to sabotage the ACA. Some people are (quietly of course,) going to be very disappointed if it doesn't get repealed, but I'm sure they will come up with a new set of talking points to explain that.

[Demsrule86]

58. Sen. Sander's bill gives them cover.

So yeah...MFA..which can't pass for years could cost us the ACA...I hope not.

[ucrdem]

64. Exactly. And I think you're probably right about the set-up.

Still Sanders wasn't born yesterday and could easily exit if he wanted to. He also can have no illusions about what's going on, even if he didn't have all the facts initially. I hope to heck he surprises us all and does a bang-up job but ...

[Demsrule86]

68. I am hoping he rises to the occasion...Graham is a sneaky bastard who pretends to be moderate...

talks the talk but never walks the walk. I hope Bernie is ready for the trap...and please GOD...not one damn word about single payer.

[Demsrule86]

44. No, he would have played a role by even introducing it.

The debate is very foolish. Right now they haven't got the votes, but this is being painted as their last chance to stop socialized medicine by Graham...in an attempt to get one of the wavering GOP senators. If it works, no question Sen. Sanders played a role, and he will reap the wind.

[JCanete]

51. I Still don't see it, and whether it passes or not, I certainly disagree that there will be no

question whether or not Sanders played a role in its passage. There is no way that the GOP attacking
Medicare-for-All, let alone Obamacare, helps to make the GOP's proposal look better to the American people. Their bill is not popular. It is cynically, on its surface, a tax refund to rich people at the expense of coverage. If they pass it, it will not be because they convinced anybody of the merits of their proposal or of the relative deficiencies of Obamacare(they already did that work, and missed their window) or a future Medicare-for-all bill. It will be because their donors demanded they force it through in-spite of the political cost.

I just don't see the trap that you think Sanders is falling into. They'll use his words against the ACA? So what. He's said its imperfect. He also voted for it. He's on record supporting it and defending it. He's never suggested that what we had previously was better than what the ACA has offered. If they try to tear down his proposal for Medicare for All, again that just makes the ACA the middle-ground plan. And we certainly can't expect them to promote is as a better idea than Obamacare. That only helps to emphasize that their proposal is on one side of the extreme.

They cannot defend their own plan. They cannot muddy these waters to confuse the fuck out of people when their own legislation is so clearly bad.

[Demsrule86]

60. It has nothing to do with the American people. It is about providing those GOP wavering senators

cover so they can vote for murdercare...Koch wants them too and so does their Party..MFA provides the cover...preventing socialized medicine and all. And at the debate, they will throw everything he has said about the ACA at him. We could lose the ACA because of this foolishness and for nothing because I know you are smart and know it would require a supermajority and the presidency. How often we have had a supermajority...twice in 30 + years. I pray this won't happen, but if it does Sen. Sanders bears some responsibility.

[pangaia]

20. and if the bill is voted down does Bernie get the credit?

[Demsrule86]

45. Not from me, I feel he endangered the ACA by passing MFA during the attempt to save the ACA.

Also, he painted a "socialist medicine" target on the backs of our senators who are running for president and felt pressured to support MFA. This could influence the race in 18 as well...we need to run on saving/improving the ACA...something people know and like...not MFA which the GOP are already busily demonizing.

[onecaliberal]

26. Let me see if I have this straight? You're blaming Bernie for what ONLY republicans are trying to

do? You know that sounds an awful lot like thanks Obama? It's not Bernie's fault or any other democrats or independents fault. The election is OVER! If folks like you want us to win ever again this is precisely the kind of thing that needs to stop. Like the song says, "let it go"

[CherokeeFiddle]

56. Thank you

[pangaia]

41. If bernie turns out to having played a 'small role,' or even a large role,

in defeating CG, will you give him credit for it?

[Awsi Dooger]

5. One game at a time

Lose this one and it equates to tens of millions of losses, and you don't get to play again for years.

[Akoto]

8. I have no problem with that, but...

Right now, one has to take the pragmatic view and recognize that Single Payer isn't going to happen at the moment. Not even remotely. We're fighting to the bitter end just to hold on to what little we gained which hasn't already been destroyed in some way.

Let Sanders think what he wants, and let him campaign for whatever he wants - after the debate. The failure of the repeal is critical to the very survival of millions of people (yours truly being one of them). He needs to focus like a hawk on the issue, speak to the damages caused by a repeal of the ACA, to the different groups of the populace it will impact, the undue and severe impact upon the poor and disabled, etc etc so on so forth. What he does not need to do is veer off into his personal campaign while being asked to represent us on this issue. For this debate, he has to set it aside and direct that passion toward the preservation of the ACA.

People are concerned that he won't be able to do that, that he'll be inspired by the opportunity to give voice to his own political pursuits. I don't think that concern is wholly undeserved. I'm not saying he's wrong, either. I'm just saying that, for right now, Sanders needs to get up there and focus on keeping the Republican legislation from passing. Talking about Single Payer won't accomplish that. If he can play the proper hand for this moment in time, great, I hope he does so with his usual passion. If he can't, he should hand his spot off to someone who can. Too many lives are at risk.

[mentalslavery]

13. how dare he....the nerve...and hes not a democrat

and hillary.....and book...russia....she still the best....and not fair

[Duppers]

15. And the OP was altered on.

Had Bernie's name in the title.


However, I do agree that single payer is going nowhere for now and that we need to focus on defeating the current horrendous bill.

[LiberalLovinLug]

16. There is such a thing as chewing gum

and walking at the same time.

Bernie's had defended the ACA as well as promoting something better.
If there are now three choices, the awful, the better, and the best, and the Democrats have the two latter options, it looks even better on them.

[Demsrule86]

23. when? I hear much about single payer (bad timing) and about murdercare (good job),

but very little about the ACA.

[LiberalLovinLug]

35. Google is your friend

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/8/7/16069112/bernie-sanders-obamacare-trumpcare

https://www.google.ca/amp/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/314414-sanders-defends-obamacare-in-michigan-rally%3famp

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/amp/beginning-fight-sanders-schumer-hold-rally-defending-affordable-care-act-n707136

[Demsrule86]

36. He mentioned it in the second one provided...not the first and in the last one... he

said the following which I don't find helpful. But thanks for the links.

"Sen. Bernie Sanders, while acknowledging that some Americans "don't like" the health care law and continuing to call for universal coverage, pledged before a crowd of thousands to fight Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

"There are differences of opinion about the Affordable Care Act — some like it, some don't like it. But very few Americans believe that we should repeal the ACA without a replacement program to make it better," Sanders, I-Vermont, said at a rally Sunday, one of several dozen gatherings across the country aimed at ginning up public support for the health care law."

[Steven Maurer]

17. This is called a "straw man argument"

It is, to use fine Latin phrasing, also known as "bullshit".

No Democrat is upset at Sanders because he "thinks everyone should have health care". They are upset at Sanders because he continues to attack many Democrats and/or liberals even in 2017, pretending that his ideas are the only "moral" ones, when his numbers don't even add up.

This sort of disingenuousness - trying to put words in people's mouths instead of arguing the real issues - happens to also be one of the main reasons why many Democrats are angry at many of his supporters.

[comradebillyboy]

31. well said...

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. Going in circles

"No Democrat is upset at Sanders because he "thinks everyone should have health care"

"pretending that his ideas are the only "moral" ones"

1. Single payer universal healthcare is hardly invented by Bernie Sanders

2. And first you say you as a Democrat are not upset at the idea, implying I gather that you would ultimately be in favour of it. So why then would you think Sanders is just "pretending"? And if you would ultimately agree with the idea, even if just in theory, isn't it a morally proper endeavour no matter who sponsors it?

[Quixote1818]

50. His numbers do add up

From Politifact:

So, oddly, our calculation produced exactly the same amount of federal health spending -- $1.38 trillion a year -- as Sanders’ own estimate for his single-payer plan.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/21/how-expensive-would-single-payer-system-be/

[uponit7771]

69. Yep... UNFAIRLY attacking Democrats

[ehrnst]

70. There apparently a big sale on them somewhere.

[Demsrule86]

22. So do I...the point is let's not lose what we have for something that can

not be attained for years if ever...MFA.

[PubliusEnigma]

27. He offers the moon, but doesn't know how to build a rocket to get there.

[Arazi]

29. Neither did JFK. Didn't stop him from aiming there

What an apt analogy...

[PubliusEnigma]

32. JFK didn't pretend that getting to the moon would be easy or that it could happen in one fell swoop

Lasting Universal Healthcare cannot be built in a day.

[Arazi]

33. Link me to where Bernie said achieving MFA will be easy

Or that it would happen in "one fell swoop"

TIA

[Demsrule86]

62. But JFK went to the experts and didn't launch it until the time was right.

[ZX86]

34. The pearl clutching around here over what I thought were core Democratic values

is amazing. Health care is a universally recognized human right. There is never a wrong time to fight for human rights.

[Demsrule86]

47. MFA is not a core Democratic value. Universal coverage is...and it can take different forms. I do

not believe single payer will ever pass...But I do believe we will end up with a system like Germany or Switzerland...Sen. Sanders is not a Democrat...and not every Democrat or progressive agrees with MFA.

[ZX86]

57. So you don't have anything to contribute other than naysaying, vague generalizations

about universal health care in Germany and Switzerland, and Bernie bashing? Whether you believe or not single payer is coming. Don't be left on the wrong side of history.

[Demsrule86]

61. MFA is a vague generalization with no chance of passing...I on the other hand have a plan.

Keep the ACA, add a pubic option which unlike MFA can be done in reconciliation, and lower the age of Medicare to 55. Easy does it...not some plan that really hasn't been vetted sufficiently and should never have been introduced if at all until after October 1st. We can get to universal coverage in stages...we do it the MFA omnibus bill way...we never get there...think Hillarycare. Most people still get their insurance through work and that is why this bill will not pass until that changes...years. But we can get universal coverage similar to Germany or Switzerland much sooner and that benefits millions.

[LWolf]

37. I know, really.

How naive of him to think that we can all have ponies.

[Quixote1818]

42. I love this post! I mean how on earth do you argue with this?

[Adrahil]

46. No one objects to that goal... at least no one here...

and I think you know that.

Some of us DO have issues with his plan.

I do think that now is not the time to go all in on it. I think it'd make sense to ensure the ACA is secure before doing that.

Secondly, Sanders needs to make sure there is a SOLID funding plan of his plan, because it will be EXPENSIVE. He needs to have his ducks in a row.

He has a habit, IMO, of making grand gestures which are rather fuzzy around the edges.

[Voltaire2]

48. that's not true.

Plenty of people here have argued against the goal outlined in the Sander's bill. You included. You argue "it's not the right time", and, oddly, "it's too expensive". Oddly because of course as a nation we would realize huge savings by converting our current health care insurance system to a universal public system.

[Demsrule86]

63. You will never convince people especially those with work coverage to throw it aside and embrace

single payer. it just isn't going to happen until a majority no longer has such coverage...years from now. I feel it is a waste of time and effort when we could get universal coverage in any number of ways...as long as we have healthcare that covers everyone and is affordable what does it matter?

[beachbum bob]

65. given out freebies to those who could care less about their own health, isn't that good waste of

taxpayer's monies? Just saying, the social contract works both ways..there should be accountability on people changing their lifestyle to cut medical cost..