General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

84. Been there, done that, in 2006 and 2008, esp. 2008.

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 02:06 AM

Sep 2014

If you think you are going to see a Dem in the Oval Office plus 60 in the Dem Caucus and an overwhelming Dem majority in the House, all at the same time, again any time soon, you are mistaken.

The New Deal coalition allowed things like that, because the New Deal was a bloodless revolution. But, a great deal of the New Deal been dismantled and they've been after Social Security for years. A great part of the Great Society is also gone.

2006 and 2008 were the result of people hoping for a drastic change from Bush, including ACA with a strong public option, increasing taxes on those earning over 250k a year, etc. 2010 was a signal that people did not get from Congress what they expected. Very unfortunately, that was a census year, and Republicans did a great (from their POV) job of gerrymandering.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

160 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obamacare not enough, so some in labor want single-payer system [View all] OhioChick Sep 2014 OP

It's the next step. riqster Sep 2014 #1

+1 JoePhilly Sep 2014 #10

Love the sound of that, but when? nm rhett o rick Sep 2014 #49

Vermont gets it in 2017. joshcryer Sep 2014 #54

Vermont was working on it anyway, some for 20 years. merrily Sep 2014 #80

And? The ACA enabled it. joshcryer Sep 2014 #89

That you say that does not make it so. merrily Sep 2014 #91

If not the ACA, then how does Vermont get it? joshcryer Sep 2014 #92

Again, because people had been working on it for 20 years. merrily Sep 2014 #95

Working on it, but not achieving it. joshcryer Sep 2014 #98

Credit to Bernie Sanders for helping to make it possible. JDPriestly Sep 2014 #134

Absolutely. riqster Sep 2014 #149

+1 grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #57

It is the next step but won't happen until more progressives are put into congress still_one Sep 2014 #151

Just so. That is why GOTV is job 1 right now. riqster Sep 2014 #155

Obamacare is not access to healthcare, it's access to health insurance. YES FOR SINGLE PAYER TheNutcracker Sep 2014 #2

ACA was a necessary first step. JoePhilly Sep 2014 #11

Reluctantly, I have to agree with you. nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #64

They even had to dump the public option. joshcryer Sep 2014 #67

It sucks. I hate it. But I don't condemn Obama for not doing the impossible. n/t nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #68

I will always condemn the cowardly filibuster rules. joshcryer Sep 2014 #73

The bill never had a public option, so we can blame fiibuster or anything we want. merrily Sep 2014 #81

Baucus fought for the public option. joshcryer Sep 2014 #87

Well, that's one view of it. An excessively charitable view, but one view. merrily Sep 2014 #97

Fair enough. joshcryer Sep 2014 #99

The real world in DC is almost as charitable as House of Cards. merrily Sep 2014 #103

Lobbyists can't stop progress. joshcryer Sep 2014 #105

Lobbyists can't? That may be the funniest thing you've ever posted. merrily Sep 2014 #107

Laugh it up. joshcryer Sep 2014 #108

At what stage of the process were "they" forced to dump the public option? merrily Sep 2014 #79

When Baucus couldn't get Lieberman's vote for it. joshcryer Sep 2014 #88

I call bs. merrily Sep 2014 #90

Oh yeah, Lieberman was all for the public option. joshcryer Sep 2014 #93

See? BS. You KNOW that I never said Lieberman was for the public option. merrily Sep 2014 #94

Relevant to the Senate votes? joshcryer Sep 2014 #96

Geez I wasn't vague at all and I have no "conspiracy." merrily Sep 2014 #101

What to WH logs have to do with Senate votes? joshcryer Sep 2014 #102

Please stop diverting, Josh. The point in the ACA process merrily Sep 2014 #106

And? They didn't have the votes. joshcryer Sep 2014 #110

A few marginal cases BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #113

Is the insurance industry sustainable? joshcryer Sep 2014 #114

I think it is BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #115

The ACA sets minimum standards. joshcryer Sep 2014 #117

Eh BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #119

I'm speaking of waivers. joshcryer Sep 2014 #129

Chicken or egg quakerboy Sep 2014 #120

If Franken was seated or Kennedy didn't die, we'd have it. joshcryer Sep 2014 #128

Fillibuster quakerboy Sep 2014 #153

Yup, and I think state level POs will JoePhilly Sep 2014 #157

SINGLE PAYER is not access to healthcare, it's access to health insurance. IronLionZion Sep 2014 #135

It is both. the extension of medicaid, and the subsidies based on income are still_one Sep 2014 #152

Many of us want single payer because it will lower the cost even more. jwirr Sep 2014 #3

Hillary and Obama's hhs Secretary have vowed to not let it happen Doctor_J Sep 2014 #4

Good reason.. sendero Sep 2014 #9

Americans have a remarkable propensity for conniving duplicity and shameless profiteering. Adam051188 Sep 2014 #17

Any single payer system.. sendero Sep 2014 #26

no it doesn't. Adam051188 Sep 2014 #158

You haven't .. sendero Sep 2014 #159

uh huh Adam051188 Sep 2014 #160

But it's the law Doctor_J Sep 2014 #20

The ACA...... sendero Sep 2014 #27

And how is that a move toward SP??? Doctor_J Sep 2014 #31

because Obama's a democrat Scootaloo Sep 2014 #51

Yawn... sendero Sep 2014 #126

Uh BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #50

It is a step in... sendero Sep 2014 #127

haha. Nope BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #140

Got a link to their "vows"?? JoePhilly Sep 2014 #13

Here you go Doctor_J Sep 2014 #19

I don't see any "vows" in there from Hillary. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #52

I think this shows she doesn't support single payer. Quackers Sep 2014 #55

That's the blogger's opinion, not a Hillary quote. nt SunSeeker Sep 2014 #59

These are her own words Quackers Sep 2014 #109

Again, not a "vow" against single payer. She's just talking about others' opposition to it. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #143

Right, I'm sure she's 'secretly' all for it NorthCarolina Sep 2014 #146

Oh well. We'll still get it without her support, even if it takes decades. nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #65

I hope it doesn't take that long. Quackers Sep 2014 #104

Unlikely BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #112

Which is why the ACA has waivers and Vermont passed single payer? joshcryer Sep 2014 #58

"Let competition decide" BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #62

Unfortunately. joshcryer Sep 2014 #66

Spoiler: BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #69

They can't hurt the single payer states, though. joshcryer Sep 2014 #72

No, that is not guaranteed BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #111

It's all about cost. joshcryer Sep 2014 #116

And the insurance companies will fight it BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #118

The fight is over. joshcryer Sep 2014 #130

Progress is one way? I don't understand BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #142

WHAAAAATTTTT????? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2014 #77

If enough Americans look as though they may rise up, that could change. merrily Sep 2014 #82

So when are you moving out of the country? IronLionZion Sep 2014 #136

Nothing wrong with leaving. BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #141

DURec leftstreet Sep 2014 #5

Read the comments following the article ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #6

Repubs dominate the comment section OhioChick Sep 2014 #7

Yep ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #8

south bend shocked me that way just in passing through. Adam051188 Sep 2014 #18

They usually do. It's orchestrated. merrily Sep 2014 #83

The best possible outcome of ACA is that Obamacare becomes the gateway to single payer. Gormy Cuss Sep 2014 #12

How can a step AWAY from single payer be a "gateway to single payer"? Doctor_J Sep 2014 #21

Because it seems to be changing some people's expectations on health care access and payments Gormy Cuss Sep 2014 #44

That is just magical thinking. Marr Sep 2014 #100

people were fed up with big insurance, so the president made us all customers Doctor_J Sep 2014 #133

Yup! RufusTFirefly Sep 2014 #145

No, magical thinking is believing that single payer would have happened when the ACA was passed. Gormy Cuss Sep 2014 #137

And the best way too get a single payer system is Andy823 Sep 2014 #14

Hey, that's the best way to get a LOT of good accomplished for the vast majority of Americans. calimary Sep 2014 #16

I agree Andy823 Sep 2014 #42

Won't work, though, unless OUR SIDE GETS OUT AND VOTES!!!!!!!! calimary Sep 2014 #139

There are a lot of Dems fighting tooth and nail against single-payer too Doctor_J Sep 2014 #22

So tell me Andy823 Sep 2014 #41

Been there, done that, in 2006 and 2008, esp. 2008. merrily Sep 2014 #84

+1 treestar Sep 2014 #156

Agreed. Fearless Sep 2014 #15

K&R.... daleanime Sep 2014 #23

Single Payer is the end goal, no question about it. -eom- HuckleB Sep 2014 #24

This message was self-deleted by its author daredtowork Sep 2014 #25

K&R! I would like to remind you.... Enthusiast Sep 2014 #28

The Middleman Multiplication and Profit Protection Act Doctor_J Sep 2014 #33

You're not clapping BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #37

There is no justification for it. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #38

The money is not going to be removed from the election process unless and until merrily Sep 2014 #85

The American people must make it clear that we are sick of our democracy being co-opted. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #122

If the American people don't find a way to make that clear, the politicians won't guess we are sick merrily Sep 2014 #124

I'm for health care for all, but Medicare has some big issues, coverage gaps, Hoyt Sep 2014 #29

Unlike our clusterfuck? Doctor_J Sep 2014 #32

As much as I wanted single payer, justgamma Sep 2014 #35

I'm saying Medicare is not much better, still have insurance companies involved, no cap on Hoyt Sep 2014 #46

IMHO... DAMANgoldberg Sep 2014 #45

k&r for labor. n/t Laelth Sep 2014 #30

Let's fix medicare first. It is very limited and will only cover about 80% of medical costs. YOHABLO Sep 2014 #34

It would be doable if we could get a fair media. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #39

I agree. Folks think Medicare is the panacea. Hoyt Sep 2014 #47

I see Medicare for All as step 2. ACA was step 1. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #63

I hope so, but I think providers will strongly resist. Hoyt Sep 2014 #71

Yes. Do you envision an interim step between ACA and Medicare For All? SunSeeker Sep 2014 #74

I agree about the ACA for sure. It would have been decades before anyone touched healthcare Hoyt Sep 2014 #86

Many want a National Health Service like in the UK. Single-payer is a step in that direction. n/t pampango Sep 2014 #36

Personally... 99Forever Sep 2014 #40

Yes, sure, absolutely, but how is this at all politically possible? DavidDvorkin Sep 2014 #43

Easy answer, hard execution MFrohike Sep 2014 #56

Not according to some here BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #60

It's too emotional MFrohike Sep 2014 #70

State by State. That's how it's gonna happen. Ron Green Sep 2014 #48

We must take profit out of healthcare. We must have single payer. liberal_at_heart Sep 2014 #53

Incrementalism is a magic incantation BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #61

Many not in labor do too. n/t kickysnana Sep 2014 #75

Without Single-payer, We Will Never Be the Social/Competitive Business Equal of Europe cer7711 Sep 2014 #76

SOME in labor want single payer? Anyone who does NOT want single payer is misinformed or evil. merrily Sep 2014 #78

Some unions run own insurance plans PATRICK Sep 2014 #121

Good points. Self interest trumps again. merrily Sep 2014 #123

I take it the last question is rhetorical PATRICK Sep 2014 #131

"I take it the last question is rhetorical" merrily Sep 2014 #132

The cynic in me Babel_17 Sep 2014 #125

You really want single payer? DrBulldog Sep 2014 #138

ACA improved quality of insurance, not the cost or quality of care whereisjustice Sep 2014 #144

The last sentence repeats something hifiguy Sep 2014 #147

Health insurance is an 800 billion dollar industry and would suddenly be eliminated. Kablooie Sep 2014 #148

So...we can't have universal healthcare because it cuts into private corporations' profits. Romulox Sep 2014 #150

Not quite what I said. Kablooie Sep 2014 #154