Enough of the bull$hit. It's not that HRC and cronies think Bernie can't get single payer passed

[brentspeak]

It's that they don't want it to get passed. Ever.

A good chunk of their own personal wealth come from investing in our diseased system of neo-feudal healthcare. They don't want the gravy train to come to a halt.

[DanTex]

1. I've noticed that Bernie fans have gotten into mind-reading lately. Very entertaining.

[Hortensis]

5. It's mind-bending they're attempting. OP,

your statement is 100% untrue.

A Democrat.

[Feeling the Bern]

122. Evidence? Look at her corporate sponsors. Why would she go against all that money?

[kjones]

168. Just because you don't have the discipline to go against money doesn't me she doesn't

[Feeling the Bern]

169. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am not running for office saying I will

regulate big banks, yet seven out of my ten top corporate contributors are big banks or businesses in the financial sector with vested interests to no have anything change.

MY candidate's top contributors are labor unions and small donations from real people that don't matter in politics.

[kjones]

170. "Why would she go against all that money?"

Speaks either to your lack of imagination or your inability to
grasp that money isn't everything.

Though, seeing as your candidate makes everything about
the money, I suppose that's no surprise.

Still don't know why you guys lump bank employees up as
corporate interests. Given Bernie's big talk on campaign
finance, I'd think you guys would know better than that,
but go on, negative campaign your heart out.

[libdem4life]

8. Please proceed...since you've lumped us all into a psychic activity. Or is it just rhetoric...

in which case...oh, well.

What is the difference between "reading minds" and expressing an opinion, even though you may not agree?

Noticed that what was also included was a heightened level of superiority. ("Very interesting".)

[DanTex]

12. Yes, it's a psychic activity. There are Clinton supporters on this board, you could just

ask us, are we afraid of single payer because our money comes from healthcare investments?

But mind reading is so much more fun. And it's fun for the audience, too!

[libdem4life]

19. I didn't realize it was partisan...I thought we were talking reality. Oh, well, yet again.

I didn't realize I needed to consult others on this board.

It isn't mind reading ... see my later post ... to divine that humongous salaries for executives and an entire industry to do not much more than push paper and play god with coverage and switch people around and around and make more and more off of them are going to be a bit testy when said waste is removed from the system.

I hold an insurance license. I know the games. I don't work in it any more. So I'm not psychic or ill-informed.

We can agree to disagree...but leave the judgments and superiority out of it, K?

[DanTex]

24. You don't need to consult anyone. It's an open forum. You can do mind-reading

tarot-cards, astrology, pick lottery numbers, whatever you want.

And I can then point out the absurdity of trying to read the minds of Clinton supporters when there are Clinton supporters here that you could just ask.

[libdem4life]

28. Sorry, I mistook the "you could just ask us" as an invitation to consult/ask?????

[JDPriestly]

60. If. Yyou don't want sinngle-payer, please explain why you don't want it.

Thanks.

[DanTex]

66. In theory, I think it's fine. Maybe even the best system.

In reality, it's a much better strategy to try to expand ACA to achieve universal coverage with a system that looks more like Holland or Germany than Canada or the UK. Single payer isn't the only way to get universal healthcare.

If it did get through congress, it would be so watered down by the GOP that the actual result could easily be worse than Obamacare. And the transition would not be smooth. Most likely, though, it would just fail in congress, and be a big waste of political capital.

[JDPriestly]

100. I think that we are talking about the same thing and calling it different names.

Single payer, in my view, would be like the continental European models, not the UK or necessarily the Canadian model.

A lot of Americans don't realize that Medicare offers private plans. The enrollee may in some plans pay a bit extra.

In my view, we need to switch totally to non-profit insurance that is universal. That would be my idea of Medicare for all. We should also have a totally public option especially for small or rural communities.

I want to see for-profit insurance companies' role in the provision of health care diminished severely. Making profits on the administration of healthcare insurance and paying magnificent salaries to the CEOS of healthcare insurance should not be part of our system unless consumers specifically opt for that choice.

The provision of healthcare should be a matter that involves the caregivers and the patients. The role of the health insurance provider should be minimal and carefully regulated by the government. Health insurance should not be a big profitmaker.

Doctors should be the authorities when it comes to what patients need and what patients' healthcare should be -- not health insurance companies. I trust doctors to do what is right for patients. I do not trust for-profit health insurance companies to do that.

Countries with single-payer (meaning that the money to pay for medical care comes in the form of a tax out of people's paychecks, is put in one common fund and then out of that fund everyone gets basic insurance that can be supplemented if the patient wishes) have better medical outcomes, good care and full coverage for all citizens. When I lived in Europe and had single payer insurance, the co-pays were minimal. I loved it, and I lived in four different countries, each with its own unique kind of program.

I think we agree on this more than we thought.

[enid602]

130. Single Payer

Single payer is the UK and Canada. All others (including the ACA) are insurance mandated universal healthcare. But unlike ACA, all other insurance mandated universal healthcare systems are characterized by a small number of efficient insurance companies that have greatly limited profit margins, have the ability to negotiate with Big Pharma and have varying degrees of tort reform. We are the only industrialized nation that have several hundreds of insurance companies, no ability to negotiate with Big Pharma and offer carte blanche to lawyers to sue medical outcomes.

Sanders proposal would be akin to Europe expanding NIH to cover the whole continent. Medicare is already the largest single payer on Earth.

[Dustlawyer]

131. There is no "Carte Blanche" to sue for bad medical outcomes, or even malpractice.

This is a myth of the Right. Tort reform in most states focused on Med mal cases more than any other. Here in Texas it is so bad that unless you were a high wage earner before the malpractice, you won't be able to find an attorney to take your case. The caps on damages are too low considering how much the case expenses are just to bring the case.

Another example of eroding rights that many are not aware of until they need them.

[enid602]

134. tort reform

It's a conundrum. Tort reform has always been off the table for Dems in this country, and has been dismissed as a RW meme. Bernie's voted against it twice; I don't think it came up in Hill's tenure in the Senate. Still, we are the only industrialized nation on Earth that doesn't have SOME FORM of tort reform. Btw, I have read that the tort reform in Texas is a bit draconian.

[Dustlawyer]

145. There has been tort reform in one form or another all over the country.

Texas went for it in a big way with Citizens (corporations and Plutocrats) Against Lawsuit Abuse leading the charge. Bob Perry, a billionaire home builder even got the legislature to create an agency to end suits against homebuilders. It was expensive to make a claim that went before their stacked arbitration board, which was filled with representatives of big residential construction companies. After several years without anyone being able to recover for shoddy construction there was enough blow back to end the agency.

Texas is so draconian on medical malpractice that TPTB want to make it go national. Imagine a drunk doctor that kills an expectant mother and renders the child a quadriplegic and mentally deficient (real case). The most that could be recovered was the medical and $250,000 for pain, suffering, and mental anguish. Its probably a blessing that the child has no idea what he lost due to this doctor whom everyone that worked with him knew of his problem. Experts on the case are expensive as is depositions and other case expenses, all of which come out of the recovery. They made it financially impossible for attorneys to take most malpractice cases.

The big selling point was all of the "frivolous" cases we attorneys file needed to be stopped. The problem with this is that we try very hard not to sign up "frivolous" cases. We only get paid if there is a recovery. We spend our time and money on the cases we take, and it is hard to get paid on good cases, much less frivolous ones! Besides, the judges throw out cases without merit, its called Summary Judgment.

The other thing that they used with the help of the corporate media was the McDonalds Coffee Case. The media made it seem like a lady spilled coffee on herself and won a jackpot verdict. They failed to mention that Mickey D's raised the temp on their coffee to get more coffee per bean and have it stay fresh longer. They were settling confidentially with others who were burned and still making big increased profits. Ms. Stella Liebeck lost her Labia and Clitoris, and almost lost her life. She was awarded 1 day of McDonald's coffee sales, $2 million, which the judge remitted to $900,000 as he thought 2 million was excessive for a clit and labia. McDonalds lowered the temp on the coffee and the system worked.

[weknowvino2]

140. Health INSURANCE IS NOT HEALTH CARE!!!!!!

Learn the difference.

[AlbertCat]

149. This^

All insurance companies do is crunch numbers. They know nothing of health care.

I'm not worried about insurance companies. They can crunch numbers on something else besides my health care.

[DanTex]

132. OK, but "single payer" also has a specific definition, which means that there's only one

insurer: the government. When health care experts talk about single payer, they mean Canada or the UK, and not Holland. And that's the way I'm using the term. And you are right that countries with single payer have better outcomes, full coverage, and less cost. But there are also countries with single payer that have achieved that.

You're right that Medicare offers private plans. That makes it a hybrid system (for the people who are on it), similar to France. Bernie's system, at least what he's offered so far, is not a hybrid system. There are no private plans. It's all the government -- like he says, you show up to the doctor/hospital, show them you're card, and that's it. Also, it's not really Medicare for all, because he's proposing no copays or deductibles, which Medicare has.

Having said that, we basically agree on the general goals. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that administrative costs and health insurance profits are only a small part of why we pay so much more than Europe for health care. Obviously, we should try to get our costs down everywhere we can, but actually getting there requires reducing the cost of care, not the cost of administration. And that's going to be difficult now matter how the administration is done.

It's true that single payer gives the government more bargaining power over providers. But, first off, there are other ways to increase the bargaining power of buyers. You can have the government set prices without being the single payer. Or you can do all-payer rate setting, meaning everyone pays the same price, rather than the current system where each insurance company cuts a different deal with the same provider on pricing. That would effectively make all payers into a single block for the purposes of bargaining.

The other thing is, the government being the sole bargainer, if it's going to actually reduce costs, means saying no to providers sometimes. And that means some stuff not being covered. Since a lot of countries have made it work, we'd come out OK in the end, but the interim could be painful. Some drugs wouldn't be covered, some hospitals would probably have to close or at least reduce what they offer in order to remain solvent. Eventually the provider side would (hopefully) reorganize more efficiently, but that's not an easy thing to do, and won't happen overnight.

And this is even assuming that Bernie's plan or something like it can be made to happen without being watered down by congress. Comparing that to Obamacare is simply unfair. If Obamacare hadn't been watered down, for starters, there would be a public option, Medicare would have been expanded everywhere. And a whole bunch of smaller things would be better in it as well. If Bernie's SP plan made it through congress, the result would pale in comparison to what he has proposed on paper, IMO just as much or maybe more than ACA does.

Anyway, the reason I object to this OP and many others like it is that it implies that the only reason people would hesitate on SP is that they like the status quo and value insurance profits over people's well-being. That's absurd. Paul Krugman is a proponent of SP, and he has come out opposed to Bernie's attempt to transition to SP for similar reasons that I have outlined above. You simply can't ignore transitional difficulties and political realities.

[nationalize the fed]

121. The GOP did not have single payer doctors and nurses arrested at a hearing

This will not be forgotten or forgiven. All the Democrats in the world can pretend it didn't happen but it did and every chance I get I will remind people. If Youtube takes this down there are backups. And there are backups to the backups. We will never forget. Ever. It was a disgrace and instead of dealing with it it's going down the rathole of history with some. Here's a reminder

Here's another one

DEMOCRATS DID NOT ALLOW SINGLE PAYER ON THE TABLE----- IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REMEMBER THIS or, don't, some of us will keep on with the facts. It's a f&cking lonely road, but someone has to walk it.

If it did get through congress, it would be so watered down by the GOP

People had better start to realize that it's not an R vs D thing. If it's possible.

The health insurance mandate in Obamacare is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at The Heritage Foundation in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans". This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts. http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans

[snort]

148. +1

[sulphurdunn]

68. I believe the title of the piece contained the word 'crony':

not 'supporter'. The words are not exact synonyms. Most HRC cronies are supporters, but most HRC supporters are not HRC cronies. It isn't far fetched, and it doesn't take a mind reader to suppose that most Clinton cronies have a vested interest in the status quo.

[ut oh]

127. This is what I got from the OP as well...

Cronies (DWS, campaign manager, other high level political operatives), not the average citizen supporter.

[passiveporcupine]

36. Are you one of Hillary's cronies?

Or just a supporter?

Cronies would be others in the 1% crowd (or at least the top 10%) who are invested in our current economic system of money going to the top.

[zalinda]

86. I thought you were a supporter, not a cronie........I stand corrected. eom

[Lordquinton]

101. The OP did not say anything about supporters

Are you unable to separate criticism of Hillary from yourself?

[LiberalLovinLug]

164. It's not YOUR money that is concerning

Way back before Hillary even committed to running for President the first time she began her relationship with the big pharma and medical insurance industries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/nyregion/12donate.html?_r=0

As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.


It was a carefully planned philosophical switch. She was lambasted and humiliated by the GOP and the press with her more liberal medical insurance plans while being First Lady. So she turned on a dime, and decided it was best to change the system from within. I don't think she was evil for doing that, she honestly thought she was getting nowhere and made a decision to join em instead of fighting em. But she has painted herself into a corner now, and through the years that corner has gotten smaller and smaller, as she has accepted more and more $. I think deep down she supports Bernie's vision of single payer, but sadly, she is now beholden to the enemy.

[Odin2005]

13. Following the money is mind-reading now?

[DanTex]

16. The OP is trying to read the minds of Hillary supporters. It is entertaining.

If the OP was actually interested in the truth, of course, it's easy to just ask. But mind-reading is more fun.

[Odin2005]

17. It's quite easy to read the minds of her REAL (that is, corporate) supporters.

[DanTex]

18. Well, at least you admit you're mind-reading. I was right!

[libdem4life]

22. Good lawd this is a dense thread. The poster knows of what he speaks, as do I.

Moving right along. I'll let you have the last post. Hmmm, I divine that it will be about mind reading.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

48. You don't need a tarot card to see which way the wind blows.

[nolabels]

89. Or a wet finger to watch hows the turds flow

Next thing they would be expecting is the posters at DU to defend the .001% and their corporate monstrosities

Man, does it ever need a flush

[passiveporcupine]

38. I don't see the word supporters in the OP

Do you?

[DanTex]

40. Of course not. That would be way too civil. Bernie has "supporters", Hillary has "cronies".

[passiveporcupine]

41. I think you misread the op

Hillary cronies are not her supporters, they are her close friends and companions, like other wealthy elites.

Or, are you one of the wealthy elite who want to protect the system? Then maybe the OP was referring to you? If you are not, then you are overly defensive and I'm wondering why.

[DanTex]

45. So I guess that makes people like Ben and Jerry Bernie's cronies?

And can we surmise that they support him because they are looking for personal enrichment, and not because they think he'd be a good president?

[passiveporcupine]

46. Of course cronies (like Ben and Jerry) are going to be supporters too

that is not the point. The point is you are assuming too much about the OP. Mind-reading, as it were.

[DanTex]

47. The OP claims to know what other people think. Mind reading.

You know, like if I said that Ben and Jerry were really only supporting Bernie because they think he'll make them richer.

[passiveporcupine]

49. And you are mind reading by assuming croneis means all supporters

We all have opinions (often just based on observations of past behavior), and sometimes we do project and make wrong assumptions. I think the OP may actually have something in what he/she opines about. I do think that many of Hilary's cronies want to keep the for profit insurance business making money, because many of her cronies actually work in the for profit system of health insurance and medical providers. That may also include Hillary,now that she is so wealthy, but I don't know that, so I probably would not have included her in the OP, if it were me making that statement. But then I don't know everything the OP knows. Do you? Are you sure they are not correct in their assumption? Or are you too just using your observations to make a reasoned guess at what Hillary's motives are?

If the OP is wrong, why is Hillary fighting against single payer now, when she supposedly once supported it?

[DanTex]

51. Yes, we all have opinions.

My opinion is that the OP has no idea what he/she is talking about, and probably couldn't name a single supposed Clinton "crony" who stood to lose a lot of money with single payer. Certainly not the Wall Street people -- half of them are probably short the healthcare industry and would profit if it collapsed. I feel that the OP, a long with a lot of Bernie fans, have some demonish vision of Clinton and her "cronies" sitting around trying to enrich themselves, when the simple fact is, rich people who want more money for rich people already have the whole GOP to choose from.

Combine that with the obvious fact that single payer is going nowhere, Bernie or no Bernie, and that even liberal commentators that have looked at Bernie's plan have concluded it's a fantasy, and the conspiracy theories become even more absurd.

Hence the mind reading statement. The OP was sufficiently preposterous, in my opinion, that comparing it to tarot card reading was appropriate.

[passiveporcupine]

53. Fact, single payer is going nowhere? Now who's playing with tarot cards?

when the simple fact is, rich people who want more money for rich people already have the whole GOP to choose from.

Their is plenty of wealth in the dem party too. And just because you are wealthy doesn't mean you are a republican. That's a pretty silly statement IMHO. Centrist dems are far more "capitalist" than progressive dems. It's a big tent.

I think you project, I mean protest too much.

[DanTex]

54. Please. How many votes does it get? Even 20 in the Senate? 15? 10?

ACA barely passed with a supermajority.

Yes, there is wealth in the Dem party too. There are also plenty of wealthy people supporting Bernie. But its silly to assume that they are in it for their own wealth. Hillary is in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy, in case you haven't paid attention.

[passiveporcupine]

62. Yes, wealth does not always correlate to greed

there may even be wealthy people in the GOP who are "progressive" on economic issues, although that kind of stretches the imagination.

Hillary might say she's going to raise taxes (in her case, it might just be empty campaign promises...based on her history), but she will have just as much trouble getting congress to pass that as Bernie. Actually more, since she doesn't have the grass roots movement behind it that Bernie does. Bernie knows he can't pass this stuff by himself. He needs all of us to keep the pressure on, and he has the movement behind him to do it. Hillary does not.

And I don't see Hillary promising to get the money out of politics, which is the biggest hurdle in getting anything passed.

[DanTex]

63. I agree with most of that -- it will be hard for anyone to get stuff passed.

Which is why I don't think single payer has a prayer.

What I don't see is how any of it supports the opinion that wealthy Hillary supporters are in it for their own wealth.

[passiveporcupine]

65. Because many of them are capitalist centrists, and it is about wealth for them

Not all. I mean seriously, do you think that Gates using off-shore cheap labor to make his stuff is "progressive"...in spite of his philanthropy? He has plenty of money to be able to give away a ton of his money and still live far better than many of the people who need jobs here and can't find one, or a decent paying one, while he continues to use cheap off-shore labor and materials. He definitely is not a progressive when it comes to economic interests.

[DanTex]

67. OK, Bill Gates. I don't know his politics in detail, but its a little silly to say that he's

all about wealth at this point, since he's pledged to give away a huge amount of his fortune. He's also in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy.

Sure, he's rich enough to be able to give away tons of money and still be a billionaire, but that also contradicts the OP's claim. If he's rich enough to not care about giving away billions, why would he care about supposedly losing money by having the healthcare system nationalized?

[passiveporcupine]

69. Seriously?

He has so much wealth, he could give away 90% of his wealth and still live like a king. Yes, he's more progressive than the Kochs, but he's still made lots of bad choices in the interest of making "profit" for himself and his shareholders.

I was using him as an example of someone in the dem party who is wealthy and a capitalist, not a democratic socialist. I have no idea if he makes any money off of the health care/insurance industry.

[DanTex]

71. Yes, seriously. You think he opposes single payer because his investments would lose money?

Like you said, he could lose 90% of his money and still live like a king. How much do you really think single payer would cost him?

[passiveporcupine]

73. He probably does not oppose single payer

But he can afford to support it, even if he gets some income from the healthcare industry. But again, I was using him as an example of a capitalist dem. I don't know his position on single payer.

You need to stop trying to read things into what I'm saying.

I don't know who all the wealthy dems are. He is the one that first popped into my head.

[passiveporcupine]

76. While I think the OP may be right about many people in the system

I think a bigger issue is this:

the $64,000 question was whether the Democratic Party could throw off its corporate funders

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/may/democrats_escalate_a.php

This is an interesting read, albeit from 2007. I was especially bothered by Wyden's comment that the people of Oregon did not want single payer. This money in politics thing is killing us.

And that is my first priority for voting for Bernie. He's been saying this all his political life.

However, in defense of the OP, there is this:

Hillary Clinton’s Single-Payer Pivot Greased By Millions in Industry Speech Fees

Hillary Clinton’s sudden attack on Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan is a dramatic break with Democratic Party doctrine that the problem with single-payer is that it is politically implausible — not that it is a bad idea.

That was certainly Clinton’s position back in the early 1990s, when she was developing her doomed universal coverage proposal for her husband, Bill.

But in the ensuing years, both Clintons have taken millions of dollars in speaking fees from the health care industry. According to public disclosures, Hillary Clinton alone, from 2013 to 2015, made $2,847,000 from 13 paid speeches to the industry.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/

In 2008 (snip) Clinton said she believed the plan to be politically unfeasible at the time, however if a bill establishing it reached her desk, she would sign it into law.

Since then, she has shifted to assailing the policy on its merits.

“We don’t have one size fits all; our country is quite diverse. What works in New York City won’t work in Albuquerque,” she told an assorted audience of 20,000 employees of the electronic health records industry on February 26, 2014; the speech earned her $225,500.

She's either in it for the money, or she's not up to the challenge.

[zeemike]

85. I don't think you understand how democracy works.

A president offers the congress a single payer Medicare for all plan...the Senate and house reject it...the president goes to the people and says "see I tried and the congress said no, so if you want this then send me a congress that will say yes"
Then in the next election the congress will have to run on being for or against it.

But what you suggest is that we skip all of that and just give up on it altogether...and that has been what Obama did and we now have a congress completely controlled by the GOP. So that has not worked and will not work...and never will work.

Hillary promises to keep doing that...Bernie does not.
The choice is easy for me.

[Lordquinton]

102. Please explain your reasoning here

Has Bernie made some sort of statement that would line the pockets, or protect from financial upset, the American Ice Cream industry? Or is it because they rely on the purchases of the common citizen and Bernie's plan to raise the minimum wage to $15 (instead of Hillary's $12) would give the average citizen more disposable income for them to guy more of their delicious ice cream?

[questionseverything]

157. huge bernie supporter here

and i did not even know about the extra

ICE CREAM!!!!

it just gets better and better!

[passiveporcupine]

43. Now who is a mind reader? n/t

[whopis01]

151. Those who can't think for themselves

must believe that all thoughts come from mind reading others.

[highprincipleswork]

39. Here's something that isn't mind-reading. It's something that bears remembering.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/hillary-clinton-not-second-coming-harriet-tubman

[sulphurdunn]

61. I really don't think that making an inference

from public statements is some sort of mind reading whether accurate or not.

[rock]

75. Why not?

They've nearly always have opinions that could only come from being psychic.

[hootinholler]

83. Two minutes

You're slipping.

[virtualobserver]

147. why would Hillary support her donors? You'd have to be some sort of mind-reader to guess that.

[Phlem]

167. !

[Matariki]

175. Just look at the number of RECS!

We, Sanders supporters, outnumber you! And not just on DU!

See you tomorrow!

[restorefreedom]

2. gotta keep those bloodsucking insurance companies rich.

trickle up!

bernie v trump 2016
get your popcorn now!

[cantbeserious]

3. Spot On - The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Are Motivated By - Only Profit

A not-for-profit health care system would impact their bottom line.

Can't let that happen - no way - no how.

[Thinkingabout]

4. Bernie Sanders was not successful in getting his bill through committees

And ergo it failed to make it the floor of Congress, already has died before committee.

[Odin2005]

15. NO WE CAN'T! NO WE CAN'T!

This is just not about Congress NOW, Bernie's political revolution is all about changing the party and getting rid of the corruption behind the obstructionism.

[Thinkingabout]

25. This is necessary, Hillary has done fund raising for down ticket

Democratic candidates.

The truth is Sanders introduced a bill, did not get any support of another member in Congress, not a combined effort. Is it any surprise many are very doubtful it will gain any traction when he is president and with many of the same members currently in congress?

[Marty McGraw]

84. Down ticket Dino

( *-*)




( ‿ ) (‿ )

shhh.... don't wake the Electorate!

[Thinkingabout]

92. Do you have a better method of funding candidates which will

Support a Democrat president? To get progressive ideas through Congress there needs to be members who are not Republicans.

[Marty McGraw]

95. Funding from Where?

.

[Thinkingabout]

96. Guess that answers my question.

[Marty McGraw]

97. Glad I could help

With the moment of Clarity!

I knew, given some time, you would figure it out. Simple and really sad when it is known where all that corrupting pac cash is stashed away, huh... perhaps a little of those exclusionary per plate discussion cash thrown into the mix..?

[libdem4life]

26. Do you have anything to add...like how it should have been written, et al, or just that if

it's Bernie, it sucks.

of people have tried, including HRC. Most have no idea as to how powerful the insurance/pharma lobby is. And when they donate huge sums, they require certain behaviors. Big shock, I'm sure. Kind of like when you get hired, your boss expects you to be worth what you're paid or you get fired. That's the way it works.

But it's coming...make no mistake.

[Thinkingabout]

27. You are totally off base.

[libdem4life]

29. Well now, that's a well-thought out response. Thanks.

[Broward]

6. Of course not. They're all corporatists and conservatives.

[Renew Deal]

7. That's like Trump saying he will get Mexico to pay for the wall.

Please explain the scenario which it passes.

[99Forever]

23. Always nice to hear from...

... the Surrender Monkey Wing of the Democratic Party.

[Fawke Em]

34. Remember the term, "Vichy Dems?"

Maybe time to bring that back.

[99Forever]

44. Ahh yes.

Vichy Democrats

Nickname for contemporary members of the Democratic Party, who have sold out to the increasingly fascist Republican Party just as the Vichy French collaborated with the Nazis.

Perfect.

[Paulie]

55. But but

They kept all that powder dry through the years!!! Give them some credit.

[99Forever]

56. Their powder dry and their wallets full.

[Enthusiast]

91. It is the best term ever!

[Renew Deal]

142. Thanks for that response

You just proved my point. There is no plan. There is no scenario. Just ponies and unicorns.

[99Forever]

155. Yeah. Ponies and unicorns.

Last edited Mon Jan 25, 2016, 02:27 PM - Edit history (2)

How very fucking original you are. You think up that line of horseshit on your own or get an assist from one those"adults in the room?"

[Renew Deal]

159. Still no plan. Still no scenario

[99Forever]

160. Still babbling the same old tired, Hillarian meme of the day.

[farleftlib]

9. The Bloomberg announcement is proof enough for me

but I didn't really need it to know that's what HRC puffenstuff is all about.

[Ferd Berfel]

10. Yep THat's the Problem.

[Odin2005]

11. The Healthcare Industry is filthy rich and flush with money to buy poliricians.

When medical device makers here in Minnesota whined about the ACA tax on medical devices Klobuchar and Franken meekly obeyed them and suspended the tax.

Anyone who thinks people opposing Bernie are doing it for valid reasons rather than pleasing their masters in naive.

[libdem4life]

14. Here are some stats. There are more if the hits keep on coming. I'm sick (ooops) of this.

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/top-health-insurance-ceo-pay-exceeds-10-million-2014/2015-04-10

On HuffPo today or yesterday, Jamie Dimon just got a 37% raise and one other ... didn't recognize his name got a 3-figure million salary.

[99Forever]

20. Truer words were never spoken.

Their First Commandment reads:


Profit is good. Greed is better.

[840high]

94. Bingo!

[Live and Learn]

21. K&R nt

[Fast Walker 52]

30. that's certainly a good part of it--they don't want to disrupt the system that much to try to get SP

our wonderful beautiful healthcare system

[m-lekktor]

31. "Hillary Clinton’s Single-Payer Pivot Greased By Millions in Industry Speech Fees"

"Hillary Clinton’s sudden attack on Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan is a dramatic break with Democratic Party doctrine that the problem with single-payer is that it is politically implausible — not that it is a bad idea.

Single-payer, the Canadian-style system in which the government pays for universal health care, takes the health insurance industry out of the picture, saving huge amounts of money. But the health insurance industry has become so rich and powerful that it would never let it happen.

That was certainly Clinton’s position back in the early 1990s, when she was developing her doomed universal coverage proposal for her husband, Bill.

But in the ensuing years, both Clintons have taken millions of dollars in speaking fees from the health care industry. According to public disclosures, Hillary Clinton alone, from 2013 to 2015, made $2,847,000 from 13 paid speeches to the industry."


https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/

[Enthusiast]

93. Huge +1!

[Cheese Sandwich]

99. What is it with people who think this is fine? I really don't get it.

[MisterP]

32. it's like with Libya/Syria/Iran--it's not that she repeatedly fudged everything by being clever

rather than wise: she really and truly wants a Saudi-funded Sunni-supremacist death squad to destroy the "terrorist" Shiites: if some of them just happen to call themselves IS at the moment that's just a matter of reshuffling and they'll be our virtuous dictator-fighting allies soon enough

[LiberalArkie]

33. I don't think they are against it as it is that they have not figured out how to monetize it yet.

If it is "medicare for all" then the insurance companies can make money selling the supplements like they do for Medicare. Big business use the health insurance as a benefit and that benefit would become cheaper so maybe they can have the perk be the supplement to entice people to work for them.

If it cam be sold in such a way that the IBM's and others can benefit from it, it will fly. Right now a lot of unions would be against it as it removes one of their bargaining chips. I think the big and middle business will go for it as it eliminates the haggling with all the insurance companies for the least cost. With the Medicare for all picking up the bare bones coverage and it costing the businesses very little and no hassle the only thing that they would not like is that it frees up the employee to quit and go somewhere else. Insurance is how they managed "company loyalty" and that will be gone. Maybe they will have to start offering pension plans again.

[bread_and_roses]

133. Union members have had to give up wages to keep health insurance

So in that sense you could say it's a "bargaining chip" but not one that anyone is happy about. Health INSURANCE costs keep going up and up - and those costs are used as a bargaining tool to keep wages lower than they would be otherwise. Members face either huge increases in their employee contribution, or poor plans that would leave them exposed in the case of real illness, or flat or barely increasing wages. Government employees at the state and local level are particularly the victims but vastly profitable corporations use the same tactic simply to keep wages lower than they would be otherwise.

I am not just speculating on this - I'm sure there's data and reports out there - but I work for unions and hear this all the time when they are in contract negotiations.

And now there's talk here and there of taxing "platinum plans" - you know, the ones that provide a degree of comprehensive coverage - which has people very nervous.

And people in the bubble wonder why the working class don't get excited about the Democrats. They - we - have been screwed every which way by the very policies the Ds trumpet -

[nolabels]

135. The ENTIRE medical delivery system needs rebuilt and redesigned

Thank goodness for the internet also (me and few people i know might not be living now without it) . To be sure, i wouldn't really know where to start to describe all the stupid stuff that i have seen that they delivered from the medical delivery field. If i was to rate them at this point in time i would just give them

Some of the choices people make bring on the ill health that they have but another side tells me if is it was an entirety that ALL industry had to answer to something or somebody when considering peoples health then things might be different. In fact our whole planet might be different if things got turned upside down where people lives and health came first and profit having to come second.

We poison our air, water and land then ingest the crap along with several other unhealthful things then after all that think with enough money we buy our way out of our own trap that's killing us. We are just some real smart cookies

Please consider all the wrong turns we made long before we got to this point before thinking we are just needing to correct our last few turns. We are a way far out in the woods and many seen and unseen forces would like to keep us here. That is what you, me or all of us, are really fighting and up against

[hrmjustin]

37. Balderdash!

[Triana]

42. correct...

On the Corrupting Influence of Money in Politics, Bernie Sanders Is Dead Right

. . .Congress is inundated with money spent by very large corporations in return for political action designed to maximize corporate profits.

Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, gave $2,217,066 in political campaign donations during the 2014 election cycle (the most recent year for which data is available), and $9,483,000 more in political lobbying. As of 2014, 40 members of Congress held stock in the pharmaceutical giant.

Congress also happens to be doing nothing to stop Pfizer from charging Americans some of the highest drug prices in the world.

. . .

While millions of Americans fight to afford their medications, 11 corporate leviathans (all of which donate to or lobby Congress) have wrested more than $711 billion in profits for their investors.

As members of Congress constitute some of those investors, the lax regulation that allows the American people to be extorted is actually good for the politicians in charge of representing the best interests of the people.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34528-on-the-corrupting-influence-of-money-in-politics-bernie-sanders-is-dead-right

[redstateblues]

50. So what's the plan?

Secretly perform brain surgery on the opposition members of Congress? I never hear anything but derision directed toward reality based members of DU. So far all I hear is bully pulpit, or all the down ballot Democratic Socialists will magically become the majority because Bernie. Any others? I forgot this one: Democrats will have huge turnouts in the midterms and win back Congress and all the state houses in red states because Bernie. Why doesn't he lay out a realistic plan to get his proposals passed in Congress. Does he have one?

[abelenkpe]

77. Are you concerned democrats in congress would

Not support Bernie's efforts or that he would face the same obstruction from republicans that President Obama currently faces?

[Fuddnik]

124. Ben Carson could perform a public service.

[CharlotteVale]

52. K&R

[pnwmom]

57. Wrong. I, and many others, saw what happened to the public option,

look at the makeup of Congress today, and don't think it has a prayer of getting passed -- within the next Presidential term, at any rate.

This is why Paul Krugman once advocated for single payer but now supports Hillary's plan to improve on the ACA. He thinks her plan is realistic and achievable, unlike Bernie's pipe dream.

[eridani]

103. It's Sanders' fault that the Dems were too fucking stupid to rely on regular--

--negotiating principles? You know--you want $3000 for your used car, you ask for $6000. If you want a public option, demand single payer.

[pnwmom]

105. The Dems didn't have a chance once Ted Kennedy died. Once he died,

they couldn't rely on a conference committee to get the Senate version of the bill (without the public option because of Lieberman ) fixed to align with the House bill, which contained a public option.


Once Ted Kennedy died, they only had one way to pass ANY bill: and that was to take the previously passed Senate bill, with no public option, and have the House pass it, too.

But I'm sure you know this. You are too well informed not to know what happened and why.

[eridani]

107. So that has exaclty what to do with the fact that single payer advocates were not

--even allowed to testify in committees? Being unable to get a public option isn't the same as arresting doctors advocating for single payer.

[pnwmom]

108. And what difference would their testifying have made? We would still have been facing

a filibuster and would still have needed Lieberman's vote.

[eridani]

109. Ever hear of making a case with the public?

This gutless crap about not asking for your best outcome because you don't think you can get it is disgusting. I've very glad that marriage equality activists didn't use that strategy.

[pnwmom]

110. It wouldn't have changed a single Rethug vote. They announced within a few weeks

after Obama came into office that their one and only legislative plan was to obstruct EVERYTHING Obama put forth.

I never ever saw anything like that, did you? Presidents used to have something they called a "honeymoon period" where the other side gave them a chance. But not this time around. It was up to Obama and Congressional leadership to put together whatever they could without the vote of a single Rethug. It wouldn't have mattered how much publicity they gathered in favor of single payer. Those Rethugs were certain that they had been elected precisely to oppose everything Obama did.

[eridani]

111. So? When Repukes are a minority, they never quit asking for what they want at top volume

Dems can't do the same because why?

[pnwmom]

112. I happen to think that's a dumb tactic that we don't need to ape.

And Bernie himself said that single payer never had a chance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511061419

[eridani]

113. It's such a dumb tactic tht they control both houses of congress

In 2004, everyone said marriage equality didn't have a chance. In fact, Republicans made gains by putting anti-equality measures on a lot of state ballots.

[pnwmom]

114. And our tactics won, not theirs. I don't think it's wrong to strongly support

single payer. But I don't think it should be part of this coming Presidential campaign.

I think we should be pushing at the state level.

[eridani]

115. If they lost, why are they in control of congress?

Making single payer a part of a presidential campaign is by far the best way to educate about it. ACA does allow state single payer.

Check out--and advocate for--the Washington Health Security Trust
http://www.healthcareforallwa.org/

[questionseverything]

158. the good house bill (with the public option)

could of been passed in the senate thru reconciliation (50 vote threshold ) just as the aca eventually was passed (reconciliation)

but i am sure YOU know this since i have told you several times

as have many others

why don't you spend your time explaining how hc gets millions from insurance cronies and they expect nothing

that is a good gig and many of us would like to know how that happens

[Lordquinton]

104. NO WE CAN'T! NO WE CAN'T!

Let's get the hope and optimism back in the party.

[pnwmom]

106. Hope and change! Hope and change! Ironically, I am not among those

who blame Obama for not being able to meet the expectations of the most naive members of the party. He did very well against tremendous opposition -- which will face the new President in 2017.

Bernie's promises are far more inflated than Obama's and his supporters are likely to be that much more disappointed.

[Lordquinton]

116. OK, so now it's that we'll be less disappointed that Hillary won't be able to pass anything?

A Democratic president won't get a thing done, so go with the one who isn't promising progressive legislation so we won't have a sad?

How utterly patronizing.

[pnwmom]

117. Hillary demonstrated she's better at working with Congress than Bernie,

who spent many years there insulting other Democrats in addition to the opposition party.

It's not an accident that he's had no endorsements from any other Senators and she's had many.

[Lordquinton]

118. Bernie can work across the aisle

And Hillary's camp has spent many years insulting other Democrats too.

Hillary's endorcemants have all come from above, Bernie has been winning the endorcemants of the only people who matter: Voters.

[pnwmom]

119. Who has he worked with across the aisle? The NRA? n/t

[Lordquinton]

120. Nope, never the NRA, which you full well know

How about Annie Oakley?

[pnwmom]

123. He took the NRAs position against the Brady bill and for the PCLAA, as you well know. n/t

[Lordquinton]

125. Nope, keep repeating it, maybe it'll be true.

Meanwhile Annie Oakley can't settle on where she stands on guns, but it always seems to be in opposition of whatever her opponthinks. Curious that.

Sanders ranks a D- from the NRA, hardly someone who shares heir views.

[pnwmom]

126. His NRA ranking changes from year to year. They were happier with him

the years he voted against the Brady bill and for the PLCAA, among other pro-gun bills.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

anders, an economic populist and middle-class pugilist, doesn’t talk much about guns on the campaign trail. But his voting record paints the picture of a legislator who is both skeptical of gun control and invested in the interests of gun owners—and manufacturers. In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted against the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders supported bills to allow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns. Sanders is dubious that gun control could help prevent gun violence, telling one interviewer after Sandy Hook that “if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.” (He has since endorsed some modest gun control measures.)

SNIP

But Sanders’ vote for a different kind of pro-gun bill is more puzzling—and profoundly disturbing. In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)

[deathrind]

58. No matter how it gets,

Parsed HRC is part of the establishment. She throws a few scraps of progressive rhetoric out now and again but nothing of true merit like Bernie does. Bernie has definetly got those who are happy with the status quo worried...and they should be. The actions of DWS to limit exposure to Bernie and the Bloomberg announcement gives some evidence of this.

Should Bernie win in Iowa or NH or both we will see the true colors of the Democratic Party. I have already heard several Dem party members float the idea of drafting Biden if Bernie does win a primary or two. Should this happen we will know with out doubt. This would throw the party into a tailspin that it would not likely recover from.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. Hillary HAS AN ANSWER as to what it will mean for her to be president, besides the first woman!

Guess what?


http://amp.twimg.com/v/bc5e37cb-dbc1-4345-8ab0-08ed45544042

An expanded drug war.

So that's what you get, not just the first woman president, but a better funded and more enthusaistically prosecuted war on drugs.


Who says she's not on top of the issues?

[hifiguy]

80. 90+% of her policies, the few she has bothered to set out,

are indistinguishable from Republican policies.

She takes money from the for-profit prison industry. She will never bite a hand that feeds her the Precious $$$.

Which is why we need Bernie so badly.

[abelenkpe]

70. Could say the same about not wanting to get

Money out of politics. They don't want the gravy train to stop.

[uponit7771]

72. Now people are just making shit up

[Spitfire of ATJ]

74. They don't want a Liberal to solve it...

There are people in the Democratic Party that are just as terrified of the country liking actual Liberal ideas as there are Republicans.

Both of them act like Liberalism was tried and failed and has been rejected by the American People.

Pardon me, but I must have slept through the Abbie Hoffman administration.

[Uncle Joe]

78. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, brentspeak.

[hifiguy]

79. HRH raked in lots of dough from the insurance companies

giving speeches. She will never bite the hands that feed her.

See how simple that is?

[ucrdem]

81. We got it passed. It's available. So far no takers.

And if we waste four years reinventing the wheel we'll probably lose ACA altogether. This is the truth that Chelsea was telling.

[Marty McGraw]

98. This is

The hedge that Chelsea was selling.

Fixed it fer ya!

[Adrahil]

82. This thread, and one's like it are starting to really bum me out.

It's no longer good enough to argue for your candidate. You have to impune the motives of your fellow Democrats.

Bad form, sir.

[SoapBox]

87. No Changes = More Money in their Pockets

Agreed.

The Entrenched want NO changes.

[Hoppy]

88. Why are people calline Hillary a crone?

We don't have to stoop to name calling. We know Bernie is the best hope for Democratic policy.















Yes, Martha, its sarcasm.

[Enthusiast]

90. Kicked and recommended!

You got it right!

"They don't want the gravy train to come to a halt."

[BlueMTexpat]

128. Speaking of

bull$hit, I am trashing this OP and adding you to my Ignore list.

If you take those actions as compliments, they are not intended to be and that is silly of you. But be proud if you must.

[chervilant]

150. An anonymous person

bragging that s/he is calling bull$hit, then adding the author of the OP to the dreaded IL. Oh, AND relegating said OP to the trash.

[raouldukelives]

129. And it is the same game when it comes to trade, war and our climate.

Whatever Wall St wants, Wall St gets.

[MADem]

136. No--it IS that everyone KNOWS Sanders can't pass single payer. Except Bernie fans. nt

[Amimnoch]

137. Fair enough. Show me a potential roll call vote.

Would you at least agree that President Obama, when he was pushing the ACA in 2009 pushed VERY hard for the Government option? He first tired to get single payer, but that died long before the first draft of the bill was introduced.. it just did NOT have the votes. Right to the end he fought for the government option to be put in. The reality was, with a government option, he was not going to get an ACA. President Obama, in 2009 had a MUCH more sympathetic congress to work with than any potential version of the 115th congress coming up next year.

Fast forward to 2016. The current congress isn't only anti-single payer, but how many times have they passed bills to repeal the ACA as it is?? The ONLY thing stopping them is President Obama's veto.

Fast Forward to the end of this year. Give me any potential roll call vote post election of the 115th congress. I give you full freedom with this. Take every senate seat and every house seat that is up for election in the 115th cycle. Assume every republican running.. incumbent or not.. is defeated. In every Democratic Primary, take the most liberal/Progressive candidate running... even the ones that are polling under 10%.. I'll give it to you as an assumed win for this exercise. Show me a roll call where any version of the upcoming congress will pass a single payer pushed by Senator Sanders.

I even offer my own spreadsheet that has all of the election candidates for both listed (hit me with a PM with your email and I'll gladly send it).

Having a best friend from high school who is broke, and at the mercy of the system and on the ACA now. Taking care of my mother who is dependent on medicare. If I thought for one second that Senator Sanders had a snowballs chance in hell of making it happen, and Hillary Clinton was only not championing the same because of the vicious attacks lobbed against her then Senator Sanders would 100% have my vote.

Getting a man like Senator Sanders elected president isn't going to change this reality.. we need a LOT more like him in the Senate and house first.

I don't speak for Hillary, nor to I speak for (or always agree with) the other Hillary supporters here, but for myself.. NO, I gain neither wealth nor benefit from the current system. It is broken. Universally available health care for all IS the right thing to do. Bernie Sanders is not going to get it done with the upcoming congress this country is going to give him. I know this is where we will fundamentally disagree but I do, wholeheartedly believe, that if there was a possible congress to make this work, then Hillary would be calling for the same thing.

The only difference between Hillary and Sanders (IMO), is that Hillary isn't lying about what she'll be able to pull of as President.

[KingCharlemagne]

138. This is a really good post. It is fair to ask how each candidate would be

prepared to govern. But has Sanders 'lied' about what he will be able to accomplish as President?

[Amimnoch]

143. I shouldn't have said lied.

It's hard not to get wrapped up in the vitriol.

From a non-Sanders supporter perspective though, it's hard not to consider it a lie. The Senator is a highly experienced member of Congress, so ignorance would be a disingenuous accusation if I was to make it. That said, if there is no potential to pass such a bill at least for the next few years, is it honest to campaign based on that promise?

For me, it's not just what a candidate promises. It's also a question of can they deliver? Will they deliver? There are claims my candidate is starting to make that makes me more apprehensive as well, and I believe she's doing so to try to compete with the Senator.

I do, very honestly believe, that the Clinton, Sanders, or O'Malley camps DO want what is best for the country, and the world (that last part is what really separates us from the other party). I likewise believe that any of our candidates WILL progress our country forward. With the Congress we have, and the potential versions I'm seeing this next election cycle, I see the progress being limited no matter who we get in office, and downright disastrous if a Republican (especially that obnoxious prick Trump) gets elected with a congress sympathetic to their agenda.

[KingCharlemagne]

144. No worries. I've certainly hurled my share of invective at

HRC and certain of her supporters. I share your pessimism for what any Dem can accomplish and your sense of foreboding about the alternative. I am hoping for the best but planning for the worst, plans still in their infancy as we write.

[Spazito]

146. Well said! n/t

[blackspade]

139. +1000

Exactly

[MineralMan]

141. Well, I'm a Hillary supporter, and I want single-payer to be how

healthcare is delivered in this country. The simplest way to do that is through something like Medicare for All.

I do not see that as an actual possibility at this time, however. Until we have dominating Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, such a thing will not be possible.

If we want it, we are going to have to do much more than simply elect a Democratic President, and it will take very hard work in several elections, especially in mid-term elections, when Democrats tend not to bother to go and vote.

Until we recognize that any such system must be first enacted by Congress, we will have zero chance of having any such system. If we will endeavor to remake the Congress, we will have a chance. Will we do that? I see little evidence that such action is very much on people's minds right now.

No President can deliver single-payer healthcare until Congress has a very different makeup. Let's make that happen. If we do, then any President can sign the enabling legislation, and any Democratic President would do exactly that. Promises without capability are useless.

[Bluenorthwest]

152. That's the same exact rhetorical bull you used to serve about marriage equality for it but pragmatic

so therefore not actively for it, which is basically the same as being against it. Pragmatists like myself have no reason to believe your inner monologue or sales pitch we see only your actions. Your actions do not seek single payer and in fact promote the candidate who is against it. The invisible faith based part about what you really think is nonsense, all there really is is what you do.
This is why all those who said 'I am for marriage equality but I just know we can't get it so we have to give up or go for civil unions at most or we wind up with nothing at all forever and ever' were really just against marriage equality. Their actions hindered that equality. Their excuses of no concern to reality based people.

[MineralMan]

154. And yet, I worked to pass a marriage equality law here in Minnesota.

Now, we finally have it nationwide. It happened incrementally, until a tipping point occurred with enough states enacting it. Finally, the Supreme Court was forced to recognize it.

As for single payer, the one question I asked Betty McCollum, my house representative, before giving her my full support for her campaign was, "Do you support single-payer healthcare?" She answered, "Yes, I do." So, I campaigned for her. I will do so again this year. Eventually, we will get single-payer healthcare, probably incrementally, as individual states enact it, as they have the ability to do under ACA. Eventually, it will happen.

Each desirable end requires the means to reach it. People have different opinions on how to make things happen.

[Amimnoch]

161. Just to point out, marriage equality didn't happen legislatively.

If we were waiting on Congress and the President, my husband and I still wouldn't be married (at least legally in the US).

I can't think of a constitutional challenge that can get the ball rolling for healthcare challenge in the courts. I'm open to ideas if you have them?

The reality is, our current 114th congress, and the best possible potential for the 115th congress is going to be even less sympathetic to the ACA and single payer than the one of 2009 was (which couldn't even get the government option past the Senate), much less work with any president elected to push a single payer advancement of it.

[lark]

153. Unfair and untrue.

HRC proposed single payer when she was put in charge of marshalling this effort by her husband. She ran on coverage for everyone in 2008. Exactly like Obama didn't even want to propose healthcare for everyone, but ended up doing it anyway, Clinton is only against single payer because Bernie's for it. Just like Bernie snarked against PP only because of their presidents' endorsement of Clinton and he was wrong. Bernie, bless his heart, came back to his true self, not the competitive politician part, and apologized for that and made it clear he totally supports PP. Clinton will come back to single payer too, it's what makes sense in the long run and she's not stupid.

[Jarqui]

176. No she didn't - not single payer.

look it up.

[lark]

180. I saw her speech from back then on MSNBC just last week.

Can't remember which show, it was either the Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow? She was highly irate that any Democrat would come out against medical coverage for every single American, regardless of income or work status. I know that part for 100%. I am pretty sure I heard her mention single payer and used the example of that's what works in every other country in the world. I was walking away and stopped because I was so surprised. That was the point of the clip, she was 100% for single payer and was appalled that any Democrat would oppose it, and is now in the totally opposite camp for political reasons only.

[Jarqui]

181. She was for universal in the 1990s, 2008 and she is now

She's never advocated for single payer as one of her solutions.

Hillarycare was universal through a mandate that all Americans had to get coverage

She has complimented single payer (medicare for all) in the past and previously not been against it. But single was never one of her policy solutions for healthcare.

[Faux pas]

156. Thanks!

For posting the truest truth.

[Plucketeer]

162. Wow!

On and on and on: "Yes we can" vs. "No we can't." Mind-numbing. FDR, where are you?

[Cheap_Trick]

163. Hillary was for Single Payer before she was

paid hefty amounts of $ to be against it. Oh, and Bernie's for it.

[Jarqui]

178. Nope

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/hillary_clinton_on_s.php
2008 Interview:

Q: Let’s talk for a minute about the formulation of your plan. I’m interested in how seriously you considered proposing a single payer system and at what point in that discussion did you decide to propose an individual mandate?

MRS. CLINTON: You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system.

Hillarycare was not single payer.

[MariaThinks]

165. you realize that Hillary tried to do that in the 90s and get destroyed by the stupid

republicans?

[Sheepshank]

166. no, Bernie can't get anything passed. He's burned too many bridges

he doesn't rally the Dems, or aid down ticket. He has had 25 years to build cooperative relationships with his peers. he hasn't done anything to advance the nation as a whole other than say "aye"...he's done nothing, and your effervescent mischaracterizations cant' change that.

ACA will be improved upon and improvements will continue it's march towards Medicare for all, But it won't be under a Bernie administration.

[amborin]

171. exactly

[Ferd Berfel]

172. Exactly.

[in_cog_ni_to]

173. THANK YOU!

Spot on.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[hifiguy]

174. $13 million or whatever it was into HRH's pocket

for speechifying to Big Insurance et al., changed her mind permanently. And when she's bought she STAYS bought.

You are absolutely correct.

[The River]

177. K&R

for the use of neo-feudal in describing our system of healthcare

[arcane1]

179. Insurance companies are part of Clinton's base. She will have their back when we come after them.