General Discussion

Andy823

(11,555 posts)

61. Exactly!

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:45 PM

Mar 2014

As Cha pointed out, "the all or nothing" crowd would get "NOTHING"! I can't understand how having something to build on, the ACA, is so upsetting to that crowd. Would NOTHING have really been better for them, or would they be complaining just as much today if we got nothing?

I agree with you that true ACA is going to get us to the single payer option. It might take a little time, but like you said it will be just like SS and medicare, and the people will not want to give it up, but will be supportive of going even further till we get a real universal health care program in this country, and I don't know about those who are so upset about the ACA these day, but without it we would have nothing today, and no hope of ever getting to universal coverage for everyone, no hope at all! Something is always better than nothing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

143 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If you think that the Congress in 2009/2010 would have passed Single Payer legislation [View all] Yavin4 Mar 2014 OP

I think most are the latter... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #1

+1 n/t FSogol Mar 2014 #17

Manny will be alerting on this thread in 3, 2, 1 ... TexasTowelie Mar 2014 #2

Manny don't have the guts to state their actual agenda rufus dog Mar 2014 #106

If the Party properly supported LaMont's run, there is no Lieberman. 1000words Mar 2014 #3

OMGZ OBSTACLES!!! redqueen Mar 2014 #23

Union locals came out for Lieberman, big time. Ikonoklast Mar 2014 #26

The machine decided it was better off with Lieberman 1000words Mar 2014 #27

There was a primary was there not? treestar Mar 2014 #55

You are aware that Lieberman lost his primary and ran as an Independent? LiberalAndProud Mar 2014 #81

Didn't he pull the Republican vote? n/t sweetloukillbot Mar 2014 #105

You decide. LiberalAndProud Mar 2014 #108

well, I know some progressive party activists and they pretty much turned it around CTyankee Mar 2014 #136

Good point about single payer. Also, the public option didn't even make it out of committee Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #4

It didn't make it our of committee because they arrested people that brought Single Payer up. RC Mar 2014 #128

K&R. Well put. Whisp Mar 2014 #5

Suppressing the vote comes to mind... Skidmore Mar 2014 #8

+1 sheshe2 Mar 2014 #30

+2 Historic NY Mar 2014 #101

Yes, the timing is especially curious. nt Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #132

Indeed. nt redqueen Mar 2014 #24

Yup, Lieberman and other blue dogs weren't having it. JaneyVee Mar 2014 #6

Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance (2010) ProSense Mar 2014 #7

Silly Sanders. All he had to do was read DU and he wouldn't have made that statement!!1!(one)!! Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #9

Sanders: "it would have had 8-10 votes" DCBob Mar 2014 #12

Yes, clearly "progressives" like Sanders are just sensible woodchucks. redqueen Mar 2014 #29

Because it was kept out of the process! grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #88

Including it in the process would've changed NOTHING. phleshdef Mar 2014 #93

You're reversing cause and effect there Recursion Mar 2014 #107

Lieberman single handedly stopped lowering the Medicare age Warpy Mar 2014 #10

Yet, without him, you don't have a filibuster-proof majority Yavin4 Mar 2014 #20

Yes, the ACA passed in the Senate without a single vote to spare (60). PoliticAverse Mar 2014 #11

That was just the Senate version. The ProSense Mar 2014 #15

That was a different bill, separate from the original ACA. You could call it 'ACA part II' or PoliticAverse Mar 2014 #28

No, the health care law was part of the joint bill. ProSense Mar 2014 #31

Um, right. As I pointed out it was a separate bill that modified the original ACA. n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2014 #33

Yes, and from Wiki ProSense Mar 2014 #35

The Wikipedia page on the second bill highlights the modifications... PoliticAverse Mar 2014 #38

"Joint bill" is a bit of a misnomer. cheapdate Mar 2014 #67

All you are demonstrating is that we have bad politicians in our caucus. JVS Mar 2014 #13

Why didn't better candidates mobilize that 70% to win their nominations? JoePhilly Mar 2014 #41

Amen sulphurdunn Mar 2014 #46

70% is an illusion loyalsister Mar 2014 #71

AMEN ... MindMover Mar 2014 #102

And the weakness of party leaders who couldn't figure out a way to get the coalition. morningfog Mar 2014 #115

No. Harry Reid could have ended the filibuster rule any time he wanted, as long as at least Zorra Mar 2014 #14

Bernie Sanders said single payer would have had only 8 to 10 votes and that's it Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #16

I don't think that's quite accurate. cheapdate Mar 2014 #65

Yes, it is accurate. Here: Zorra Mar 2014 #69

Okay, yes on your statement, but why do so many here ignore the truedelphi Mar 2014 #18

K & R. Well said. n/t FSogol Mar 2014 #19

David Swanson on DU, Wed Dec-24-08 11:18 AM Zorra Mar 2014 #21

K&FuckinR! redqueen Mar 2014 #22

Not the problem that us "haters" have with how things were handled in 09/10. Dawgs Mar 2014 #25

K&R! sheshe2 Mar 2014 #32

Your OP saps morale of potentional democratic activists. cui bono Mar 2014 #34

We must be the "Paulbots" mentioned in the OP 1000words Mar 2014 #36

Undoubtedly. It's a good dogwhistle though. cui bono Mar 2014 #37

Ok, let's do that. jeff47 Mar 2014 #42

If humane healthcare for all sulphurdunn Mar 2014 #49

The issue is a difference in definition. jeff47 Mar 2014 #70

Nothing of the kind. sulphurdunn Mar 2014 #119

Then provide any evidence that it would work. jeff47 Mar 2014 #124

You just provided it. sulphurdunn Mar 2014 #130

10-90. That's not a "minority and rightist" problem. jeff47 Mar 2014 #131

Again, that states the problem: sulphurdunn Mar 2014 #137

I don't know what your point is. Honestly. cui bono Mar 2014 #56

I really don't know why the question is so hard to answer. jeff47 Mar 2014 #72

I apologize. I didn't see that specific question and I really didn't understand what you were cui bono Mar 2014 #74

Do I need to link the definition for "specific"? jeff47 Mar 2014 #125

Do you expect me to write the speeches they should have given? cui bono Mar 2014 #138

No, I expect you to provide a mechanism that can actually get Lieberman's vote. jeff47 Mar 2014 #139

If you never try for something you'll never know if you can get it or not. cui bono Mar 2014 #140

You know, you can just say "I have no idea how to get his vote". jeff47 Mar 2014 #141

Or you could just say "I reduce everything you said to something you didn't say". cui bono Mar 2014 #142

I've spotted folks every bluedog as a YES, and asked them to describe how ... JoePhilly Mar 2014 #39

Apparently Obama was supposed to "try". jeff47 Mar 2014 #43

One suggested threatening to cut support JoePhilly Mar 2014 #50

The fuck? Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #109

DU continues its descent into divisive self immolation.... mike_c Mar 2014 #40

What does anyone think is going get a single payer system? Thinkingabout Mar 2014 #44

ACA barely passed Congress as it was steve2470 Mar 2014 #45

Bingo Steve Trust Buster Mar 2014 #48

there's so much deal-making and horse-trading that goes on to get bills passed steve2470 Mar 2014 #52

Ah being called an "extremist" for advocating what Iraq and Afganistan have setup under US control bobduca Mar 2014 #75

? ? ? ? ? Trust Buster Mar 2014 #77

single-payer advocates are "extremists", your words, own them bobduca Mar 2014 #78

That's right, steve.. they were begging dennis kucinich and he helped Cha Mar 2014 #54

Exactly! Andy823 Mar 2014 #61

who said they thought that stupidicus Mar 2014 #47

I've seen so many whining that canard.. It's all Obama fault. Cha Mar 2014 #51

hear, hear treestar Mar 2014 #53

If you think we the people were represented by no possibility of it whatsoever, I have a bridge to mother earth Mar 2014 #57

You are wrong Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #68

TY for that correction. mother earth Mar 2014 #118

The single-payer whiners never bother to mention how it would be paid for. bornskeptic Mar 2014 #58

"whiners" bobduca Mar 2014 #79

BS - go to pnhp.org 10,000+ doctors for single payer? SP is cheaper than the ACA. grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #91

That's a pretty good hippie punch and a blame the left thing to say TransitJohn Mar 2014 #59

The public option couldn't even make it out of committee. nt Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #110

Oy vey. eom TransitJohn Mar 2014 #114

You are 100 percent right madokie Mar 2014 #60

Who has said this? What was possible but never even advocated was the Bluenorthwest Mar 2014 #62

Good grief. Not another one. rhett o rick Mar 2014 #63

Reality. cheapdate Mar 2014 #64

Not to mention the fact that ACA opens the door ecstatic Mar 2014 #66

Here is an excellent 1 hour long PBS documentary...... Trust Buster Mar 2014 #73

That they got anything at all passed is rather remarkable. CBHagman Mar 2014 #76

Facts don't matter Yavin4 Mar 2014 #83

joementum and stuff bobduca Mar 2014 #80

"JOEMENTUM WASNT WITH US!!" Yavin4 Mar 2014 #82

What other legislation was dead in the water without Joementum? bobduca Mar 2014 #84

What? Yavin4 Mar 2014 #85

Joe was a horrible, fifth-columnist, third-way shitheel bobduca Mar 2014 #86

there was real ignorance of CT Dems and the general voting population in CT in 2006 CTyankee Mar 2014 #123

Thank you for that! (voting out Joementum) n/t bobduca Mar 2014 #127

If you think there was NOTHING the President of The United States of America had to grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #87

Yes, one fucking Senator who had the power to stop the whole thing... phleshdef Mar 2014 #90

So offer him Sec of State, or something WTF. Politics 101. grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #92

Lieberman ran against Obama, campaigned for McCain and tutored Palin on foreign policy. phleshdef Mar 2014 #94

Then fire him. Just find out what he wants (say bombs for Isreal) and make the deal. One guy... grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #95

You're about as politically realistic as Dick Morris. phleshdef Mar 2014 #96

You believe there is nothing the President of the USA had that Lieberman would have traded his vote grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #97

Yes. Lieberman's ties to the insurance industry were/are a hell of a lot more important to him. phleshdef Mar 2014 #98

President has access to more $ than all the insurers combined. Now you're saying big insurance grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #99

Lieberman's wife is an insurance company lobbyist. phleshdef Mar 2014 #100

In the end, we both agree Leiberman is corrupt. I believe the President had items in his hand grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #143

Max Baucus - the D that had single payer advocates arrested nationalize the fed Mar 2014 #122

LOL Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #111

I'm say ing you offer him SOS, then fire him if he doesn't live up to expectations. In the end, grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #135

That said, we're all working for it now.... Right? grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #89

Of course not. They were well paid by Insurance industry (esp Lieberman) to block single-payer. HooptieWagon Mar 2014 #103

As I stated earlier, this one hour PBS documentary explains a lot. Please give it a try. Trust Buster Mar 2014 #104

+1 yes that is a must see for anyone that wants to know what happened nationalize the fed Mar 2014 #120

Welcome to DU. Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #133

Playing defense scores less ... GeorgeGist Mar 2014 #112

Congress is so out of touch with what the MAJORITY of people B Calm Mar 2014 #113

My 'favorite' post was that SP would have passed because the majority of citizens supported it...LOL DebJ Mar 2014 #116

that has no bearing on the need to include G_j Mar 2014 #117

Seems like a moot point. NCTraveler Mar 2014 #121

So when I order an omelet for breakfast and instead get cold, flavorless oatmeal, I should be happy? Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #126

The problem with my way or the highway was highlighted in 2000. Sometimes one needs to lostincalifornia Mar 2014 #129

"use their time and energy to get progressives elected to congress" Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #134