2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo you buy into the single payer fantasy of Sanders?
I've been reading around quite a bit. Newspapers, bloggers, DU. And, absent an actual case, I've seen various forms of a strong assertion from Clinton and her supporters. Let's examine the idea being put forth:
"Bernie Sanders thinks if he's elected President, we will have single payer."
Tell me, Sanders fans.
Do you honestly think that will happen? Do you believe this declaration: "If we elect Bernie Sanders, within four to eight years, we will have single payer."
I do not. I do, however, think Sanders will push that as a goal, a political end game. I believe he will tweak and pinch and poke and run around and introduce increments that will begin the transformation of Obamacare towards a single-payer system.
We're constantly told, "Incrementalism is the only way. Sanders falsely promises the moon!" But does he? He's stating an end goal. He's telling us what he wants to work toward. Does anyone honestly think he would not accept even the tiniest compromise bill that shifted Obamacare an inch closer to single payer?
And isn't that the entire point of the Democratic Party? We're not going to get everything. No one can promise us everything. They can only point to the horizon and go, "There. I want us to go there." Sanders does this. Clinton does not. She looks at next year, next two years, next four years, and declares, "Behold all the things we cannot do."
Is there a Sanders supporter in this space who thinks Bernie will pull magical leftists out of his hat? Or do you believe he, too, will be incrementalist, pragmatic, willing, and fighting, but this time in the right direction?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)What did defeatists say about the ACA??
DO TELL... did we get that?
tecelote
(5,122 posts)"...if we do nothing then we get nothing."
Why is it so hard to understand? We are not moving ahead now, anything is better.
"Yes we can" or "No we can't"
I'll vote for the one telling us that he'll fight for us.
We don't expect miracles.
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)about doing nothing.
You're talking about GOPers who want to obliterate Obamacare - and anything else that might actually help people.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Will make sure the gop doesn't completely obliterate the social safety net by bargininng it away a little at a time
bit don't worry, she'll hold the line on taxes and tell wall street to cut it out
Fearless
(18,421 posts)That the ACA is good enough. I say it's a start. And we can and must do better.
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)the ACA is "good enough." She is saying exactly what you have said: that we can and must do better.
You are only hearing what you want to hear.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)young families, I have to say.
But I agree with you. Single payer is our goal, and it will be reached step by step.
Obamacare is a starting point. I have always believed that.
I am disappointed that Hillary has rejected the idea of single payer rather than agreeing with Bernie that it is the goal.
Rome was not built in a day.
Single payer is the right direction for our country.
We first need to make sure that every man, woman and child in our country is insured. And then we will realize that it is cheaper to do that with single payer and non-profit insurance.
There are a number of different models in Europe for single payer, and we can look at those more carefully than we have, and then find our own way to make sure that health care, affordable health care is available to everyone and that we make it a priority by taking the amounts that the health care cost out of our paychecks as a percentage of our earning, put all that money into one pot and with the money in that pot, insure everyone.
No one should profit from the money we all together put into that pot.
And we should more strongly and effectively encourage healthy lifestyles, which of course, includes trying to find out why we are such a violent society and what we can do about it.
Only the UK, Spain and Portugal have SP. All the other European nations have insurance mandated universal healthcare insurance, like the ACA.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)People say why don't you go back there but I say I have work to do here. An NHS would work here.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)for the first time because of his candidacy. This in itself is powerful, and shows what can be accomplished by truth and clear speech.
And it's not a fantasy if we want it and work for it.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)The American public has been caught in a toxic garbage dump of propaganda and wrong, negative thinking since the days of Reagan. 9-11 certainly set us back, and the whole country was subjected to full-scale trauma and PTSD. Only recently has the slumbering beast of public opinion picked up its head to roar again, first with Occupy and now with Bernie Sanders.
It's tough to stretch your muscles, have hope again, get yourself heard after such a long time. The beast awakens, in the best sense, like our guardian dragon. It stretches its muscles and its wings.
It is led into battle, for surely there must be a battle when the forces have grown so insidious and so entrenched.
Bernie has not "promised" any of the things he is talking about. He is going for them, however, and thank goodness for that. Plus, he's pointing out the absolute reality that other people all over the world already have much of what we want. American Exceptionalism has let us down in taking care of our most basic human needs and wants. And it didn't used to be this way. It wasn't always this way. There were politicians and policies and philosophies, before the days of Reagan, that knew full well that these Social Services were not only necessary but popular in the most radical way.
Bernie is reminding us of these things, and offering to lead us in the fight to implement them, protect them, and to go even further in lightening the load on the average person in the United States.
At the same time, he insists we have to do this together. No dropping off the followers after election, 50 state strategy all the way, all in this together. In it to win it.
I'd really like to know what is so bad about that? Why wouldn't more people, Progressives especially, like to come along and join this struggle, join this fight?
For me, I know that some people's nervous systems may simply not be ready for this kind of transition into this kind of political action. Some people might feel the need to fight or resist him or resist this struggle or message as much as anything else. But I do encourage them to stretch their arms out, towards these goals and towards each other. It feels good. It is a valiant, righteous struggle and fight. Let it continue, until we win.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)policies demanded by the conservatives and the wealthiest of our nation.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)1 - Are we such defeatists that we think its not worth trying to insure Healthcare as a right for all citizens?
2 - No one though Obamacare would ever happen.
3 - How well has voting out of fear worked out for America?
unc70
(6,110 posts)He might not make it, but sure would be fun watching him try. And helping him any way I can.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)what it takes to get there.
I use "probably" because there are a lot of people in this country who want choice, I believe it will be easier to add a public option to the ACA (while increasing subsidies and reducing out-of-pocket costs) and let people make the choice themselves, I question whether the majority of people are ready to accept the things that will have to be done to control cost and utilization like in other countries, and more.
Then there is the question of the real cost of his plan -- How he goes from $3 Trillion a year to $1.38 Trillion really is a fantasy. To that you have to consider the cost of all the other things he wants to do -- Social Security, education, etc. All these things are laudable, but he's trying to buy votes with promises that he simply can't deliver.
Omaha Steve
(99,580 posts)What did that cost ALL of us?
OS
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)explanations of it being unaffordable.
If the money flows up to billionaires and CEOs then we always have plenty.
But if the money flows down to average Americans -- WHOA! WHOA! TIME-OUT! We can't afford that!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Tell it, Steve!
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)There are millions of uninsured and more millions of underinsured who want to have a choice about going to a doctor when they are sick, rather than simply being unable to afford to do so.
Probably, though, you meant a choice among medical plans. I don't think there's anything in Bernie's plan that would forbid doctors from practicing privately, or patients from going to them. That's how they do in Canada.
Perhaps, though, you are thinking that folks can't afford to pay for doctors outside their plans once they are paying so much in tax to support their plan. That will be the case for some. But most will be paying less in tax than they pay now in premiums. (What is your basis for questioning Bernie's numbers? Single payer will have to be less expensive than what we've got now because (1) In countries that that have it, costs are less than ours (while outcomes are better) and (2) the enormous profits of insurance companies will no longer be part of the cost.) If they occasionally need to see a doctor outside their plan, they can probably afford to do so more easily than they can now.
That was, actually, my experience when I switched from Blue Cross to Kaiser. My premiums went down by about 40% and overall I was, and remain, happy with Kaiser's treatment of me, but Kaiser would not cover my chiropractor, who is not on their plan. I found I could go to her all I needed and still save a boatload over what I had been paying Blue Cross. Best of all, when some unexpected health issue came up I could go to Kaiser with absolutely no worry about how to pay for it.
I really don't understand your basis for saying Bernie can't deliver. Surely he cannot deliver everything right away. That's not to say he can't make enormous improvements.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)you're one of the "No We Can't" crowd. I find it so much more optimistic to support initiatives that We, the vast Hoi Polloi, need and deserve. We're the ones whose industry comprises this nation's GDP, and I think our needs should supersede those of the corporate oligarchy.
(Oh, and, welcome to my IL.)
mdbl
(4,973 posts)because Clinton will triangulate away most of it's good points, or a Repug will do away with it all together. The only chance the middle class and below has is Bernie Sanders who, at least will use his veto power to stop all the blabbering moron congressman from doing away with what little is left as I type this. That is what I get from Sanders. If he can pull some magic out of his hat, that would just be a benefit. So, I guess my answer to the OP is no, I don't fantasize that Sanders will get us everything, unless the god of common sense zaps voters in the brain and they have a moment of clarity - now that would be a fantasy come true.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)she will triangulate away from it and try to sell to the public "its new and improved" when in fact it will be a "higher profits" for the Insurance Companies"
Let just hope she doesn't have that chance to make that payback to the Insurance Compainies..her enemy remember?
tecelote
(5,122 posts)What do you think is wrong with America that we can't?
Stevepol
(4,234 posts)I also am sometimes swayed by facts.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)meh.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)but unlike hillary, Bernie will fight for what is right.
'Can't' is not in Bernie's vocabulary,
'No we can't' is hillarys motto......
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Hillary's argument then would have been: Fellow women, how can you possibly get the right to vote? You could only get that by voting! But you cannot vote. So, it's a pie in the sky fantasy. Hillary is a status quo promoter because it benefits her and her family.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)It will take some time. The more of US that woek toward it, the faster it happens.
Old DU member here but constant reader. As the primaries have been heating up this forum has annoyed the hell out of me. The majority of Democrats, Liberals were pushing for some form of single payer. The now president ran exclusively on giving the public an option. For all you so called Democrats that are calling Sanders ideas fantasy or pie in the sky principle what is wrong with you seriously?
It's no wonder why businesses are usually Republican supporters because all these water knee Democrats fail negotiation 101. If you want to sell a house for a million you start at +$1.5 not $1 million. Barak at every turn negotiated from the right. He in a way started the price at $750k. This is what it sounds like on this forum.
The political system took a hard shift to the right incrementalism wont work. Democrats need heavy movers and shakers not feathers.
MichMan
(11,908 posts)Actually you don't. Talk to people who sell real estate for a living. If something is way too unrealistically priced, people just walk on by without even submitting an offer. Real estate 101
wtawilltaw
(16 posts)Common sense 101. The one thing that irritated me the most about Obama was they never even put the public option for vote. They just said it couldnt be done. Just like the weak left in this forum. It's why I went independent a long time ago. What I see is politicians playing good cop bad cop but all working for the same corporate interest.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)But we live in Reality where such things, however much we want them just will not happen regardless of who in President. Obama would have chosen single payer, but he had to rely on Congress to write the laws and they turned it over to the insurance companies to do the job.
Who in their right mind thinks that one person can change that dynamic?
Might as well go
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)with its basically indefensible numbers. So what happens when he goes into the debates, against someone like Ted Cruz, for example?
How does he explain that he only meant it as a goal, not for real? That no one should expect it to work out "within four to eight years"?
If he hadn't put out a detailed plan, with numbers, that might make sense. But he has, and the plan doesn't work. And even if you believed it, his projected cost is $14 trillion dollars. So how will he defend it?
Vinca
(50,261 posts)I can't remember one person on this site saying, "Nah . . . I'd rather keep my private insurance." The notion by Hillary Clinton supporters that we should have our heads checked rather than try to make things better is offensive. Maybe it won't work. Maybe it will but it will take a long time. Maybe we should continue to say "Yes We Can" rather than "No We Can't."
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)EVER said that we should not try to make things better.
Vinca
(50,261 posts)Big insurance is currently reaping record profits because of the ACA, but at the same time they're raising premiums. A public option would make things better, but just adding more people to the billion dollar profits of big insurance won't. The bottom line is if Hillary suddenly came out and said, "I'm for single-payer, too," there would be a change in opinion here that would be like a fast U-turn on a busy highway. I wish all of the people who supported single-payer in 2008 would be more honest now. It's not necessary to endorse 100% of what your chosen candidate proposes. You can still be for Hillary and support single-payer. I honestly don't know why I keep beating this drum since I've already got mine. I'm on Medicare and happy as a clam.
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)as you did, that they do not want to do anything.
The ultimate ideal, IMO, is indeed single payer. I am a Hillary supporter and, yes, I say that.
But I am enough of a realist to know that the USA was not able to enact single payer in the immediate post-WWII years - when liberal ideas and Keynesian economics were the fashion (e.g., the UK's NHS and France's healthcare system, which built on earlier ideals of the French Revolution). It also took until 1966 in a comparatively progressive political environment even to enact Medicare - after bitter opposition. Today's environment is simply not anywhere near as progressive and, sadly, that is the truth.
So when any candidate - especially one who so far has had very little support in endorsements from Dem lawmakers in Congress - proposes to implement "single payer" and omits a lot of necessary details about how that will happen, I see that very much as a fantasy. No President can implement anything without strong support. Even if our President has overwhelming Dem support, Dems are still not a majority in Congress and thus cannot enact anything by themselves.
I simply do not believe that GOPers in Congress will suddenly turn into progressives overnight because Bernie - or ANY Dem candidate - has made them see the light. Look at what ALL their candidates are saying.
Hell, GOPers oppose Obamacare with every breath they take and Obamacare basically follows what they themselves wanted some years back.
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)"But I am enough of a realist to know that the USA was not able to enact single payer in the immediate post-WWII years - when liberal ideas and Keynesian economics were the fashion (e.g., the UK's NHS and France's healthcare system, which built on earlier ideals of the French Revolution). It also took until 1966 in a comparatively progressive political environment even to enact Medicare - after bitter opposition. Today's environment is simply not anywhere near as progressive and, sadly, that is the truth."
After WWII the liberal ideas you discuss were not unopposed, although the people behind that opposition were ignored by the press and the government. People like the Prescott Bush's and the like were very much involved in the corridors of power (he was one of the folks who was reportedly involved in an abortive military coup intended to overthrow FDR) but the reality of the wealthy among us fighting to undo all the things that benefited us was ignored or discounted by a population consumed with defending ourselves against the Godless Commies. It was a masterful con job and gave rise to lots of bad things, one of which was the idea that the people can't do anything about anything because, after all, doing anything about anything would involve change, and change just can't be done unless you're a Godless Commie.
The Right, in Europe, was offset by virulent opposition from the Left, up to and including rioting in the streets. In the US that was not the case. The difference was that the Right, in the US, is incredibly wealthy and able to shape the public discourse by simply buying off the opposition. The Left concerned itself with arguing over who was the most pure, much like the Leninist v Trotskyite Tag Team match among the Godless Commies. The Right, aka the rich establishment, was very proficient at turning one group against the other, sort of like triangulation, so that even the most well meaning on the Left were marginalised, blacklisted, ostracised.
In Europe, the Right constantly had to deal with the historical reality of the iconic guillotine, a symbol of where too great an imbalance could lead. We don't have things like that here, but we do have politicians who are ready and willing to be bought off, and a mass media that is largely made up of quislings subservient to the powers that be.
My point is that the opposition to progressives is not some sort of inherent, organic part of the US society. It is a product being purchased by the very wealthy, and sold by those to whom thirty pieces of silver is a perfectly fine payoff.
The list of things accomplished despite that is long and obvious, even as people decry the possibility of change. It is a fact that many who fought for change, like MLK, jr, and Bobby Kennedy fell by the wayside but the issues they supported were addressed far more fully than those on the "inside" thought could happen.
Reforming the government so the people get a fair shake is possible, but not if the slogan that wins the day is "no, we can't."
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Who said anything about not making it better? We just disagree on the mechanics of the process. What is offensive is people who are unable to have a reasonable discussion about healthcare policy without accusing the other of mental illness. On both sides. People can disagree and NOT be mental defective in some way. Or evil. Or greedy.
I am self-employed in a red state. Nobody gets screwed harder on health insurance premiums than I do, trust me on that.
Yes we can make it better, but only if progressives learn to show up for mid-term elections and take some responsibility for activism, stop expecting a white night or politician to ride in to save them
Vinca
(50,261 posts)All I'm saying is that we should have high aspirations and I don't appreciate the constant bashing of Bernie supporters who are still in favor of what everyone on this site was in favor of in 2008.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)before trashing ACA is not 'bashing'.
Vinca
(50,261 posts)Bernie has said numerous times he would do nothing to jeopardize anyone's healthcare. What did you expect? He'd be sworn in, end the ACA and then expect a Republican House to go along with single-payer? The point is you can't stop trying. No more "No We Can't." And his budget for this has been posted in this forum more than once before.
OkSustainAg
(203 posts)If you take how much people pay in average premium multiply by a number of insured and times it by 10 years you get a number that is far greater than the cost in taxes for a single payer. You can tax. Stop being afraid of it. Corporations need to be taxed at a greater level. With taxes we buy civilization. If we are not going to do that. Than they need to pay considerably more in wages. The wealthy and corporations are not going to get out of paying one way or the other. We start with electing Bernie and begin to support progressive candidates down ticket and support and fund them the same way we do Bernie. Thats what movements are. Not elect one person and its fixed.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Math works wonderfully.
So does bar charts. Look at the proportion of the budgets and then total numbers devoted to the budget, find the sources of revenue, and where that goes when you allow corporations to not pay their fair share.
It works every time!
Welcome to DU
OkSustainAg
(203 posts)Stop fighting unnecessary wars. Make the federal budget bigger and stop caving to right wing Ideology. I'm not against larger government. I want my country to work for the citizens.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)What are you even talking about? Link please.
Gothmog
(145,126 posts)These savings are simply not true http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-health-plan-cost_us_56a8ff99e4b0f6b7d5447ee8?section=politics
Either way, Thorpe says, the Sanders plan would create both winners and losers, as any health reform proposal would. The winners would include workers for whom the new taxes would still be less than what they pay now, in premiums and out-of-pocket costs combined. The losers would include some Medicaid recipients with jobs, because their employers would pass along the expense of new payroll taxes as lower wages.
OkSustainAg
(203 posts)we let righties and corporations have thier shot at nation building to utter failure and cost.
Let something new rebuild our nation and history will be on our side.
Gothmog
(145,126 posts)If single payer can not work in Vermont, then there is no chance that it will be adopted in the entire country http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711#ixzz3xciq2Nj5
Vermont under Shumlin became the most visible trailblazer. Until Wednesday, when the governor admitted what critics had said all along: He couldnt pay for it.
It is not the right time for Vermont to pass a single-payer system, Shumlin acknowledged in a public statement ending his signature initiative. He concluded the 11.5 percent payroll assessments on businesses and sliding premiums up to 9.5 percent of individuals income might hurt our economy.
Vermonts outcome is a small speed bump, said New York Assembly member Richard Gottfried, whos been pushing single-payer bills for more than 20 years. But opponents says its the end of the road.
If cobalt blue Vermont couldnt find a way to make single-payer happen, then its very unlikely that any other state will, said Jack Mozloom, spokesman for the National Federation of Independent Business.
There will never be a good time for a massive tax increase on employers and consumers in Vermont, so they should abandon that silly idea now and get serious, Mozloom added.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711#ixzz3xdKH1mGn
Sanders is proposing a skeleton of a plan (not a real plan at all) that has no chance of passage. The refusal of Sanders to answer the question was an admission that even Sanders knows that this plan is not real.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)"Let's give prayer a try" the first time I scanned it.
But same dif, really. Because your post is about as detailed and common sense as doing that other thing. You gonna tame the Pentagon and impose single-payer on a populace that doesn't even want it for the most part? Hmmm.... You know that currently, we can't even AUDIT the Pentagon? Don't even know where the hell the money is going, but you and Bernie Sanders gonna make them fly straight
Better yet, tell me what you are actually doing to bring this new age to fruition, other than posting drivel on the DU? You gotta actual ground plan for this revolution? Build a coalition of like minded organizations? Win hearts and minds of your opposition? Did you register the voters? Give them five door knock and/or calls to be certain they show up to vote? That's what it takes. Do it again the next year? It's hard work, better get up early and get started.
OkSustainAg
(203 posts)I Have found the way to grow, recycle and create 70% of what I do. With little or no money. I am completely recession proof.
I have 0 debt. I have been showing those in my area how to do this. The 1.5% top of the ladder can be taxed on they are against it and have no defense against why we shouldn't do it. The way to win this is by the rest of us to join together and stop buying in to their crap. Why does our government need to be small. I not a republican. The government could write a check right now to every one in this country and the benefits would run through the local economies and we would benefit more than the cost of the wars that would return us nothing. Tax them now! Take the redistribution that was given to them and redistribute to the people.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And it is not a fantasy. Too bad some like what we have and do not even want to try.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)Campaign on single payer, maybe we Get a public option.
(he can't say this yet though without weakening his position).
What's Hillary campaigning on? Stats quo? How inspiring.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)Do I think it will be easy? No.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But if you start from the assumption that you have a goal, you'll never get to that goal.
We keep seeing the Overton window move right. It's time to start moving it left again.
Sanders has already done more to reform the word 'socialism' with his run than anything since the McCarthy era, even though he's just a tiny bit more socialist than any Dem out there. Shift the public's view on single payer enough, and we might get a Congress that might at least do a public option, or a lower medicare enrollment age in the next 8 years. We certainly won't if we never even try for more.
I'm a longtime supporter of single-payer health care, and I'm glad that Sanders is behind it. I am a supporter of HR 676, the Conyers/Kucinich bill, along with many others, including many physicians. It's not a fantasy.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)..what other long time progressive goals we should just give up on from the start? Or should I just assume that it's all of them and that what we have right now is the base line, and that we need to just be happy with things not getting worse. Because honestly that seems to be the entire theme of Clinton supporters at this point and something I've never seen or heard from any candidate or their supporters in my 30+ years as a registered Democrat.
Gothmog
(145,126 posts)The Sanders plan depends on massive cost savings that have no basis in reality. The GOP keep on promising massive economic growth due to tax cuts and this growth has yet to show up. Prof. Krugman compares Sanders hoped for health care savings to the GOP tax cuts. I trust Prof. Krugman on this http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0
On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders plan isnt just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich and single-payer really does save money, whereas theres no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, its not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
Again, as noted by Prof. Krugman this plan does not add up.
Gothmog
(145,126 posts)This is a great editorial from the Washington Post that discusses the claimed savings in Sanders health care plan https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.
Meanwhile, when asked how Mr. Sanders would tackle future deficits, as he would already be raising taxes for health-care expansion and the rest of his program, his advisers claimed that more government spending will result in higher growth, which will improve our fiscal situation. This resembles Republican arguments that tax cuts will juice the economy and pay for themselves and is equally fanciful.
The Washington Post is agreeing with Prof. Krugman's analysis
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I just think we will get it in the next 5 to 10 years.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)Just like Reagan did from the right (and no one thought it possible at the time), Bernie can be the catalyst to reversing the status quo from the American political system. Anything else is business as usual.
Thank BIG! And WORK HARD.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)to try to improve the ACA to benefit ordinary Americans?
taking large sums of money from big pharma and insurance lobbyists, tells me she will not.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)If he did perhaps persons aged 50/55plus would have had non-profit Gov. medicare today.
gordyfl
(598 posts)The "public option" is a single federal insurance plan that would compete with private insurance companies.
Why would members of Congress (and Hillary) oppose either plan? The answer is simple -- Money.
From 2009...
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/09/committee-members-opposed-to-p/
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)benefit the policies allegedly all Democrats are on board with. Taxes, Bank regulations, Single Payer
and a host of other issues.
That is what his political revolution is about, period. His message hasn't changed,
those portraying him as dishonest about the challenges involved that HE made
clear long ago are either lying and or dumb. Who is committed to these efforts,
evidently not Clinton. Who is taking lobby money, not Bernie.
It's about having a functioning democracy.
amborin
(16,631 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,183 posts)Autumn
(45,055 posts)achievement is stupid. Hillary will keep the ACA because insurance companies benefit her, not because Obama... I believe Bernie will be an incrementalist, pragmatic, willing, and fighting President for the people, and yes this time in the right direction.
Nanjeanne
(4,950 posts)Because Bernie was brave enough to,put out a plan with details unlike Clinton and he is being scrutinized like crazy. The vision is correct and it works in every other industrialized country better than what we have here. So I'm willing to admit that there will need to be tweaks in the plan and I'm fine with that. But it's a fact that other countries do this and cover all their people, have better outcomes and cost less. I'm sure we can do better as well if we TRY. All other countries whether public or private insurance based, make it illegal to make a profit on basic healthcare. And please do not bring up Netherlands. They, along with Switzerland do have private health insurance systems but they are non- profit. They only make profit on the add on services.
I will gladly pay additional tax to have actual health CARE. I do not want to continue paying thousands of dollars for health insurance.
So YES I can't wait until there is discussion again about real answers to our health care problem. As soon as we start electing brave people who are willing to stand up to the insurance lobby.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)As inevitably as same sex marriage became law.
Everyone despises the criminal corporations that either cheat us or try to cheat us any and every time that they can.
We will stop this insane Healthcare Casino insanity if we can manage to elect someone like Bernie who will support our democratic wishes.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)why not? the rest of the world can do it.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)or are you really interesting in understanding? There are unique historical, cultural and geographical reasons that make this much more difficult in the US than in many other countries. I can explain more, but I don't want to type a bunch if you are just blowing smoke.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The calling card of the Clinton campaign.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)wildeyed
(11,243 posts)who is willing to walk through that door once the activists push it open far enough. That's the easy part. You gotta make them do it. That's the hard part.
Activist are responsible for giving the politician the cover they need to get the work of the legislation done. King famously pushed Kennedy and LBJ on civil rights. The depression opened the door for FDR. None of that groundbreaking legislation gets done without both timing and the right activists in place to agitate on the issues.
Sanders math on single-payer doesn't work. His job is to present a workable policy that we can move toward. He has not done that.
"And isn't that the entire point of the Democratic Party?"
NO. That is not the point of a political party at all. They are a tactic to allow politicians to win elections. Nothing more.
Y'all should quit dumping your responsibility to agitate the shit out of this issue onto Sanders or a political party's lap in the first place. Because it goes nowhere if you do that. MAKE THEM DO IT. Show up at every board meeting, at the state house and vote in every single election that you are eligible for. Write OpEds and register voters. Make the local pols who oppose you fucking miserable every time they see you coming until they pass your law just to get you off their back. Yes you can!
H2O Man
(73,534 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)We are DONE with the DLC ... No more ...
The Clinton's can take their billions and billions with them back to the Hamptons ...
And the Clinton supporters ? .. I guess I never really knew how hideously awful you can be ...
I would never want to be in a party with the right wingy Clinton people who have occupied the Democratic Party since the DLC was formed ...
We return to caring about PEOPLE, or fuck them ... I won't belong to a conservative party ..
No fucking way ... No fucking how ...
Btw - your rudeness warrants removal from my DU feed ... It's well deserved ....
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)What does that even mean? Am I supposed to be impressed with your deep compassion for all living beings now? You know, yelling about how 'hideously awful' other posters are might be a sign that the problem lies elsewhere....
And guess what, I am a Clinton supporter but never was into the DLC (doesn't exist anymore, BTW). Dean supporter here (also a Clinton supporter!), and activist trained at Camp Wellstone. I would bet lots of money that I can out-liberal you on at least three out of four metrics too
I am not alone in believing the Democratic Party has abandoned the middle and lower classes ....
You? ... Simply gone ...
You exist? Why? To yell at people who do shit that they are doing it wrong? I'm out....
Trajan
(19,089 posts)You said it .. Just like Hillary - in 'the right direction'
Tata ...
Nanjeanne
(4,950 posts)With a small tax base which is why single payer should be a federal government program as Medicare is. Nothing nefarious or a reason to not put together a si glee payer system for the United States.
senz
(11,945 posts)He is the only candidate I trust to do that.
This, along with his honesty, judgment, and lengthy, honorable experience in Washington D.C., is reason to elect him to the presidency.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)but the point is to continue moving forward, not be satisfied with the ACA, which is deeply flawed. I would think the next step would be to provide a public option and from there move on to single payer.
Related to this - my state now has ONE insurance provider. How nice for those of you in the L 48 who can "shop around." http://www.adn.com/article/20160128/alaska-kicks-moda-health-out-individual-insurance-market
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Of course, there are those who'd prefer to try all other (non-realistic) approaches first, like Clinton, but eventually even she will have to admit that Sanders had a good idea.
The status quo is untenable - and anyone can see that who isn't stuck in a 20th century mindset.
Sanders and his supporters will change the socio-economic-political infrastructure of this land - and that way we can start to build the nation we deserve rather than the one we are burdened with.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)--- Browning
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Physicians for a National Health Program, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of 20,000 doctors who support single-payer national health insurance, released the following statement today by its president, Dr. Robert Zarr, a Washington, D.C., pediatrician.
Nonpartisan physicians group calls single-payer reform the only effective remedy for nations continuing health care woes and urges focus on facts, not rhetoric
--------------------------------
No,we can't - and No we won't even Try are unacceptable from any American, but especially from any Democrat
treestar
(82,383 posts)usually blame him in such a way that I don't see how it would be less than a double standard if they let Bernie get credit for just an incremental move toward it.