Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:21 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

Why didn't Bernie get Vermont to pass single payer?

I mean if he couldn't even get it passed in his home state how would he be able to get it through a much more ideologically divided country?

195 replies, 10781 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

195 replies	Author	Time	Post
Why didn't Bernie get Vermont to pass single payer? (Original post)	hill2016	Aug 2015	OP
:facepalm:	Dawgs	Aug 2015	#1
'grasping at straws' 'scraping the bottom of a barrel'	Rosa Luxemburg	Aug 2015	#154
uh, because he isn't king of Vermont and isn't even a part of state government	cali	Aug 2015	#2
Now why would you wanna throw logic into something like this?	senz	Aug 2015	#95
Fair enough: to what extent did he try to help get the Shumlin's State initiative passed?	brooklynite	Aug 2015	#103
Sanders lent significant support to the effort	cali	Aug 2015	#126
Some states have to small of a population to make it cost effective.	Snotcicles	Aug 2015	#104
You ALWAYS have to come in	MuseRider	Aug 2015	#124
I've been hearing so much	hill2016	Aug 2015	#170
you don't know what you are talking about. as per usual, hilly supporter.	cali	Aug 2015	#191
I'd say that's more the responsibility of Governor Shumlin.	Maedhros	Aug 2015	#3
he's such a turd. he only got elected because of his promises of single payer.	cali	Aug 2015	#6
But obviously he tried, he didn't just talk about it. And he recognized the problem of funding....	George II	Aug 2015	#94
that is a matter for debate. his administration screwed up in a major way	cali	Aug 2015	#118
So Bernie couldn't even rally the troops in tiny Vermont, but....	SonderWoman	Aug 2015	#53
lol	cali	Aug 2015	#60
Even though he's not governor, a state's Senator should have at least a little influence....	George II	Aug 2015	#98
good question	hill2016	Aug 2015	#171
oh and welcome to du, new poster.	cali	Aug 2015	#4
Why didn't Obama?	Fearless	Aug 2015	#5
Going out on a limb with little to back me up.	SouthernProgressive	Aug 2015	#7
partially right.	cali	Aug 2015	#16
They do amazing work in Pasco and it makes a big difference.	SouthernProgressive	Aug 2015	#25
yes. Community Health center do great work in preventative medicine	cali	Aug 2015	#46
We are a country that moves incrementally on issues	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#18
Change does happen slow and that is by original design.	SouthernProgressive	Aug 2015	#27
Do you understand that we have varying levels of sovereign governments in this country?	morningfog	Aug 2015	#8
My senators and congresspeople secure funding....	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#11
That wasn't the question asked.	morningfog	Aug 2015	#14
Are you calling me a "race baiter"	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#19
I am not calling you a race baiter.	morningfog	Aug 2015	#30
Glad you walked that back	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#32
I didn't walk anything back.	morningfog	Aug 2015	#41
Morning, when the fog clears up, let us know.	Nitram	Aug 2015	#49
It was an asinine post from a serial disruptor.	morningfog	Aug 2015	#50
All that one ever has is personal attacks. When I see that name I expect it. then it doubled down	Cha	Aug 2015	#140
They spend more time on forced vacations and	morningfog	Aug 2015	#142
She IS a serial disruptor	short circuit	Aug 2015	#150
...	SidDithers	Aug 2015	#158
That's their MO.. has been for awhile. They call you a "serial disrruptor" because you have a	Cha	Aug 2015	#141
Case in point.	short circuit	Aug 2015	#151
"You just called someone a race baiter because you didn't have a logical point to make."	Cha	Aug 2015	#155
I have nothing against censorship	short circuit	Aug 2015	#156
I can see that.. an alternate point of view is all the majority of DU needs now to Censor Voices	Cha	Aug 2015	#157
Plenty of posters manage to express a wide variety of views	morningfog	Aug 2015	#164
Maggie is great.. and a Hillary Supporter. now the poster who was calling her a "serial disruptor"	Cha	Aug 2015	#167
Um, you've been here a week.	Bobbie Jo	Aug 2015	#163
And, now he's gone Bobby Jo..	Cha	Aug 2015	#166
heh	Bobbie Jo	Aug 2015	#168
Yeah, not very optimistic..	Cha	Aug 2015	#169
Well your CT is Wrong Short Circuit.. Maggie is a Hillary Supporter.. Maybe it's you who is the	Cha	Aug 2015	#165
And Bernie secured waivers for Vermont.	cali	Aug 2015	#17
But no federal funding	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#22
In most states the Federal Representatives and Senators still have a lot of influence...	George II	Aug 2015	#149
hm..	hill2016	Aug 2015	#172
Is that what I said? Welcome back!	morningfog	Aug 2015	#192
Because he has minimal influence on the Dem party there	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#9
Or better yet	AgingAmerican	Aug 2015	#21
+ 1	senz	Aug 2015	#100
no, that would be quite wrong, mags.	cali	Aug 2015	#31
ha!!!	wendylaroux	Aug 2015	#38
I would use other descriptive words.	cali	Aug 2015	#40
i know:(	wendylaroux	Aug 2015	#45
Tell that to the Bernie fans	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#48
well as a hill acolyte, you know about fandom for a political candidate	cali	Aug 2015	#68
Seems I have to tell you this every single day....	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#72
lol. I ain't buying and neither are most people here	cali	Aug 2015	#75
^^^THIS^^^	beam me up scottie	Aug 2015	#135
BS himself said.. there weren't enough votes in Congress for Single Payer but too many	Cha	Aug 2015	#146
yup	hill2016	Aug 2015	#175
As mayor of Berlington?	AgingAmerican	Aug 2015	#10
as an influential political figure	hill2016	Aug 2015	#173
You might ask Governor Shumlin. That would be more appropriate.	Vinca	Aug 2015	#12
Post removed	Post removed	Aug 2015	#13
Damn you!	tularetom	Aug 2015	#15
This has been posted before. It is just being recycled.	djean111	Aug 2015	#20
It's not stupid at all	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#24
It's recycled bullshit because they have little else.	AtomicKitten	Aug 2015	#28
Plenty of other long-term posters who are Clinton supporters have said the same thing (nt)	jeff47	Aug 2015	#34
What control does he hold	fredamae	Aug 2015	#23
Do you know any of them?	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#26
I do. Bernie is very well liked in the legislature by dems	cali	Aug 2015	#33
Ask Shulmin if Bernie is powerlesss on large ball state politics	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#36
you are contradicting yourself	cali	Aug 2015	#43
I'm not contradicting myself	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#44
Can you show me an example	fredamae	Aug 2015	#54
Well ask them then	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#61
Ask whom	fredamae	Aug 2015	#62
Bernie Sanders' Single Payer Vermont	seabeyond	Aug 2015	#29
sigh. false hillaryite hit piece from some asswipe who gets	cali	Aug 2015	#39
daileykos isnt ok? what ever. i will listen to him during debates. i have not heard it addressed	seabeyond	Aug 2015	#58
so you approve of every critical Hillary diary posted there	cali	Aug 2015	#70
Isn't Sanders advocating Medicare for all under the federal government?	ALBliberal	Aug 2015	#186
yeah	hill2016	Aug 2015	#174
The same reason it probably won't pass nationally...	SonderWoman	Aug 2015	#35
Because it costs so much	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#42
Not to mention the votes. Even with Dem majority...	SonderWoman	Aug 2015	#51
This is the very reason to enact a single-payer system.	Ron Green	Aug 2015	#63
Taking 18% off the GDP away is not viable	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#65
What???	Ron Green	Aug 2015	#71
it's bizzaro time.	cali	Aug 2015	#76
What part do you not understand?	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#87
I don't understand how spending much LESS than 18% of GDP	Ron Green	Aug 2015	#96
Because as we've moved from a manufacturing economy....	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#101
Well, that's a different way to look at it. Kind of like	Ron Green	Aug 2015	#138
As I said, every modern Dem president has cut military spending....	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#139
for profit health care is not a major employer.	Warren Stupidity	Aug 2015	#159
Are we dumber than every other advancced nation on earth?	Armstead	Aug 2015	#56
They make it work with much smaller populations and...	SonderWoman	Aug 2015	#59
I will stand by my original point	Armstead	Aug 2015	#67
I believe we should continue to work towards progress in this area, while...	SonderWoman	Aug 2015	#73
Well you're opening up a whole can of stuff I haven't time to go into here now	Armstead	Aug 2015	#78
Its not the believing in it part that is unrealistic, its...	SonderWoman	Aug 2015	#84
As i said above, there's a whole lotta aspects and levels to this...	Armstead	Aug 2015	#91
Yep, it's easy to afford socialist programs	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#69
Reducing that is part of the agenda	Armstead	Aug 2015	#81
what is the problem with socialist programs??	Angry Dragon	Aug 2015	#82
A country as rich as the US cannot afford a military and health care coverage?	morningfog	Aug 2015	#85
We are 15 trillion in debt	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#88
Yet we can afford the largest military in the world but cannot afford healthcare for our people?	morningfog	Aug 2015	#90
Hey, I'm all for military cuts and....	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#92
You made a lot of assumptions based on nothing.	morningfog	Aug 2015	#112
Again you put words in my mouth	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#116
You are having a rambling conversation in your head to which I am not privy.	morningfog	Aug 2015	#121
universal healthcare saves money and boosts the economy	Warren Stupidity	Aug 2015	#161
lol -- you sound just like a Republican!	senz	Aug 2015	#105
How so? Cons love being the world's police	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#109
All of the other modern industrial nations have their own military forces.	Warren Stupidity	Aug 2015	#160
The VA is larger than many national health care systems	jberryhill	Aug 2015	#79
How's that working out?	SonderWoman	Aug 2015	#83
In comparison to what?	jberryhill	Aug 2015	#86
It's working so well they are outsourcing some of it to private corps	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#89
Health care is NEVER going to be efficient or economically rational	Armstead	Aug 2015	#93
So how do you replace the contribution to GDP?	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#99
It will always contribute to the GDP	Armstead	Aug 2015	#108
Sure it can be done - just not on a dime	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#111
It's not new issue but needs a new starting point	Armstead	Aug 2015	#114
The ACA was the new starting point in 2010	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#119
I appreciate the need to contain costs	Armstead	Aug 2015	#128
We are approaching 90% insured	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#130
In my real life....	Armstead	Aug 2015	#134
Chin up - we have made progress	MaggieD	Aug 2015	#137
Outsourcing is the republican way of pretending that defunding programs is a solution.	Warren Stupidity	Aug 2015	#162
We're already paying for it.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#117
hopefully	hill2016	Aug 2015	#176
Um Vermont DID pass single payer but then discovered they couldn't realistically fund it.	phleshdef	Aug 2015	#37
Sorry, I said the same thing in post #104. Some people don't have a clue how insurance works	Snotcicles	Aug 2015	#115
actually their smallness is likely helpful	dsc	Aug 2015	#131
No, there really isn't enough income coming into Vermont.	phleshdef	Aug 2015	#188
funny	hill2016	Aug 2015	#177
Its not about size as much as it is about having enough people to produce enough revenue.	phleshdef	Aug 2015	#189
Hill 2016, you've hit the nail on the head.	Nitram	Aug 2015	#47
He wasn't governor	AgingAmerican	Aug 2015	#52
So he couldn't even rally the troops in his home state?	SonderWoman	Aug 2015	#55
He has never held state office	AgingAmerican	Aug 2015	#66
and	hill2016	Aug 2015	#179
Bernie is a US Senator, not a Vermont State Senator.	Zorra	Aug 2015	#57
sorry, as a person who actually lives here, that's bullshit.	cali	Aug 2015	#74
when you post an inflammatory op and then don't respond that	cali	Aug 2015	#64
Unfortunately, Bernie didn't have any input at the state level	DissidentVoice	Aug 2015	#77
no, it wasn't the right which really is weak here. it was Shumlin.	cali	Aug 2015	#80
Did Bernie even try? A speech? Anything?	SonderWoman	Aug 2015	#107
yes. it really was mostly shumlin's fault. And it's complicated	cali	Aug 2015	#120
so	hill2016	Aug 2015	#180
Just Asking Questions	Capt. Obvious	Aug 2015	#97
First cousin of Just Saying...	beam me up scottie	Aug 2015	#129
Because it probably involves people having to pay for things with taxes	taught_me_patience	Aug 2015	#102
Hey I don't mind paying taxes that go toward improving the General Welfare.	senz	Aug 2015	#110
I don't mind either.	taught_me_patience	Aug 2015	#113
The rich should pay their fair share..	frylock	Aug 2015	#133
oh wow	hill2016	Aug 2015	#181
You really need to get a new act. This one has become stale and predictable.	arcane1	Aug 2015	#106
Because nobody has come up with a way to pay for it	Recursion	Aug 2015	#122
We're already paying for it.	Romulox	Aug 2015	#123
Well, no, we're not. Lots of people go without medical care	Recursion	Aug 2015	#125
Doctor salaries make up only a small part of the difference.	DanTex	Aug 2015	#143
For the same reason Hillary didn't in NY or even the USA -- where she had two chances. n/t	nichomachus	Aug 2015	#127
Because he's a US Senator and not part of his state's government?	The Velveteen Ocelot	Aug 2015	#132
I keep hearing about this thing called	hill2016	Aug 2015	#182
I have never known my own US senators to get involved or make statements,	The Velveteen Ocelot	Aug 2015	#187
One rec...enough said.	artislife	Aug 2015	#136
Hey Now I was told that they are not into this for the "popuplarity contest"	MoveIt	Aug 2015	#147
Another Hillary Clinton supporter shoots an arrow into the sky...	cherokeeprogressive	Aug 2015	#144
Probably for the same reason Clinton passed Stop and Frisk to harass black folks in New York.	TheKentuckian	Aug 2015	#145
Someone doesn't understand what Senator responsibilities are, look that up please.	timesup	Aug 2015	#148
And plenty don't understand the limitations of presidential powers.	BlueCaliDem	Aug 2015	#185
Why didn't Obama pass single payer as part of ACA?	HassleCat	Aug 2015	#152
Why didn't Hillary get NY to pass stricter gun laws?	Motown_Johnny	Aug 2015	#153
He lost the VT Gov's race	underthematrix	Aug 2015	#178
his bully pulpit	hill2016	Aug 2015	#183
It seems to me VT loved him as their	underthematrix	Aug 2015	#184
Why didn't Hillary get any health care bill passed?	Ino	Aug 2015	#190
Why did Hillary fail in her attempt to get any health care passed?	Live and Learn	Aug 2015	#193
Your handle is the answer to your question.	Nitram	Sep 2015	#194
simple, he isn't the governor of Vermont.	WI_DEM	Sep 2015	#195

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:24 PM

Dawgs (14,755 posts)

1. :facepalm:

Reply to this post

Response to Dawgs (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 10:48 PM

Rosa Luxemburg (28,627 posts)

154. 'grasping at straws' 'scraping the bottom of a barrel'

indeed, facepalm

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:25 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

2. uh, because he isn't king of Vermont and isn't even a part of state government

That failure belongs to Shumlin

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:44 PM

senz (11,945 posts)

95. Now why would you wanna throw logic into something like this?

Spoil sport. They have sooo much fun with their little inventions.

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #95)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:50 PM

brooklynite (80,031 posts)

103. Fair enough: to what extent did he try to help get the Shumlin's State initiative passed?

How did it turn out?

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #103)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:45 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

126. Sanders lent significant support to the effort

Shumlin really screwed up. He was elected in large part because of his position on single payer which the majority of Vermonters support. Partly, his poor relationship with the legislature is to blame and after being elected he focused more on other issues.

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #95)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:52 PM

Snotcicles (9,089 posts)

104. Some states have to small of a population to make it cost effective.

You need a massive pool paying into it.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:36 PM

MuseRider (32,644 posts)

124. You ALWAYS have to come in

and spoil all the fun.

Thanks cali, once again.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:10 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

170. I've been hearing so much

about how Bernie will use his "bully pulpit" to push progressive legislation through Congress. Why didn't he practice that in Vermont with the people nearest and dearest to himself?

Or are you saying he didn't care enough to try to get it through his home state?

My question remains: if he can't even get single payer passed in his home state (with his bully pulpit), how can he get it through a much more ideologically and politically divided nation?

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Reply #170)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 05:49 AM

cali (114,904 posts)

191. you don't know what you are talking about. as per usual, hilly supporter.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:25 PM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

3. I'd say that's more the responsibility of Governor Shumlin.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711.html

Vermont under Shumlin became the most visible trailblazer. Until Wednesday, when the governor admitted what critics had said all along: He couldn’t 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.”

Reply to this post

Response to Maedhros (Reply #3)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:29 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

6. he's such a turd. he only got elected because of his promises of single payer.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:42 PM

George II (67,782 posts)

94. But obviously he tried, he didn't just talk about it. And he recognized the problem of funding....

....that many others (including Sanders) either don't see or choose to ignore.

Reply to this post

Response to George II (Reply #94)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:13 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

118. that is a matter for debate. his administration screwed up in a major way

on the health exchange, Shumlin has a very rocky relationship with dems and progs in the legislature. You do not have the knowledge about Vermont politics you think you do. At frickin' all.

Reply to this post

Response to Maedhros (Reply #3)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:21 PM

SonderWoman (1,169 posts)

53. So Bernie couldn't even rally the troops in tiny Vermont, but....

It's all Obama's fault that he couldn't get repubs to go along with single payer in house and senate?

"POS Used Car Salesman".

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #53)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:30 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

60. lol

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #53)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:45 PM

George II (67,782 posts)

98. Even though he's not governor, a state's Senator should have at least a little influence....

....in getting things done in his home state.

In Connecticut Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy speak out all the time on state-wide issues, and people listen to them.

I wonder why that is?

Reply to this post

Response to George II (Reply #98)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:11 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

171. good question

wondering why too

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:27 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

4. oh and welcome to du, new poster.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:28 PM

Fearless (18,421 posts)

5. Why didn't Obama?

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:31 PM

SouthernProgressive (1,810 posts)

7. Going out on a limb with little to back me up.

I am going to assume Vermont has a very high rate of insured. They might also have good county programs that pick up the rest. In Pasco county Florida, often known as one of our most backwards counties, they have amazing health programs available to pick up where others fall short in the arena of healthcare. I personally know people who moved a couple of miles just to be in the Pasco limits. If anyone is ever interested, take a look at what Pasco does for mental health care. It is truly wonderful. One with very limited means can get therapy and a psychiatrist for almost nothing. That includes medication. It is one area that is getting it right. What makes no sense is that it is also very well known as one of Floridas most laughed at counties. Vermont may be similar(not the laughable part). Maybe someone will know better.

On top of what I first mentioned, I believe Vermont to be a pretty wealthy state. The wealthy, as a group, are an impediment to single payer. Hard to say for sure on that one as Vermont often marches to the beat of it's own drummer. It is a state where assumptions are hard to make.

I also don't think Sanders, Hillary or O'Malley will get single payer passed. The members of our party in congress are going to have to keep fighting for the ACA for the coming years. It has to be viewed as a success going into the next stage of negotiations.

Reply to this post

Response to SouthernProgressive (Reply #7)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:41 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

16. partially right.

Vermont does have a high rate of insured because the state has worked on that for decades, but we are not a wealthy state. We're middle of the pack, 29th I believe.

It sounds like what you're referring to in Pasco, is CHC care, which Bernie has been a great champion of. In fact, in exchange for his vote on the ACA he asked for and got hundreds of millions for CHCs.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #16)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:46 PM

SouthernProgressive (1,810 posts)

25. They do amazing work in Pasco and it makes a big difference.

I wish more would look into increasing these programs until we get some form of universal healthcare. Far too many in my area are on the streets simply because they don't have mental health care available to them. Pasco gets it right, or at least tries to. I assumed there was something similar going on across Vermont.

I should have also mentioned that Sanders is a Senator, not the Governor, as you mentioned above. He has some influence in this area but that is limited. It would be like blaming Grayson in Florida for not passing single payer. A stretch, I know. So is the op in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Response to SouthernProgressive (Reply #25)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:06 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

46. yes. Community Health center do great work in preventative medicine

across the nation. In Vermont they're one of the largest providers.

Reply to this post

Response to SouthernProgressive (Reply #7)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:42 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

18. We are a country that moves incrementally on issues

The ACA is a good start down the road to single payer. It would have been nice to see Vermont test out single payer. Just as MA showed people that world would not end if LGBT people were allowed to marry, people might have been able to see that single payer would improve all aspects of health care in this country.

Change comes slow in the US. We just have to make sure we are putting one progressive foot down after the other. In time we get to the desired destination. Except on race. That one is very frustrating to me.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #18)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:49 PM

SouthernProgressive (1,810 posts)

27. Change does happen slow and that is by original design.

I think it is a huge part of our success. It is also why I mentioned that congress is going to have to continue to sell the ACA for another four or five years, possibly longer, before the next big fight even comes up. When was the last healthcare fight that involved all US citizens? Back in the ninety's? And it didn't really come back up in reality until Obama's first term.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:31 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

8. Do you understand that we have varying levels of sovereign governments in this country?

Bernie Sanders is a Senator in the federal government, representing the state of Vermont. He is not in the state government.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #8)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:37 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

11. My senators and congresspeople secure funding....

... for state projects here, don't yours? My senators are influential on major policy issues within my state, aren't yours?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:39 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

14. That wasn't the question asked.

You and your ilk won't get far with this effort. You are better off with race bating.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #14)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:43 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

19. Are you calling me a "race baiter"

Based on what?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #19)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:51 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

30. I am not calling you a race baiter.

This argument that you and the newbie are trying is dead on arrival. It's just pathetically stupid.

Stick with what has been successful for you. You know, what garners the most flames.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #30)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:53 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

32. Glad you walked that back

And changed it to a different insult. I just don't understand why you feel the need to personally attack people who disagree with you on an issue.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #32)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:01 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

41. I didn't walk anything back.

You just didn't understand.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #41)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:09 PM

Nitram (18,776 posts)

49. Morning, when the fog clears up, let us know.

You just called someone a race baiter because you didn't have a logical point to make.

Reply to this post

Response to Nitram (Reply #49)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:13 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

50. It was an asinine post from a serial disruptor.

Logic is simply is not at issue here.

Reply to this post

Response to Nitram (Reply #49)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 05:56 AM

Cha (277,647 posts)

140. All that one ever has is personal attacks. When I see that name I expect it. then it doubled down

to insult again.

Just because Maggie has a different view they call her a "serial disruptor".

Reply to this post

Response to Cha (Reply #140)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:27 AM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

142. They spend more time on forced vacations and

admit they were previously banned outright. They are a serial disruptor.

Reply to this post

Response to Cha (Reply #140)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 09:39 PM

short circuit (145 posts)

150. She IS a serial disruptor

Her transparency page is out there for everyone to see.

Reply to this post

Response to short circuit (Reply #150)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 02:57 AM

SidDithers (44,228 posts)

158. ...

Sid

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:02 AM

Cha (277,647 posts)

141. That's their MO.. has been for awhile. They call you a "serial disrruptor" because you have a

different point of view. They can't handle that.

As a another poster said.. "You just called someone a race baiter because you didn't have a logical point to make."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=548259

Reply to this post

Response to Cha (Reply #141)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 09:41 PM

short circuit (145 posts)

151. Case in point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=106348&sub=trans

Reply to this post

Response to short circuit (Reply #151)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 01:02 AM

Cha (277,647 posts)

155. "You just called someone a race baiter because you didn't have a logical point to make."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=548259

Maggie has a right to her point of view.. all you want to do is censor her on DU.

That's not Democratic.

Reply to this post

Response to Cha (Reply #155)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 01:05 AM

short circuit (145 posts)

156. I have nothing against censorship

But telling lies and when confronted about it, goes on a personal attack is her M.O. - and I don't think MaggieD is really a Hillary supporter, but rather a serial disruptor.

Reply to this post

Response to short circuit (Reply #156)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 02:16 AM

Cha (277,647 posts)

157. I can see that.. an alternate point of view is all the majority of DU needs now to Censor Voices

like Maggie & Bravenak.

Reply to this post

Response to Cha (Reply #157)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 08:48 AM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

164. Plenty of posters manage to express a wide variety of views

without getting posts hidden.

MaggieD is no victim. Bravenek is a different story. She isn't here to disrupt. She had some justified heated exchanges and ended up on the wrong side of jury decisons.

MaggieD is a previously banned disruptor who spend more time without posting privileges than with. It's all on her.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #164)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 12:33 AM

Cha (277,647 posts)

167. Maggie is great.. and a Hillary Supporter. now the poster who was calling her a "serial disruptor"

is banned for being a previously banned troll.

Reply to this post

Response to short circuit (Reply #156)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 08:06 AM

Bobbie Jo (14,341 posts)

163. Um, you've been here a week.

Tell us more about "serial disruptors."

Thanks

Reply to this post

Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #163)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 12:30 AM

Cha (277,647 posts)

166. And, now he's gone Bobby Jo..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=325601&sub=trans

Reply to this post

Response to Cha (Reply #166)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 01:57 AM

Bobbie Jo (14,341 posts)

168. heh

His screen name was prophetic, no?

Short Circuit

Reply to this post

Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #168)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 02:00 AM

Cha (277,647 posts)

169. Yeah, not very optimistic..

Reply to this post

Response to short circuit (Reply #156)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 12:25 AM

Cha (277,647 posts)

165. Well your CT is Wrong Short Circuit.. Maggie is a Hillary Supporter.. Maybe it's you who is the

"serial "disruptor"?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:41 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

17. And Bernie secured waivers for Vermont.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #17)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:44 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

22. But no federal funding

Again, it failed for lack of a plan to pay for it.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 08:33 PM

George II (67,782 posts)

149. In most states the Federal Representatives and Senators still have a lot of influence...

....on legislation within their home states. At least that's been the case in the states in which I've lived.

And that's in states with millions of people and many Representatives (although still only two Senators)

One would think that influence would magnify in a state of only 600,000 people and only one Representative to go along with its two Senators.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:12 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

172. hm..

are you saying people don't listen to him in his home stage?

He has no "bully pulpit" there?

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Reply #172)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 07:00 AM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

192. Is that what I said? Welcome back!

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:32 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

9. Because he has minimal influence on the Dem party there

Just like in congress. I know a lot of folks won't like my answer, but all evidence points to the fact that it is the truth.

It failed basically because there was no viable way to pay for it. If Bernie was influential you would think he would have pitched for some federal funding under the reasoning that it would be a great experiment to test the greater viability of single payer throughout the nation.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711.html

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:44 PM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

21. Or better yet

The mayor of Burlington has zero control over state politics. Nor was he ever a state senator.

The viability of single payer has been proven in every industrialized nation on earth, except the US. No need to 'experiment'.

Reply to this post

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:50 PM

senz (11,945 posts)

100. + 1

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:52 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

31. no, that would be quite wrong, mags.

As is the politico article. Bernie has a great deal of influence on the dem party here and many friends within it. In fact, the chair of the Vermont dem party just quit her post to head up his NH campaign. A couple of dozen state legislators have endorsed him, and dem politicians universally ask for his endorsement and for him to campaign.for them. He campaigned for Shumlin and Miro Weinberger, mayor of Burlington.

You know jack about my state. Of course that doesn't stop you from....

You wouldn't like it here. It's liberal.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #31)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:59 PM

wendylaroux (2,925 posts)

38. ha!!!

she is a hoot!

Reply to this post

Response to wendylaroux (Reply #38)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:01 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

40. I would use other descriptive words.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #40)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:05 PM

wendylaroux (2,925 posts)

45. i know:(

very good at it's job though.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #31)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:08 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

48. Tell that to the Bernie fans

I agree that Senators have great influence over state politics in every state, especially on large ball issues.

I do know jack about your state. I grew up in the Berkshires and have spent plenty of time in Vermont. Also have relatives there. Regardless, you're arguing for the sake of arguing, it appears. We both agree that he is not in any way impotent when it comes to state politics.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #48)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:39 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

68. well as a hill acolyte, you know about fandom for a political candidate

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #68)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:42 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

72. Seems I have to tell you this every single day....

There are lots of candidates I could support and would support if they were running. If I was an "acolyte" as you claim I would not be in the "any Dem but Bernie" camp.

Notice I have no avatar or sig like all the Bernie people? I am not the acolyte here.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #72)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:50 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

75. lol. I ain't buying and neither are most people here

Your paeans to Hillary, if not lyrical are heartfelt- when you're not to busy exercising.creative license to bash Bernie.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #31)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:54 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

135. ^^^THIS^^^

The right wing of the party is only interested in smearing progressives, they don't like having facts thrown at them.

Thanks for nailing it in this thread, cali.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 07:38 PM

Cha (277,647 posts)

146. BS himself said.. there weren't enough votes in Congress for Single Payer but too many

like to ignorantly blame President Obama.. they had 10 or so ******* Votes!

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:17 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

175. yup

one does wonder why Bernie never addresses the cost part of his platform and how he'll work with others to make it happen (if he couldn't even get it done in Vermont).

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:37 PM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

10. As mayor of Berlington?

Or as a FEDERAL Senator?

Reply to this post

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:14 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

173. as an influential political figure

in the state of Vermont.

Couldn't have tried harder on such an important issue to him?

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:38 PM

Vinca (48,546 posts)

12. You might ask Governor Shumlin. That would be more appropriate.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Post removed

Response to Post removed (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:41 PM

tularetom (23,664 posts)

15. Damn you!

I was just about to post the very same words. Verfuckingbatim. :-}

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:44 PM

djean111 (14,255 posts)

20. This has been posted before. It is just being recycled.

And I really am starting to question why this crap is posted, because there is absolutely zero chance of this crap convincing any Bernie supporter to start supporting Hillary.

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:46 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

24. It's not stupid at all

Can a candidate get things done is perhaps one of the most important questions a voter can ask themselves. In Bernie's case I have come to the conclusion that the answer is no. And that is a HUGE reason why I do not support him.

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:50 PM

AtomicKitten (46,585 posts)

28. It's recycled bullshit because they have little else.

second verse, same as the first

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:55 PM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

34. Plenty of other long-term posters who are Clinton supporters have said the same thing (nt)

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:46 PM

fredamae (4,458 posts)

23. What control does he hold

over the state leg? I know in My state...Fed reps don't dictate policy to my state legislature.

so, wth?

Reply to this post

Response to fredamae (Reply #23)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:48 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

26. Do you know any of them?

Just because the influence they weld is not plastered on the front page of the paper doesn't mean they don't have any influence. Granted, they do not play small ball, but on major issues they certainly have influence. Particularly senators. I promise you that your senators and governor are very well acquainted.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #26)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:54 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

33. I do. Bernie is very well liked in the legislature by dems

And members of the Vermont Progressive Party.

The problem was Shumlin.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #33)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:56 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

36. Ask Shulmin if Bernie is powerlesss on large ball state politics

As many claim or assume here. The answer will be a resounding no.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #36)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:02 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

43. you are contradicting yourself

And you still don't know jack about my state.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #43)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:04 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

44. I'm not contradicting myself

The argument here among Bernie supporters is that he has no influence over state politics. That simply is not true. In any state.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #26)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:22 PM

fredamae (4,458 posts)

54. Can you show me an example

of any issue in Any state where a Federal lawmaker wielded power over state legislatures to Force any issue?
To your question "do you know any of them?" Yes, I do. I know a lot of them, in my state.
Being acquainted to the guv is fine and govs Do have special attention paid to bills they want passed...but, as I have witnessed here...that doesn't guarantee Anything.
The burden lays with how much power he (or any other senator) weilds over Any state leg.

Reply to this post

Response to fredamae (Reply #54)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:31 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

61. Well ask them then

You'll see that I am correct.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #61)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:32 PM

fredamae (4,458 posts)

62. Ask whom

what question?

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:50 PM

seabeyond (110,159 posts)

29. Bernie Sanders' Single Payer Vermont

The numbers were stunning. To implement single-payer, the analysis showed, it would cost $4.3 billion in 2017, with Vermont taxpayers picking up $2.6 billion and the federal government covering the rest. To put the figures into perspective, Vermont’s entire fiscal 2015 budget, including both state and federal funds, is about $4.9 billion.

Shumlin’s office estimated the state would need to impose new personal income taxes of up to 9.5 percent, on top of current rates that range from 3.55 to 8.95 percent. Businesses would be hit with an 11.5 percent payroll tax, on top of 7.65 percent payroll taxes employer pay for Social Security and Medicare.

Vermont is without a doubt the most liberal state in the union. It is the only state that has single payer healthcare as law. Bernie Sanders was instrumental in fighting for that law. He made lots of speeches advocating it, much as he is doing now running for president.

But when the time came for the hard work, the difficult task of pushing, cajoling, persuading, 'leading the people' as Sanders likes to say, to get Vermonters and the legislature to accept the necessary tax increases to make single payer a reality, Bernie Sanders was AWOL.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/27/1397137/-Bernie-Sanders-Single-Payer-Vermont

i figure this will be a discussion in debates. i am interested how sanders addresses it.

Reply to this post

Response to seabeyond (Reply #29)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:59 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

39. sigh. false hillaryite hit piece from some asswipe who gets

Destroyed in the comments.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #39)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:28 PM

seabeyond (110,159 posts)

58. daileykos isnt ok? what ever. i will listen to him during debates. i have not heard it addressed

on the campaign trail.

Reply to this post

Response to seabeyond (Reply #58)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:41 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

70. so you approve of every critical Hillary diary posted there

Logic is your friend.

Well, maybe not your friend.

Reply to this post

Response to seabeyond (Reply #58)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 11:09 PM

ALBliberal (1,844 posts)

186. Isn't Sanders advocating Medicare for all under the federal government?

Reply to this post

Response to seabeyond (Reply #29)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:16 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

174. yeah

I'm wondering why Sanders has never addressed the cost part of his policies.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:56 PM

SonderWoman (1,169 posts)

35. The same reason it probably won't pass nationally...

No one fully has a realistic plan to pay for it. And not just pay for the policy but for much needed additional hospitals as well.

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:02 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

42. Because it costs so much

I think what a lot of folks forget is that healthcare spending accounts for almost 18% of our GDP. Sadly it's been for profit for so long that we have come to depend on it economically for jobs. If only the country had listened to Hillary and Bill back in the 90's.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #42)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:16 PM

SonderWoman (1,169 posts)

51. Not to mention the votes. Even with Dem majority...

It had no chance.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #42)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:33 PM

Ron Green (9,662 posts)

63. This is the very reason to enact a single-payer system.

18% GDP and rising is unsustainable. All over the world, publicly-funded systems give better outcomes at lower cost. The oligarchs are to blame for the U.S. "system." You know, those people who give money to your candidate?

Reply to this post

Response to Ron Green (Reply #63)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:35 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

65. Taking 18% off the GDP away is not viable

Economically.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #65)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:41 PM

Ron Green (9,662 posts)

71. What???

Reply to this post

Response to Ron Green (Reply #71)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:52 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

76. it's bizzaro time.

Reply to this post

Response to Ron Green (Reply #71)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:11 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

87. What part do you not understand?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #87)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:44 PM

Ron Green (9,662 posts)

96. I don't understand how spending much LESS than 18% of GDP

on health care can be a bad thing. Other nations spend about half, sometimes less, of what we do.

Reply to this post

Response to Ron Green (Reply #96)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:50 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

101. Because as we've moved from a manufacturing economy....

... To a service based economy. Sadly for profit healthcare is tied to lots and lots of jobs. It's not something we can change on a dime at this point.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #101)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:01 PM

Ron Green (9,662 posts)

138. Well, that's a different way to look at it. Kind of like

the weapons industry employs lots of people so we shouldn't move too quickly away from that, either.

Reply to this post

Response to Ron Green (Reply #138)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:05 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

139. As I said, every modern Dem president has cut military spending....

and gotten NATO more involved in the world police job. All to the good. Many of the MIC jobs are overseas, so I think we can decrease spending without hitting jobs too badly here. We just have to be strategic about it.

Keep in mind that Bernie is a big supporter of the ridiculous trillion dollar boondoggle that is the F-35 fighter jet. I presume because it brings jobs to Vermonters.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #42)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 07:47 AM

Warren Stupidity (48,181 posts)

159. for profit health care is not a major employer.

The health services sector - people providing health care - nurses doctors etc - they are the vast majority of the health sector work force and there would be more doctors nurses etc under a standard universal system like most other modern nations have. And the costs per capita and overall would be lower, as they are in all other modern nations, and the services delivered would be superior by all standard measures of population health as they are in most other modern nations with universal systems. Some people in the insurance industry would lose their jobs. Overall it would be a huge boost to the economy.

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:24 PM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

56. Are we dumber than every other advancced nation on earth?

Somehow they seem to make it work.

I know, I know. You'll trot out horror stories about otehr nation's systems. But I'll respond by saying our system is already a mess, and much more unfair.

...And by its very nature healthcare will never be a smoothly operating fiscally controllable system, because it deals with unpredictable life-and-death changes and does cost money.

But this excuse that the United States is too damn stupid to do any better than we've got?

To repeat from elsewhere...That's not realism, it''s defeatism.

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #56)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:29 PM

SonderWoman (1,169 posts)

59. They make it work with much smaller populations and...

Far less military spending. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, it's built into their post WW2 Constitution's. Cost is only one aspect, the procedural process of making it happen is a whole other beast.

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #59)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:37 PM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

67. I will stand by my original point

If one assumes the United States is incapable of instituting even a partial, clean form of public social insurance based on income (universal access), even if it is within a mixed system, then that is saying that we are a nation of self-defeating, helpless morons.

I believe we can aim for much better (not just the gift to the insurance companies that is the ACA). At one point the idea of healthcare and retirement income for seniors seemed far-fetched. Hell, at one time the idea that women might be able to vote seemed wildly unlikely.

Don't you believe we can even try to do better? Or has that spirit been totally beaten out of us?

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #67)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:44 PM

SonderWoman (1,169 posts)

73. I believe we should continue to work towards progress in this area, while...

Also believing it will be nearly impossible as long as Republicans are in control of any chamber of government.

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #73)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:53 PM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

78. Well you're opening up a whole can of stuff I haven't time to go into here now

Other than to say until we start basing our goals and public message on some clear principles, and actively push for them, and publicly advocate for them, it won't make a damn bit of difference who controls which branch of government at any given time. We've had ample evidence of that over the last 30 years.

In the scenario you outlined above, we;ll be told by "realists" that we have to keep our powder dry or those nasty old GOP boogeymen will take power away.

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #78)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:04 PM

SonderWoman (1,169 posts)

84. Its not the believing in it part that is unrealistic, its...

The procedural process part that is unrealistic. We would need an overwhelming super majority in both houses.

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #84)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:33 PM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

91. As i said above, there's a whole lotta aspects and levels to this...

And I'm sure you don't want to open up my Hoover Dam of possible verbiage -- and luckily I haven't got time to go into it anyway.

I will simply say that the perennial litany "reasons" why Democrats are unable/unwilling to articulate a clear liberal vision anymore on some basic core principles is as much a part of the decline of the last 35 years as the GOP's inverse relentlessness in pursuit of a clear conservative vision.

Hence, without a strong counterbalance to the GOP Corporate CONservative message, the country has moved so far to the right that even relatively modest versions of the positive liberal advances of the past are made to seem impossible.

That is at the base of much of the movement that Sanders represents. It's not radicalism. It's simply attempting to revive -(and I know it's a cliche, but I don't care) a contemporary version of FDR can-do liberalism (or progressive populism or whatever you want to call it).

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #59)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:40 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

69. Yep, it's easy to afford socialist programs

.... if you rely on another country to be your military.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #69)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:56 PM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

81. Reducing that is part of the agenda

We have to stop putting so much money into the military. That doesn't mean having no military, but loosening the grip of the Military Industrial Complex and all of the waste and corrupting that entails. And not starting idiotic wars that make things worse instead of better.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #69)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:56 PM

Angry Dragon (36,693 posts)

82. what is the problem with socialist programs??

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #69)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:06 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

85. A country as rich as the US cannot afford a military and health care coverage?

It has to be one or the other?

Really?

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #85)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:12 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

88. We are 15 trillion in debt

By which measure does that make us rich?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #88)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:14 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

90. Yet we can afford the largest military in the world but cannot afford healthcare for our people?

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #90)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:39 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

92. Hey, I'm all for military cuts and....

.... Getting NATO more involved. And every Democratic president in modern times has done just that. None more brilliantly than Obama, IMO.

I think what you forget is that we have the most stable economy in the world, and are an economic super power because we have the strongest military in the world.

I think it's kind of naive not to understand how the two are intertwined.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #92)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:04 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

112. You made a lot of assumptions based on nothing.

This discussion is not on the need of our military or even the size. You have taken the position that we cannot afford healthcare for our citizens as well as our military. Does it have to be one or the other?

I think it is naive, or perhaps disingenuous, to suggest we we cannot afford healthcare but can afford the military. It is a question of priority. Try to focus on the issue we are discussing. One step at a time.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #112)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:12 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

116. Again you put words in my mouth

As far as my "assumptions" why don't you tell us why you think the US has the most stable economy in the world? Do you seriously not believe it has much to do with having the strongest military in the world?

Here is a good article you may wish to read:

http://time.com/3899972/us-superpower-status-military/

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #116)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:27 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

121. You are having a rambling conversation in your head to which I am not privy.

I have not idea how you got to where you did.

Best of luck to you. And congrats. You have managed to make it a few days without re-banning!

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #112)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 07:55 AM

Warren Stupidity (48,181 posts)

161. universal healthcare saves money and boosts the economy

and it has fuck all to do with the military, other than perhaps we could roll our veterans socialized health care system into the standard universal system instead of having it be a separate budget item with separate and redundant costs.

The argument being presented here is standard rightwing republican crap.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #69)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:54 PM

senz (11,945 posts)

105. lol -- you sound just like a Republican!

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #105)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:58 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

109. How so? Cons love being the world's police

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #69)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 07:50 AM

Warren Stupidity (48,181 posts)

160. All of the other modern industrial nations have their own military forces.

None of them think that they have to rule the planet. That would be the difference. But you basically seem to be a republican on these issues. You are against medicare for all and for a huge bloated military. Those are republican positions.

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #59)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:54 PM

jberryhill (62,444 posts)

79. The VA is larger than many national health care systems

Reply to this post

Response to jberryhill (Reply #79)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:00 PM

SonderWoman (1,169 posts)

83. How's that working out?

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #83)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:07 PM

jberryhill (62,444 posts)

86. In comparison to what?

By and large, it serves millions of satisfied customers.

If you think that private hospitals are having better outcomes in the cities they serve, then it is clear that you don't care for numbers much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/04/17/va-hospitals-on-par-with-private-sector-for-patient-satisfaction/

"The American Customer Satisfaction Index for 2013 shows that the VA health network, which serves more than 8 million veterans, achieved marks equal to or better than those in the private sector."

Unlike private companies, the various levels of government oversight in the VA health care system are effective at exposing problems that get swept under the rug elsewhere.

So, what is it that you are comparing with VA performance, and what conclusion have you reached on what data?

The UK's NHS rates about 70%

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/bsa-survey-2013

"While satisfaction levels have not recovered to the high of 70 per cent recorded in 2010, they remain high by historical standards. In only two of the past 30 years have satisfaction levels been greater than those recorded in 2012 and 2013."

So, yeah, the VA, which serves 8 million, does a better job than the UK's NHS, which serves a comparable number of people.

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #83)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:14 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

89. It's working so well they are outsourcing some of it to private corps

In order to decrease the ridiculous wait times. I think some folks don't understand that having a program in this country doesn't ensure it will be adequately funded. Rethugs gave zero thought to the extra stress the VA health system would undergo as they waged two wars at the same time.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #89)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:41 PM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

93. Health care is NEVER going to be efficient or economically rational

Unfortunately it deals with highly unpredictable, erratic and basic matters of life, and health and sickness and death. And treatment is not cheap.

So using a yardstick to compare it to, say manufacturing widgets or delivering some predictable, controllable service, is not going to work. Period. It doesn't matter whether its public, private or a hybrid.

But if the profit motive is removed, and it is no longer a cash cow, it would do a lot better than what we've got. If the focus is on delivering service to as many people as possible as efficiently as possible (within the nature of the beast), we could of a lot better.

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #93)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:47 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

99. So how do you replace the contribution to GDP?

I hear what you're saying, but it's a lot more complicated than that, actually.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #99)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:57 PM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

108. It will always contribute to the GDP

In terms of jobs for doctors, nurses, office workers, etc. and business for suppliers, etc. and the other etc.s that it pours into the economy. And there can still be private practices and related businesses.

It is complicated, but it's a matter of reorienting it, making access affordable for EVERYONE, setting different priorities (a hospital should not be subject to the pressures of Wall St. and investors)....

One key point is coverage an access. Regardless of whether we continue to have private insurance or not, there should be a baseline program (expanded Medicare, whatever) whose sole purpose is to make available coverage to everyone at rates that are reasonable and affordable. That can be done.

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #108)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:04 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

111. Sure it can be done - just not on a dime

That is why the ACA is a very important incremental step in the right direction. First, we need to bend the cost curve downward (by a lot). Otherwise it is as unaffordable nationwide as Vermont found it to be for their state. And it would be very disruptive to our now service based economy, of which 18% is based on health care and associated industries.

So I think we are in agreement on the objective if on nothing else related to health care. Should have been done in the 90's, IMO. But the majority didn't see it our way back then. Sadly.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #111)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:12 PM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

114. It's not new issue but needs a new starting point

I wont hash over differences over the wisdom of the ACA. It's better than what was in some respects, but it has gaping holes, and is counterproductive in some ways. But your mileage may vary.

But I do think that -- whatever term one wants to give it -- the Democratic Party ought to be the party that clearly lays out as a goal the ability of everyone to have access to truly affordable care through a "social insurance" alternative. (expanded Medicare something new, whatever). And sell its merits clearly.

Couldn't happen overnight, the GOP would fight like wolverines -- but if a substantial majority of the Democratic Party actually stood for it and pushed for it, enough of the public would start to see it as a common sense solution that we could get there a lot quicker and more cleanly than all this waffling.

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #114)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:15 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

119. The ACA was the new starting point in 2010

You don't seem to want to engage on the issue of the massive economic disruption that would result if we don't get costs down first, so I will just leave it at what I have previously stated.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #119)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:14 PM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

128. I appreciate the need to contain costs

I don't disagree with the need to contain costs. That should be part of any mix. (Though as I said, the economics of healthcare are inherently unruly)

But I think access to coverage, and cost to consumers, are still critical priorities. (And preventing the impending mergers of big insurers currently underway). People are still either getting hammered or falling through the cracks of eligibility, etc.

As for a starting point, Every new government develops their own phrases "brand" to define their goals and proposed programs (New Deal, Great Society, New Frontier, etc). If suppose one could look at a push like i reffered to as the next step in ACA, or something else...that's less consequential than actually making the effort itself.

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #128)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:30 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

130. We are approaching 90% insured

And we have a ways to go before the penalties are significant enough to get to 95% or more - which is needed to reduce costs. In addition, we have health care providers learning to live with and subsist on much lower reimbursement. That doesn't happen overnight either. Health care providers - physicians, hospitals, clinics, labs, etc are actually not very good at "business."

Also remember, almost 50% of us have employer based health insurance. So moving to single payer requires a huge shift in that regard as well.

It would be economically disastrous to move much faster than we are. Don't get me wrong - I am anxious for single payer as well. My personal opinion is that commercial insurance adds not one whit of value to the equation of healthcare. However, it does provide a hell of a lot of jobs.

Regardless, single payer would be a huge, monumental change, and if not accomplished incrementally it would very likely fail. IMO.

We're on the same page, primarily. I just think it is more complicated than many assume. It would have been a lot less fraught if we had done it in the 90's but we didn't. (I do health care policy and consultation for a living).

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #130)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:54 PM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

134. In my real life....

I'm a journalist. (Despite my sloppy typing and ranting on DU).

I remember covering the same basic problems and issues in healthcare back in the 1990's and even the 80's. (While also remembering how some of it was better then too.) So it gets depressing when i see so little progress being made, and is one reason my patience gets thin about it.

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #134)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:00 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

137. Chin up - we have made progress

I agree the pace is frustratingly slow. I think the LGBT movement taught me patience. I remember being pissed as hell when we were advised to pursue DP instead. But it worked. Patience in our system of politics seems to be a requirement. I've learned to appreciate the value of simply putting one foot in front of the other and to just keep marching toward the goal.

By the way, being a journalist was my dream job when I first went to college. But it was the Reagan years and I couldn't afford to take chances on getting a job when I finished, so I chickened out and went into healthcare instead. In my later years I was solicited to write for several different publications, and I loved the work. But it is hard. Writer's block and deadlines are a killer!

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #89)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 07:56 AM

Warren Stupidity (48,181 posts)

162. Outsourcing is the republican way of pretending that defunding programs is a solution.

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:12 PM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

117. We're already paying for it.

When I go to the doctor, I pay them. I also pay my insurance company for their policy. I also pay my pharmacist.

Creating a single-payer system does not magically make it cost something. It just means you pay different people.

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #35)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:19 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

176. hopefully

something that Bernie will address soon (his realistic plan).

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:57 PM

phleshdef (11,936 posts)

37. Um Vermont DID pass single payer but then discovered they couldn't realistically fund it.

The problem is, Vermont is a very small state, not a lot of people. A bigger pool is needed to make single payer work. Their pool isn't big enough so the governor backed out.

Reply to this post

Response to phleshdef (Reply #37)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:12 PM

Snotcicles (9,089 posts)

115. Sorry, I said the same thing in post #104. Some people don't have a clue how insurance works

but that never stops them from trying to bash Bernie Sanders. And there are a few in this thread that that seems to be their only purpose of being on DU.

Reply to this post

Response to phleshdef (Reply #37)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:32 PM

dsc (51,277 posts)

131. actually their smallness is likely helpful

they have maybe one teaching hospital, if that. They have none of the problems of poverty that many other larger states have (so they are way healthier than most states) and they have a likely more active population given that there are many outdoor activities in VT. If a small, white, realitively wealthy state couldn't get this off the ground that bodes ill for any such national plan.

Reply to this post

Response to dsc (Reply #131)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 11:43 PM

phleshdef (11,936 posts)

188. No, there really isn't enough income coming into Vermont.

California or New York would be a much better state to test such a system.

Reply to this post

Response to phleshdef (Reply #37)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:23 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

177. funny

I keep hearing how the small European countries (some of which are not much bigger than a US state) have a wonderful universal health care system. What's the minimum size needed?

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Reply #177)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 11:45 PM

phleshdef (11,936 posts)

189. Its not about size as much as it is about having enough people to produce enough revenue.

And those "small" European countries have a lot more people AND revenue than the state of Vermont.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:07 PM

Nitram (18,776 posts)

47. Hill 2016, you've hit the nail on the head.

If Bernie could do 10% of the things he's promised to accomplish it would be a minor miracle. He still has to work with a GOP House and probably a filibuster-vulnerable Senate. Just because he really means it when he says it doesn't mean he can get it done. That's just wishful thinking. If he couldn't do it in Vermont, how can he do it as POTUS?

Reply to this post

Response to Nitram (Reply #47)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:16 PM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

52. He wasn't governor

Nor did he hold state office. That's why. Duh.

Reply to this post

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #52)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:23 PM

SonderWoman (1,169 posts)

55. So he couldn't even rally the troops in his home state?

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #55)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:36 PM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

66. He has never held state office

Oh and by the way, single payer was passed in Vermont. It is called, 'Green Mountain Care'.

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

Reply to this post

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #66)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:23 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

179. and

I'm assuming it's in place now?

Reply to this post

Response to Nitram (Reply #47)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:24 PM

Zorra (27,670 posts)

57. Bernie is a US Senator, not a Vermont State Senator.

US Senate

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

Vermont State Senate

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

http://civicseducationinitiative.com/take-the-test/

Reply to this post

Response to Nitram (Reply #47)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:45 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

74. sorry, as a person who actually lives here, that's bullshit.

And someone who posts flamebait and then ducks, is not only a..., but also none too brave.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:34 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

64. when you post an inflammatory op and then don't respond that

speaks to who and what you are..

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:52 PM

DissidentVoice (813 posts)

77. Unfortunately, Bernie didn't have any input at the state level

I also find the Governor's reasoning of "we can't afford it" somewhat suspect.

My feeling is that there are RW elements in Vermont who probably had their "input" ($$$) into squashing it.

Vermont may not have the RW strength of somewhere like Indiana or Texas but they are all over, and Limbaugh and Fox are received in Vermont.

I have to say that the ACA may be a "start," but it simply does not go far enough.

President Obama disappointed me by caving to Max Baucus on the public option, which could have started the path to single-payer MUCH quicker. However, he didn't disappoint me as much as President Clinton did in 1994, when he just caved to the Republicans, lied down and let them kick him, and then jumped on their bandwagon on a lot of things.

The Republicans, despite what they say, are going to have to wait for the proverbial cold day in hell before they get the ACA repealed. Even in their most-conservative districts, there are going to be people who like and benefit from the ACA.

I really hope (probably in vain) that Bernie Sanders isn't poisoned by the DLC mindset and that he will push for single-payer if elected.

Reply to this post

Response to DissidentVoice (Reply #77)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:55 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

80. no, it wasn't the right which really is weak here. it was Shumlin.

Reply to this post

Response to cali (Reply #80)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:55 PM

SonderWoman (1,169 posts)

107. Did Bernie even try? A speech? Anything?

Reply to this post

Response to SonderWoman (Reply #107)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:25 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

120. yes. it really was mostly shumlin's fault. And it's complicated

From the massive fuck up with the Vermont health exchange to his poor relationship with the legislature. Shumlin ran on single payer. There was and still is majority support for it. He put little effort into it once elected.

Reply to this post

Response to DissidentVoice (Reply #77)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:24 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

180. so

you're saying that Bernie can't use his bully pulpit in his own home state?

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:44 PM

Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)

97. Just Asking Questions

Reply to this post

Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #97)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:15 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

129. First cousin of Just Saying...

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:50 PM

taught_me_patience (5,477 posts)

102. Because it probably involves people having to pay for things with taxes

vs. money falling out of the imaginary money tree.

Reply to this post

Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #102)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:58 PM

senz (11,945 posts)

110. Hey I don't mind paying taxes that go toward improving the General Welfare.

But then I'm a patriot and a liberal.

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #110)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:09 PM

taught_me_patience (5,477 posts)

113. I don't mind either.

but Bernie seems to think only the rich should fund all of his ideas.

Reply to this post

Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #113)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:46 PM

frylock (34,825 posts)

133. The rich should pay their fair share..

which in turn would help to fund his proposals.

Reply to this post

Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #102)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:25 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

181. oh wow

that's tough to sell, man.

Hope Bernie can be honest about the costs of his platform.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 03:54 PM

arcane1 (38,613 posts)

106. You really need to get a new act. This one has become stale and predictable.

And it isn't even amusing anymore. Just dull and boring.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:31 PM

Recursion (56,419 posts)

122. Because nobody has come up with a way to pay for it

Same problem it has at the national level.

And, no, waving your hand and saying "it's cheaper" doesn't count. Somebody needs to actually work out how much it will cost and what tax rate levied where will be required to pay for it. Vermont came up with something like a 12% payroll tax and got scared off.

Most countries in Europe do it with a 10% or so national sales tax.

Reply to this post

Response to Recursion (Reply #122)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:34 PM

Romulox (25,960 posts)

123. We're already paying for it.

Reply to this post

Response to Romulox (Reply #123)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:39 PM

Recursion (56,419 posts)

125. Well, no, we're not. Lots of people go without medical care

We pay more because our doctors make a lot more than doctors in almost any other country.

To provide more medical care than we are now, we will have to either pay more directly or find some way to make doctors do more work for less money.

One basic way to do that is to increase the number of doctors or allow a lot of what doctors currently do to be done by LPNs, RNs, etc. But the AMA strongly opposes both of those ideas and has a lot of clout.

Reply to this post

Response to Recursion (Reply #125)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:47 AM

DanTex (20,709 posts)

143. Doctor salaries make up only a small part of the difference.

You'll read a lot of people saying __________ is why we spend so much more, but the actual reason is a bunch of different factors added together. Which also means that there's no simple fix.

One of the best overviews of the problem I've seen (I got this link from Krugman) is here:
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/what-makes-the-us-health-care-system-so-expensive-introduction/

A brief summary is in this chart:

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:13 PM

nichomachus (12,754 posts)

127. For the same reason Hillary didn't in NY or even the USA -- where she had two chances. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:46 PM

The Velveteen Ocelot (101,482 posts)

132. Because he's a US Senator and not part of his state's government?

You do know how that works?

Reply to this post

Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #132)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:27 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

182. I keep hearing about this thing called

bully's pulpit that's going to get all this proposals passed through a republican controlled house.

Doesn't it work in his own home state?

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Reply #182)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 11:14 PM

The Velveteen Ocelot (101,482 posts)

187. I have never known my own US senators to get involved or make statements,

at least publicly, regarding any specific state legislation. Whether there are ever some back-channel discussions, I have no idea. But because of constitutional principles of federalism, federal elected officials tend to stay out of the business of the legislatures of their home states, as they should.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:55 PM

artislife (9,497 posts)

136. One rec...enough said.

Reply to this post

Response to artislife (Reply #136)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 08:00 PM

MoveIt (399 posts)

147. Hey Now I was told that they are not into this for the "popuplarity contest"

They are clearly here for the Lulz at everyone's expense.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 08:04 AM

cherokeeprogressive (24,853 posts)

144. Another Hillary Clinton supporter shoots an arrow into the sky...

And misses.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 08:24 AM

TheKentuckian (23,947 posts)

145. Probably for the same reason Clinton passed Stop and Frisk to harass black folks in New York.

Is this the ridiculous game the one we are going to play?

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 08:08 PM

timesup (88 posts)

148. Someone doesn't understand what Senator responsibilities are, look that up please.

You can blush later, it happens.

Hilarious ? be sure to ask him it when he visits your town.

I would love to see the shock on his face being asked that, although it might be one he has heard a bunch of times already and make light of it without pausing too, he does work pretty well on his feet unlike a lot of...

Reply to this post

Response to timesup (Reply #148)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:55 PM

BlueCaliDem (15,434 posts)

185. And plenty don't understand the limitations of presidential powers.

People actually believe Bernie Sanders' sales pitch that he'll get a national $15 minimum wage, national single-payer, national higher taxation of rich people...all without Congress, too.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 09:53 PM

HassleCat (6,409 posts)

152. Why didn't Obama pass single payer as part of ACA?

I think this has been explained about 10,000 times, but it has to do with the fact that single payer is an idea whose time has not yet come. When it does, it will be because progressive politicians pushed for it, tested the waters, floated trial balloons, that sort of thing. Remember, Hillary Clinton made a run at health care reform and came up short. It just wasn't time. Not her fault.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 10:45 PM

Motown_Johnny (22,308 posts)

153. Why didn't Hillary get NY to pass stricter gun laws?

I mean if she couldn't get it passed in her "home" state how would she be able to get it through a much more ideologically divided country?

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:23 PM

underthematrix (5,694 posts)

178. He lost the VT Gov's race

Reply to this post

Response to underthematrix (Reply #178)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:30 PM

hill2016 (1,772 posts)

183. his bully pulpit

doesn't work in his own home state?

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Reply #183)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:53 PM

underthematrix (5,694 posts)

184. It seems to me VT loved him as their

champion of issues and causes but they didn't think he had the leadership skills to frame and implement a policy agenda. I think that's interesting and definitely gives me pause.

Reply to this post

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 11:56 PM

Ino (3,366 posts)