2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTrue or false?: in 2010 Sanders said adoption of single payer couldn't begin on the federal level
Simple enough--did he say "no we can't" for national single payer in 2010?
I will post the answer in a reply to this thread.
1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
That's inconsistent with what he's saying now, so of course not. | |
0 (0%) |
|
Yep, he said it. Go figure. | |
1 (100%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it," he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday.
Sanders is among the few in the Senate not afraid to say he supports government-run, universal health care. But his calls for such a program have gone unanswered, much to the chagrin of progressives who still feel it is the best way to solve the nation's health care crisis.
Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually -- but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.
Sanders has put forward an amendment to the current health care bill in the Senate that would allow states to use federal funds to create their own single-payer plans, he said.
Single-payer aside, Sanders chalks up the difficulty Democrats have had passing health care to a mistaken belief about party unity when reform efforts kicked off.
"The major error Democrats undertook was to assume we had 60 votes or even 59," he said. "We never had that."
Sanders said he thinks Democrats have 50 votes in the Senate to pass a bill "certainly to include a public option." It was a bit of good news for progressives, who have turned their attention to using reconciliation in the Senate to bolster a reform bill with the addition of a public option.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)"Sanders is among the few in the Senate not afraid to say he supports government-run, universal health care. But his calls for such a program have gone unanswered, much to the chagrin of progressives who still feel it is the best way to solve the nation's health care crisis."
By saying that "the road will not begin in Washington" means at the Presidential level, there was no support for it. Which is true as Obama himself took it off the table.
I don't quite understand what the big deal is on this one.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)hence the discussion of it needing to start at the state level
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)During the time, Obama did take the Universal Healthcare option off the table even before actual negotiation started.
That shows a lack of support from the President, as the leadership was not on board with the idea, then of course one could say it would not work in the "Federal" level at that point.
Which is why I didn't really see this as a big deal as that was the only reasonable method at the time.
Don't get me wrong, I am still quite happy that the ACA has passed, even though I consider the implementation flawed and the law needs work.
It is also one thing to basically say, we will try our hardest to get the best possible outcome, rather than saying flat out that something can not be done.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)He knew it could not begin at the Federal level with Obama dead set against it!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Just exploiting the issue while people die for lack of health care.
think
(11,641 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)When do you anticipate that happening again?
think
(11,641 posts)Except Hillary supporters. They'll deny that she'll be corrupted by all the dirty corporate cash doled out to her.
History has shown that politicians that take the money are much more willing to do what the corporations want rather than what the people want.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)think
(11,641 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Hillary took millions from. Keep your head in the sand though. Like I say you Hillary fans will ignore the obvious.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)think
(11,641 posts)takes money from.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)think
(11,641 posts)She's not just ANYONE.
It's called a CONFLICT of INTEREST.
It's legal under current laws but it sure as hell shouldn't be.
Good grief. I remember when Democrats use to be upset when the Republicans would pull this shit. And the GOP didn't even come close to the levels of cash Hillary has been receiving.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And then he pissed them off so much while in office that they all donated to Mitt Romney to try to get him out of office.
think
(11,641 posts)than campaign donations.
As for Obama, Holder did more than enough to help the banks avoid any serious prosecution for their crimes.
Holder is back working for the same law firm that defended Citigroup while he was prosecuting their crimes.
I like Obama but don't think Eric Holder wasn't the gift Wall Street was looking for and got....
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)corruption meme is just another smear. Envy is an ugly emotion
DanTex
(20,709 posts)the VT single payer program from collapsing.
senz
(11,945 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)You can learn more about it here: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)He could have asked the Democratic governor to at least give the appearance of studying single payer, rather than dropping it like a hot potato because it costs way too much to convince the voters. Maybe one day, you'll learn something beyond high school civics.
senz
(11,945 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)What you consider my pretense at a "vast knowledge of civics" is in fact a vast enthusiasm for what our founders intended for us when they created this democratic republic. It's more along the lines of idealism rooted in the notion that all human beings are intrinsically worthy.
You know: old-fashioned liberalism?
No, I guess you wouldn't know.
senz
(11,945 posts)Lucky me, I learned how to view the original, and here it is:
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Now quit dragging a hero of mine through the muck with every comment you write. If he were alive today, he would at the thought of your candidate.
It really is time for a new avatar.
LexVegas
(6,500 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Sure it is. And you know it.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)That's the real question.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and I favor Vermont or some other state implementing a single payer plan to prove it can work, and to work out the bugs, so we can try it on a national level.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...with a phased in dropping of the age requirement.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)are on the track towards single payer
You see how we agree on this? This is because what separates us in many cases is not where we want to go, but rather what the best way to get there is.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Some would say he's on a Roll
senz
(11,945 posts)The best we could hope for back then was state by state.
2017-20 could be an entirely different story if Bernie is elected.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)The key is convincing the people, and he will have the bully pulpit to do just that.
Once you convince the people, the Congress will follow.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)He was not saying that it could never be done, only that it could not be done given the conditions at that time.