General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders thinks everyone should have health care, what an asshole!
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
(28,136 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)I've never heard so before!!!!
moriah
(8,311 posts)... 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
(24,324 posts)One that actually sees the wide spectrum of the gray area between the black and the white.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)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
(68,455 posts)right now along with their foolish followers... who didn't support the Democratic nominee ...had she won, it would be different.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)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
(12,939 posts)Everybody knows that. Shame on you.
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)Voltaire2
(12,939 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... she can barely contain her delight at the thought of what will happen under Trump.
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #24)
pangaia This message was self-deleted by its author.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)Calm the markets...give coverage to those states without multiple insurers...we wouldn't be fighting to save healthcare either...fuck the Greens.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)Susan Sarandon isn't anybody someone could vote for.
moriah
(8,311 posts)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
(24,461 posts). . . . 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
(8,311 posts)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
(32,640 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)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
(32,640 posts)Just wikipedia pages?
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)All names are in the links . . . . And round and round we go.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)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
(15,512 posts)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
(5,272 posts)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
(15,512 posts)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
(5,272 posts)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
(15,512 posts)If you can't or won't grasp the basics, nothing I can add will make the slightest difference.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)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
(15,512 posts)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
(1,514 posts)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
(12,939 posts)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
(68,455 posts)So yeah...MFA..which can't pass for years could cost us the ACA...I hope not.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)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
(68,455 posts)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
(68,455 posts)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
(5,272 posts)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
(68,455 posts)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
(24,324 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)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
(32,775 posts)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
(297 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)in defeating CG, will you give him credit for it?
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)Lose this one and it equates to tens of millions of losses, and you don't get to play again for years.
Akoto
(4,266 posts)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
(463 posts)and hillary.....and book...russia....she still the best....and not fair
Duppers
(28,117 posts)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
(14,164 posts)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
(68,455 posts)but very little about the ACA.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)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
(68,455 posts)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
(458 posts)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
(10,128 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)"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
(28,918 posts)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
(90,301 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)not be attained for years if ever...MFA.
PubliusEnigma
(1,583 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)What an apt analogy...
PubliusEnigma
(1,583 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)Or that it would happen in "one fell swoop"
TIA
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)ZX86
(1,428 posts)is amazing. Health care is a universally recognized human right. There is never a wrong time to fight for human rights.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)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
(1,428 posts)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
(68,455 posts)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
(46,179 posts)How naive of him to think that we can all have ponies.
Quixote1818
(28,918 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)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
(12,939 posts)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
(68,455 posts)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
(10,437 posts)taxpayer's monies? Just saying, the social contract works both ways..there should be accountability on people changing their lifestyle to cut medical cost..