2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumA vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote in support of single payer health care insurance
Vote your values. Vote your conscience . Vote for Bernie Sanders.
Here's a Map of the Countries That Provide Universal Health Care (America's Still Not on It)
The U.S. stands almost entirely alone among developed nations that lack universal health care.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/
onehandle
(51,122 posts)think
(11,641 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)I voted twice for Barrack Obama. Where my Universal Health Care? Seems all I ended up with is expensive mandatory, crappy private insurance.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Obamacare further embedded Private For Profit Health Insurance as the basis of health coverage in the future.
If the public option had not been thrown under the bus, it wold be a different story.
But Obamacare combined the worst of the overly-complicated,oppressive combination of government programs and private insurance, and -- with some exceptions like the "pre-existing condition" -- did severe damage to the public perception of social insurance.
So far, Clinton has shown no indication that she is in favor of unseating the primacy of private health insurance. I hope she does, and means it. But so far...
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
pinebox
(5,761 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/hillary-clinton-likes-oba_b_4881399.html
Hillary Clinton has confirmed, to a paying audience of 20,000 sellers of electronic health records systems, that she supports Obamacare, and opposes single-payer health insurance.
Speaking to a closed-to-the-press meeting of the "HIMSS14" (Healthcare Information and Management Systems Conference 2014) in Orlando Florida on February 26th, she condemned the Canadian and other nations' single-payer healthcare systems by saying, "We don't have one size fits all; our country is quite diverse. What works in New York City won't work in Albuquerque." The presumption is that what works in Canada cannot work here, that local control must trump everything in order to fix what's wrong with American health care.
The data prove her statement to be false, if not irrelevant. America's healthcare problems are deeper than that. The latest OECD data on healthcare costs show that the U.S. spends by far the world's highest percentage of GDP on healthcare, 17.7 percent; and also show that the average U.S. life expectancy is 78.7 years; by contrast, Canada spends 11.2 percent, and their life expectancy is 81.0 years. The OECD average expenditure is 9.3 percent , and life expectancy is 80.0 years. So: the U.S. spends twice as high a percentage of GDP as every other OECD nation, and gets markedly inferior results. This makes the U.S. far less economically competitive than it otherwise would be; but, the healthcare industries finance conservative politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and all Republicans; so, those politicians don't like single-payer -- it would take much of the excess profits out of exploiting the sick, and those excess profits help to fund their campaigns.
The American people's financial losses produce exceptional financial gains for the investors in healthcare-related stocks, and also inflate the pay for executives in those firms. This helps to fund lots of what conservatives such as Antonin Scalia lovingly call "free speech" -- campaign commercials.
LuvLoogie
(6,997 posts)Bernie could have leveraged his vote to at least have the Obama administration and Harry Reid go to the CBO to score Bernie's Single-Payer bill. But he didn't do that. Why not?
He had the a good chance to advance a fair hearing on his Single-Payer bill, but passed on it. Why is he not running on it now? Why doesn't he talk about his bill like he used to on Thom Hartman's show?
think
(11,641 posts)LuvLoogie
(6,997 posts)And my bad: the only Single Payer Bill at the time was John Conyers'. I recall Bernie talking about an existing Single Payer bill, but remember it as being his. Bernie didn't actually get around to introducing a Single Payer Bill until 2013. Which is surprising given that he has been in the Senate since 2007 (elected November 2006).
Given that he knew that health care reform was a major campaign issue for the 2008 Presidential election, and at least had the candidates' talking points, there was an opportunity to coordinate with John Conyers to introduce a Senate version of Single-Payer, no?
Here's the point. Bernie instead voted for the ACA, which was an incremental vote which highly benefits private, for-profit insurance companies. The pragmatist in him voted for Richard Nixon's and the Heritage Foundation's baby.
Bernie Sanders excuses his vote by saying there were not the necessary votes for Single-Payer or a Public Option even.
So, given that Hillary has been instituting health care reform since her efforts in the 90s and her work on S-CHIP, why is Bernie more likely than her to push for single-payer? It passed into law in Vermont, but they could not afford it, and so it languishes. How does it get instituted in the U.S. as a whole?
Until the votes are there for Medicare for all, defending the ACA and building a Supreme court firewall is the immediate task. That is Hillary's position. Don't you agree that would have to be done BEFORE the campaign for single-payer ensues?
And you need political capital and key pivotal relationships within the industries and bureaucracies.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)before anyone introduced it into congress so it does not belong to anyone person. For years a group in my area would go door to door asking for money to keep the campaign going for single payer healthcare.
As to why someone may not have bothered to vote to have it included. Votes. The availability of votes is usually considered before any bill is introduced. Did they have votes in Congress at the time to actually get anything done other than ACA?
brooklynite
(94,511 posts)...because even if Sanders wins, there'll be no Congressional support to revisit health care as an issue.
think
(11,641 posts)brooklynite
(94,511 posts)think
(11,641 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)because the wave that brings Bernie into the White House is gonna be the same wave thats gonna bring liberals and progressives into seats all over this country. We will have the Senate and possibly the house too or at least a good chunk of the house. This is the year of the revolt. Third wayers and conservatives are going down. People have had enough.
brooklynite
(94,511 posts)...because most of the House and Senate races have their candidates at this point (I've talked to most of them) and they're largely mainstream.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)do you really think dems, whether progressive or establishment, are going to pull the obstructionist crap the gop did to obama? i can't see it. if they do that, they will be guilty of what they have been complaining about for 7 years.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)And all the teahaddists will suddenly see the error of their ways and start voting for single payer.
POOF! It's so easy!
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)of Congress, there will be no single payer healthcare. You want that? Get to work on electing House and Senate Democrats. No President can get single payer without a supermajority in both houses of Congress.
It's a non-issue in 2016. It's not happening, because there's no way to get that majority in the House. We should be able to get a simple majority in the Senate and gain some seats in the House, though.
Single payer? Think 2024 at the earliest. That's as soon as we'll be able to get a House majority. Until then, it's not happening.
think
(11,641 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Sanders cannot do that alone if elected president.
No president can.
Hell, look at how difficult even getting the ACA was.
We won't see single payer for at least another 20 years.
think
(11,641 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Sanders cannot accomplish what he has promised you.
That makes Sanders a liar.
LuvLoogie
(6,997 posts)It is law.
So why isn't it actually in place and running?
think
(11,641 posts)was better but it sucks in comparison to the rest of the modern world.
That's why they all have single payer or full universal healthcare...
LuvLoogie
(6,997 posts)Not all at once. Why isn't Vermont implementing their state single-player system?
think
(11,641 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Plus, Vermont does not have an entrenched rightwing minority holding a majority of seats in one house of the legislative body.
No president will bring in single payer after the next election, I don't care who they are. The Republicans will hold the House for another seven years at a minimum. That's a guarantee, there's no way around that fact.
LuvLoogie
(6,997 posts)Do you think he would join it? He would of course bring in a wave of freshman Single-Payer Party Congressmen and Senators, no?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, think.