The Medicare-For-All Bill does not conflict with defending the ACA.

[Ken Burch]

The idea is to defend the ACA in the short-term(which, as we all recognize, is ALL we can achieve between now and 2020), and use the bill both to mobilize continued support for universal healthcare as a concept while working for something better after 2020.

Anything that gets people mobilized in a progressive, anti-Trump way, is to the good.

Giving up on single-payer, even as a long-term goal, doesn't do anything to protect the ACA.

[NurseJackie]

1. It distracts. It diverts attention. It confuses. It's...

... (in my opinion) grandstanding pie-in-the-sky. It's unrealistic to expect that will never happen in the next 25-35 years.

[comradebillyboy]

3. Thank you for that bit of reality.

[Ken Burch]

4. in 1760, it was unrealistic to expect British rule of North America ever to end.

In 1798, it was unrealistic to expect civil liberties to be restored after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Act.

In 1800, it was unrealistic to expect the importation of slaves to be outlawed.

In 1860, it was unrealistic to expect slavery to be abolished.

In 1880, it was unrealistic to expect the eight-hour day.

In 1900, it was unrealistic to expect that women would win the vote.

In 1920, it was unrealistic to expect child labor to be outlawed.

In 1930, it was unrealistic to expect federal labor laws to be passed.

In 1950, it was unrealistic to expect the "Red Scare" campaign against democracy and free speech to end.

In 1960, it was unrealistic to expect Jim Crow to be outlawed or federal antipoverty programs to be established.

In 1970, it was unrealistic to expect the Equal Rights Amendment to even come close to passage.

In 1990, it was unrealistic to expect George H.W. Bush to be defeated for re-election.

In 2000, it was unrealistic to expect same-sex marriage to be legalized anywhere in this country.

If we'd stayed with what was "realistic", nothing would ever have changed in this country.

[KTM]

6. +1000

[leftstreet]

7. +1

[Demsrule86]

18. Apples and oranges Ken...read up on Hillarycare...if we lose the ACA we will get nothing.

[Ken Burch]

23. And we are all united in fighting to defend the ACA at the moment.

That's the focus in the short term.

Single-payer would just be what we did next.

[sheshe2]

33. I see Pelosi focusing on ACA.

I really do not see many here doing that.

[Ken Burch]

68. Is the only way to focus on ACA to give up on anything beyond that?

It's not as if there's anybody in the GOP in Congress at the moment(and until 2018. the Rethugs are the only people who matter on that)who'd vote against getting rid of the ACA but ONLY if single-payer were permanently off the table.

Some, in fact, would probably be more likely to vote to save the ACA on the argument that, by doing so, they would reduce public pressure to go to single-payer when the votes for that emerge.

And support for single-payer is not opposition to preserving the ACA until single-payer can be implemented.

[tomp]

24. Apples and apples.

The op is correct: there is no logical reason why any dem can't vote to preserve or even improve ACA while promoting and eventually voting for a better system...that is unless a particular democrat prefers to defend insurance companies, which of course would be logical but disgusting.

[mdbl]

30. so true

[Demsrule86]

42. I have seen no bill presented by any Dem that fixes the ACA not have I heard many talk about it.

Thus, I don't see them doing both...and I don't see how they could anyway. Single payer will never pass until more get their health care on exchanges and not from their employers...right now the majority get workplace insurance...and any attempt will end as it did in the 90's...in failure and a landslide for the GOP. Not only does this risk the ACA, it risks are shot at taking back Congress.

[tomp]

51. Neither have I. Never said I did.

What I said was it would be possible...and it is.

[Demsrule86]

54. It isn't being done...so does it really matter? Single payer which we will not get anytime soon is

the only thing being discussed and if we lose the ACA, thousands will die and it may be decades before we get any sort of insurance.

[Ken Burch]

71. It should be done. And it's up to Pelosi and Schumer to get the ball rolling on that.

It's not the fault of single-payer supporters that there isn't an ACA repair bill in the hopper.

[Ken Burch]

70. It's not the fault of single-payer advocates that that hasn't happened.

If anything, such a proposal(which should have been proposed the day the ACA was signed and made a major part of our argument for turning out to vote Democratic in the midterms that year)SHOULD have been made by the Congressional leaders who agreed to water the ACA down in the first place.

I accept the argument that a short-term compromise was probably necessary-but the strategy to keep people in the game(turnout was way down among pretty much every part of the Obama coalition in the 2010 midterms, down even from the 2006 midterms where we retook both houses after twelve years of mainly GOP control)should have been to say "if you'll work hard and get everybody to the polls in the midterms, we can FIX the problems now".

Instead, our campaign that year didn't even feature any real defense of the ACA.

Repair legislation should be introduced now, in addition to MFA. It won't pass under Trump, but it helps to get the proposals out there.

[clu]

104. you are a more patient man than i

but thanks for sharing of course

[Turn CO Blue]

10. Just no. Hubby and I pay $1400/mo in premiums. I'd gladly pay that into MFA instead.

premiums are so outrageous right now that something has to give. ACA premiums are specifically designed to have MY generation pay for the younger generation but that tragic fatal flaw is bankrupting every middle class 50 to 65 year old in this country. Estimates are that over a quarter of older Americans have sold their homes to keep paying for-profit health premiums.

We can't take your ACA as-is anymore. It was one tiny baby step, but it only made things better for young people -- it has made things much, much worse for people over 50. We've lost our home because of high premiums. We are paying over 30% of our income into premiums. We will be homeless for the rest of our lives because of the way ACA was set up.

All this "no medicare posts" remind me of the Democratic Party message to David Brock: "Stop Helping us, YOU'RE KILLING US!"

That is how I feel.

[beam me up scottie]

14. Thank you.

And I'm sorry you lost your home, continuing to support such a morally bankrupt for-profit system is unconscionable. I will GLADLY pay more taxes if it means covering everyone and never having to hear about another person losing their home to pay for health care.

After hearing that this is a 'distraction' and so many I've-got-mine statements from people with good, affordable plans it's sobering to hear another perspective.

There will never be a perfect time to push this issue, no more keeping our powder dry.

[NurseJackie]

21. Well, in just 25 or 30 years, maybe MFA will become a reality.

That is how I feel.

Thanks for sharing your story. It's a reminder that the ACS isn't perfect and that people need to focus on saving the ACA... fixing it, strengthening it, expanding it ... not abandoning it or letting it be cannibalized and starved. Single-payer gets closer to reality with an ACA that functions well and delivers what's promised. Good luck to you.

[clu]

105. yes there are some high earners

that take a bath on ACA taxes - regardless if they're even in the exchange.

CHANGE IT NOW

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. Right...

We're going to be so busy fighting for Medicare for All that we'll just straight up forget to defend the ACA.

[NurseJackie]

27. Single-payer gets closer to reality with an ACA that functions well and delivers what's promised.

[Act_of_Reparation]

45. Immaterial.

Yes, we are closer to SP with the ACA. But that's not what's in question here. What's being disputed is your claim that our lawmakers cannot simultaneously push for SP while defending the ACA from GOP repeal.

[NurseJackie]

80. There's no question about it at all. They can "simultaneously" do dozens of different things.

But as certain as there are only 24 hours in a day, lawmakers do not have unlimited time and unlimited resources either. Time spent on a guaranteed lost cause is valuable time that would have been more wisely spent elsewhere.

You and your friends can carefully split hairs and parse words and sentence structure all day long (if that's your thing) but it won't change reality. Lawmakers focused on the MFA pipe-dream are (by definition) neglecting the ACA. It's as simple as that.

[Ken Burch]

76. OK. And single-payer supporters aren't against fixing the ACA

If Pelosi and Schumer write and introduce bills to do that, everybody who backs the MFA will back that, too-because we all understand that that's achievable in the short-term.

It isn't either/or.

[NurseJackie]

78. I never said they were.

76. OK. And single-payer supporters aren't against fixing the ACA

I never said they were. (Straw man argument.)

It isn't either/or.

It will be. here's a limited number of hours in the day and a limited number of favors that can be called-in when building support and coalitions. This "MFA" thing is going to fail and fail bigly. Meanwhile whatever work and energy is devoted to it is NOT going to be given to the ACA. Enough of this "walk and chew gum" bullshit. The ACA will languish and suffer. It will be left even more vulnerable than it is today. MFA is pie-in-the-sky and won't happen in my lifetime. If we let the ACA be destroyed, then we have nothing, but I guess some folks don't care about that, since it fits very well into their "all or nothing" political philosophy. (Is that your philosophy? All or nothing? No compromise! No incrementalism? No common ground?)

I encourage you to re-read and try to understand what I (and others) have been trying to tell you. It's important to live in the real world and to be realistic. Political grandstanding accomplishes nothing (other than inflating the egos of the politicians who do it) and getting the 2020 hopefuls some free air time.

(Still waving!)

[Ken Burch]

79. I've always been realistic.

I just don't accept that the possibilities are always as limited as you do.

But I've always been willing to compromise and have often supported candidates who were not as progressive as I'd have preferred, so I don't know why you seem to start from the assumption that I'm inherently unreasonable.

[NurseJackie]

81. Now you're just repeating yourself. We've talked about this before. Please...

... refer to any of the dozens of other times we've discussed this. My answers now are the same as they were then. Your slightly reworded questions won't change my answers.

(Still waving!)

[Ken Burch]

82. I'm not looking for you to change YOUR answers. Never wanted that.

I've proved I live in the real world and that you're not entitled to lecture me on that.

There's nothing I post here that is so terrible that your only possible response is to call me out.

Can't you just leave it at you and I disagreeing on some things and move on?

I'm just a person with a few different opinions than you.

[NurseJackie]

83. My responses:

82. I'm not looking for you to change YOUR answers. Never wanted that.

Of course you do. That's why you keep asking the same things over and over again. I'm smarter than you realize. My own children used to do that to me as well. I've seen it before.

Whether it's "Are we there yet?" or "Can I have a cookie?" "May I have a cookie?" "Will you let me have a cookie?" "May I eat a cookie?" "May I try a cookie?" "May I taste a cookie?" "May I nibble a cookie?" "May I consume a cookie?" "May I have a cookie, please?" "You're not being fair!" And on and on and on and on... it's the same thing. And my answers and responses to you will ALWAYS be the same. (One day you'll understand. I hope.)

I've proved I live in the real world and that you're not entitled to lecture me on that.

That may be where you physically "live"... but the ideas aren't real-world ideas. They're old, outdated, rejected and unrealistic.

There's nothing I post here that is so terrible that your only possible response is to call me out.

I have no idea what you're talking about or how the things you imagine relate to this particular topic.

Can't you just leave it at you and I disagreeing on some things and move on?

Waving the white flag? I'll accept your surrender... but you'll need to agree to some terms of surrender.

I'm just a person with a few different opinions than you.

Apparently "few" means something different to you than it does in the real world. All I'm saying is that "few" isn't very accurate at all. At all. No. Not at all. That's. That's just. OMG. FEW? No. No. Uh-unh. Nope.

(Still waving!)

[Ken Burch]

85. I don't need to surrender, because we're not in a war.

I'm not your enemy, I'm not a danger to the party, and I don't need to be stopped or whatever it is you seem to feel is your duty in life to do to me.

There is no reason for you to be this relentlessly fixated on my very presence here, or on trying to discredit me or any of the other people you target on a personal level.

Ok, so I'm to you left on economic issues. So what? I also support keeping the party solidly pro-choice and anti-oppression, I campaign for the ticket and other Dems loyally, and there's as much room for me and for the ideas I sometimes post about(I spend plenty of time talking about other things here, btw) as there is for anyone and anything else.

And I'm not guilty of trying to remake the party in Bernie's image. I've proved that again and again.

If it was actually possible that any of the things I've posted about could, as you once put it, "destroy the party", or even harm it in any significant way, the site owners themselves would have kicked me off of her by now, Or I'd have been alerted into oblivion.

[NurseJackie]

89. It's not about you. Yet you used "I/my/me" EIGHTEEN TIMES in that short message.

It's not about you. Yet you used "I/my/me" EIGHTEEN TIMES in that short message. That indicates that you're taking things far too personally just because someone disagrees with the ideas you promote; or because someone points out why they're flawed/outdated, and/or that the ideas have been previously rejected. Sorry to to have to tell you this, but just because YOU (personally) have a "right to exist" doesn't mean that you have a right to foist these failed, rejected and antique notions on anyone.

Maybe you'll remember that we've talked about this before. Not EVERY idea is worthy of serious consideration or of having "equal time".

This behavior has been the topic of discussion elsewhere, and someone suggested that maybe someone's own personal sense of worth is derived from having someone accept or praise "their" ideas and the things they advocate... and that rejection of "their" ideas and those other things advocated is considered to be a "personal insult" (or other indicator of inadequacy.)

In a way, that person's observations make sense, but it's difficult to agree or disagree with such a specific "diagnosis". It's just that maybe it was worth mentioning how others have noticed things along the same lines and arrived at conclusions that are similar to mine. Take it for what it's worth. I'm not alone.

Moving ahead, the best advice is to: Be like Keith. Let go of the past and find a mature way to move forward. Listen to the voters and accept that the old ideas have been rejected.

85. I don't need to surrender, because we're not in a war.

Look up. Look around. The behavior says otherwise.

I'm not your enemy, I'm not a danger to the party, and I don't need to be stopped or whatever it is you seem to feel is your duty in life to do to me.

Oh, brother! It's best to refrain from responding to the bait and to just let Bette Davis' Eyes do the talking.

There is no reason for you to be this relentlessly fixated on my very presence here, or on trying to discredit me or any of the other people you target on a personal level.

That is a false accusation. (This is just a variation of the false accusation of "stalking". Stop it.) It appears that you're "projecting". By way of an explanation: Although you may take things personally, that's not proof that you're being personally targeted ... nor does it mean feelings of victimization are true.

These veiled and FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF STALKING need to stop, and it needs to stop right now! Show some respect, how about? Would you talk to your own mother or grandmother the same disrespectful and accusatory way you talk to me? Nobody deserves to be treated this way. I'm not as close to the left fringe as you are, but that's no reason for you to make false accusations of "stalking" to try and BULLY me off this board. I have just as much right to be here as you do!

Ok, so I'm to you left on economic issues. So what?

Exactly! So what? Who cares? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China. It's just another straw-man argument. *Yawn.* (You've made this observation before. It didn't matter then, it doesn't matter now. Why bring it up again?)

I also support keeping the party solidly pro-choice and anti-oppression, I campaign for the ticket and other Dems loyally,

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? That's ancient history and irrelevant. It's YET ANOTHER straw man. (Besides, we've talked about this before. Why bring it up again?)

and there's as much room for me and for the ideas I sometimes post about

What's the obsession with old ideas, discredited ideas and rejected ideas? The voters have spoken and rejected those things by millions and millions and millions of votes. (Besides, we've talked about this before. Why bring it up again?)

(I spend plenty of time talking about other things here, btw) as there is for anyone and anything else.

That's nice. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? They're irrelevant to this discussion on this thread. It's a straw man argument. (Besides, we've talked about this before. Why bring it up again?)

And I'm not guilty of trying to remake the party in Bernie's image. I've proved that again and again.

That statement does not comport with the facts.

If it was actually possible that any of the things I've posted about could, as you once put it, "destroy the party",

In context it was a comparison and finding similarities to the "destroy-to-rebuild" and "let-it-burn" philosophies advocated by kooky fringe elements. But, taken out of context (as done here) makes it easier to portray one's self as the victim, though, doesn't it?

or even harm it in any significant way, the site owners themselves would have kicked me off of her by now, Or I'd have been alerted into oblivion.

LOL! That's a complete logical fallacy. The fact that such things haven't yet happened is not "proof" that the rejected and backward-looking ideas being advocated have actual value or relevance.



(Still waving!)

[Ken Burch]

90. A presence of many of those ideas in the platform proves they weren't rejected

They're just ideas you don't like, although you've never actually made an argument against them.

A discussion of ideas means saying 'here's the problem with that idea"-NOT "that idea is outdated and rejected". Summary dismissal is not discussion and serves no good purpose. Discussion means engagement.

And you've never actually said what it is about social democracy that you despise so much.

You say you're disagree with the ideas, yet you never actually discuss them.

Your responses have been personally because you meant them personally-because, rather than actually address any of the ideas presented, rather than speaking to those you disagreed with on any level of human respect, you've simply denounced them and hurled personal insults. You've personalized this from the start.

And you've repeatedly implied a motivation that doesn't exist. This poster has not supported the idea of "remaking the party in the image of Sanders". Instead, the idea has been to blend Sanders ideas, Clinton ideas, and ideas from other progressives within the party, while establishing dialog between those who didn't communicate positively with each other.

It would also involve adjusting all ideas to be inclusive of everyone who didn't feel included by them.

That is totally different than destroy-to-rebuild.

It's reconciliation and it's about increasing turnout and support. And it's based on the recognition that no party that made the kind of showing this party did in 2016 can be assumed to be in good shape overall-that there are good things and people within the party


If you disagree with someone,, fine. disagree. But it's not your place to simply insist that another person stop posting anything you disagree with. So long as the what that poster isn't violating site or forum rules or acting with malicious or negative intent, no progressive idea should be barred from being posted here.

[NurseJackie]

91. NO ANCHOVIES!!

90. A presence of many of those ideas in the platform proves they weren't rejected

It proves no such thing. That was just a typical courtesy. A gesture or kindness and "thanks for playing" trophy. I'm sorry to tell you, but that's the truth. It's just not very realistic to "read-more-into-it" than that.

They're just ideas you don't like, although you've never actually made an argument against them.

Apparently someone isn't listening or paying attention. We've been through this before. I'm not going to give you another detailed response because you've re-worded your objections. (Please see my previous responses.)

A discussion of ideas means saying 'here's the problem with that idea"-NOT "that idea is outdated and rejected". Summary dismissal is not discussion and serves no good purpose.

Discussion time is over. For example: Just like with global warming... the discussion is OVER! Rational people are not going to validate the stupidity of Global Warming Deniers and Hoax-mongers by "engaging" them in yet another "debate".

And you've never actually said what it is about social democracy that you despise so much.

I don't recall ever having expressed a strong opinion one way or the other (non sequitur)

You say you're disagree with the ideas, yet you never actually discuss them.

Repeating the same questions and/or objections will not change my response. (We've done this before. Please refer to my previous responses.)

Your responses personally because, rather than actually address any of the ideas I've been one of the many to present, you've simply denounced them

Of course I've "denounced" the ideas! Why wouldn't I? I'm not going to stop denouncing them simply because you object.

and hurled personal insults. You've personalized this from the start.

No I haven't. As someone once told me: It can't be true because "the site owners themselves would have kicked me off of here by now, Or I'd have been alerted into oblivion."

And you've repeatedly implied a motivation that doesn't exist.

That's not true.

This poster has not supported the idea of "remaking the party in the image of Sanders".

"This poster" ... heh-heh-heh! I see what you're doing. Funny.

Instead, the idea has been to blend Sanders ideas, Clinton ideas, and ideas from other progressives within the party, while establishing dialog between those who didn't communicate positively with each other.

Why "blend" something that's already been rejected by the voters? Millions and millions of voters have rejected those ideas.

If I tell my pizza baker that I don't like anchovies, he should take me at my word and omit the anchovies. I'm not going to react too kindly when he tries to find new "clever" ways to add anchovies to my pizza. I'm not going to like the anchovy paste, or anchovy-flavored-cheese, or anchovy-sausage, or anchovy-stuffed-crust. No chopped anchovies, no diced anchovies, no peppered anchovies, no anchovy crumbles, no dried anchovies. Whatever his gimmick may be... no matter how he wants to repackage and "dress-up" the anchovies... nothing will change the fact that the anchovies have already been REJECTED. NO ANCHOVIES!!

It would also involve adjusting all ideas to be inclusive of everyone who didn't feel included by them.

Voting is for adults with mature minds and realistic expectations. We can't waste time coddling the "feelings" of those disaffected voters who didn't "feel included".

If they want to "feel included" then they should join the party and participate. They should get involved and contribute time and money and talent. (We don't need to remake the party in the image of their "hero" in order to make them feel "included". People who withhold their votes until they feel sufficiently flattered aren't what this party needs. Those are the most irresponsible and unreliable voters. Fuck 'em. They don't get a say and NO party should bend to flatter their vanities.)

That is totally different than destroy-to-rebuild.

No, not really.

It's reconciliation and it's about increasing turnout and support. And it's based on the recognition that no party that made the kind of showing this party did in 2016 can be assumed to be in good shape overall-that there are good things and people within the party

Asked and answered in many many many other exchanges with you (and with others).

If you disagree with someone,, fine. disagree.

Oh! Thank you for giving me permission. How generous of you! I'm forever in your debt!

But it's not your place to simply insist that another person stop posting anything you disagree with.

I've never done that. You really do need to cease the false accusations and bullying tactics.

So long as the what that poster isn't violating site or forum rules or acting with malicious or negative intent, no progressive idea should be barred from being posted here.

Nobody is barring you from doing anything. But... just because you think an idea is "progressive" that doesn't mean it's automatically a good idea, or a realistic idea. Feel free to toss the ideas out there. But I can promise you right now that the bad ones will always get push-back or will get shot-down.

That's how you know they're bad ideas. When they continually get shot-down and rejected. Especially when millions and millions and millions of voters ALSO reject them. Or when people explain why it won't work. Or when people explain why an idea is racist or sexist. That's the BIGGEST clue right there. All you have to do is listen. I understand you don't personally LOVE those bad ideas any less... but it's just not realistic to expect everyone else to go along with bad ideas just because you take it personally when the idea is denounced.

(Still waving!)

[Ken Burch]

92. Nobody's forcing you to have anchovies. Or forcing the party to have them

It's not as if posting things forcibly imposes them on the party or onto you.

Discussion is simply discussion.

And it's not as though you have to read every post of everyone you disagree with. You have the option of not reading them. No one reads or responds to every single thing everyone else posts here.

And no one needed to give you permission, because you've never been at a disadvantage to anyone else on this board and you've never had to fight to make yourself heard here or anything. There isn't a power relationship between anyone on this board...there are simply equal human beings sometimes expressing somewhat different opinions.

And the fact that you don't like ideas doesn't mean you are entitled to declare them rejected.

You are just one poster here. You are not the Voice of DU. Neither is anyone else.

You are simply one poster among many.

And we agree much more than not on the issues. There's no massive divergence here.

[NurseJackie]

96. Ok, so here's the deal... anchovies suck!

92. nobody's forcing you to have anchovies.

So stop offering them.

It's not as if posting things forcibly imposes them on the party or onto you.

Well, it's not as if my continually refuting them and reminding you that they've been rejected by millions and millions of voters "imposes" anything on you, either. (Well, maybe, other than imposing the facts on you.) I'm just saying: the numbers speak for themselves. The results speak for themselves. The historical facts speak for themselves.

Discussion is simply discussion.

Wow man, that's deep. Profound. Intense man, super-intense. Mind blown. I'm going to get that engraved on a plaque, dude.

And it's not as though you have to read every post of everyone you disagree with. You have the option of not reading them.

It's not as though you have to take every reply of disagreement so personally. You have the option of responding in a more adult way when someone "shoots-down" outdated and unrealistic ideas.

And no one needed to give you permission,

Duh! Of course. Wasn't my cheeky sarcasm obvious enough to you? If not, I'll spell it out for you. I-don't-need-your-permission.

because you've never been at a disadvantage to anyone else on this board and you've never had to fight to make yourself heard here or anything.

Neither have you. ("Or anything" huh?)

There isn't a power relationship between us...

LOL! Relationship? I wouldn't use that word at all.

we are simply two equal human beings

Equal? Then why try to bully me off the board by making veiled innuendos and false accusations about me being a crazy stalker. Is that how you treat someone who you consider to be "equal"? (I think not.) Your previous behavior and lack of respect toward me are in complete contrast to those words.

expressing somewhat different opinions.

That's an understatement. No, views are not "somewhat" different. They are VERY different. EXCEEDINGLY different. MONUMENTALLY different.

And the fact that you don't like ideas doesn't mean you are entitled to declare them rejected.

I've claimed no such entitlement. I have made no such declaration. (Straw man argument.) I am, however, simply reminding you that the voters rejected them in the same way that the originator rejected the Democratic party.

Many years ago, I had a boyfriend who rejected me. We flirted and dated for a brief period, but eventually he decided once and for all that didn't want to be a couple. He wanted to be able to do his own thing and live an independent life without me.

Yet, for some reason, he still felt obligated to tell me how to run my life. He wanted to tell me where I should live, how I should dress, who my friends should be. He criticized my job and ridiculed my family. He accused me of being dumb. He told me I was ugly, a tramp, and worthless. He insulted and denigrated me. He treated me like dirt. He didn't want to be with me, but still he wanted to CONTROL me and control my life. He had the nerve to tell me it was for my own good and that he knew best what I needed. He felt ENTITLED to it.

But, you know what? I wouldn't accept things like that back then (all those many years ago) and I won't accept it now. Do you get my meaning? Does any of that make sense to you?

You are just one poster here. You are not the Voice of DU.

I never claimed to be. (Straw man argument.)

You are simply one poster among many.

I never claimed differently. (Straw man argument.)

And we agree much more than not on the issues. There's no massive divergence here.

Nice try.

(Still waving!)

[Ken Burch]

97. It's enought to say that YOU reject the ideas in the those OPs

Last edited Fri Sep 15, 2017, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Your boyfriend, he was an abusive jerk and you should never had to live with that. That was horrific abuse and you should never have been subjected to it. People in my life have been put through that by others and it's a nightmare.

How does that relate to the OPs you've objected to, though? They weren't about trying to control you or about trying to control anyone. They were simply about presenting various ideas. If there have been any attempts at control, they've run in the other direction-what else would a demand for "surrender" be? What else is simply labeling some ideas "rejected" and demanding that no one else ?

And really, other than views to your left on economic issues in the posts you've responded, to, what major differences in opinion are there between us?

We are in exact agreement on the need to fight racism, sexism and homophobia and to defend reproductive choice. We agree about environmental issues. We both enthusiastically supported the same candidate last fall.

We agree that no one should be abandoned by this party in the name of short term gains.

[NurseJackie]

98. Think about it. See if you can find any parallels or similarities...

Think about it. See if you can find any parallels or similarities between my life's experiences and how those things remind me of someone who feels entitled to remain distant and uncommitted yet is still trying to control things through intimidation and insults and denigration and various threats. (Hint: not you.)

We are in exact agreement on the need to fight racism, sexism and homophobia.

No we're not. Not at all. There's nothing at all "exact" about my views and yours. My views on those things are NOT "back-burner" or "trickle-down" or mere political afterthoughts. (I notice that you neglected to mention choice. Interesting. Okay. Whatever.)

We agree that no one should be abandoned by this party in the name of short term gains.

I can't speak to that because it's too vague. Is this another one of those mind-blowing things like "Discussion is simply discussion."

(Still waving.)

[Ken Burch]

99. OK, left out choice there-added it now, thanks-but there's no difference between us on that, either.

You're talking to someone who's been pro-choice since grade school, which was when that became a political issue in this country-including lifelong support for federal abortion funding, and has consistently expressed pro-choice views on this board and elsewhere.

Nothing in any of the OPs you objected to called for, or even implied, putting any social issues on the backburner. Haven't called for that and never would.

And there was no difference in commitment on any of those issues between people who supported one primary candidate and the other. The progressive side of the spectrum is universally pro-choice, pro-feminist and antiracist.

[NurseJackie]

100. Exactly as I described... "an afterthought". Thanks for illustrating my point.

99. OK, left out choice there-added it now,

Exactly as I described... "an afterthought". Thanks for illustrating my point. It's always an afterthought. It makes me sick.

Haven't called for that and never would.

Oh no, never explicitly. I can tell you that I'd never support policies that so do, and I'd never defend or promote people who propose such policies.

I'm smarter than you give me credit for. I may be old, but I'm not feeble. I may be in debt, but I'm not ideologically bankrupt.

And there was no difference in commitment on any of those issues between people who supported one primary candidate and the other.

Irrelevant. I never said anything about that. Why are you bringing up the primary? Stop looking backward. Stop trying to rehash the past. The primary is over. Time to move forward.

(Still waving!)

[guillaumeb]

29. What is considered "realistic" changes constantly.

And like marriage equality and other issues, a single payer healthcare system is an issue that could experience a sudden change as well.

[NurseJackie]

34. Single-payer gets closer to reality with an ACA that functions well and delivers what's promised.

[guillaumeb]

38. Whihc is why, one assumes, that Burch and Senator Sanders

advocate for doing just that.

Reality can be created by citizen pressure.

So I think we all agree that even as the ACA is strengthened, it is still locked into the same paradigm that accepts that the Insurance companies should have a lock on healthcare.

[Eliot Rosewater]

101. looks like ACA is going, all this attention on other stuff, oops

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/350842-gop-senator-says-he-nearly-has-the-votes-for-obamacare-repeal

[NurseJackie]

103. It must be nice to have such luxuries of...

... making others suffer. It's easy to make "sacrifices" at the expense of others. Burn it down ... Just as Sarandon and other political cultists and (so called) non voters wanted.

[Demsrule86]

43. No it won't...while many in the GOP support social justice...the moderates anyway...

None support entitlements.

[guillaumeb]

48. Framing is essential. As the GOP realizes.

Medicare enjoys approval from voters on both sides. That is why naming it Medicare for All works so well. It is a system that seniors already experience.

[Demsrule86]

57. You are wrong. Medicare is approved as a retirement thing...those who have workplace

insurance, the majority, will not want to go on Medicare and they won't want higher taxes either. The insurance companies, Pharmacy industry and the GOP will demonize medicare for all...and we will end up the same as in the 90's with nothing. But this time it will be even worse because we have a GOP president and courts will lost for a generation.

[guillaumeb]

61. You assert that "most people" have workplace insurance.

And if statistics are to be accepted, 70% do have insurance coverage of some sort offered from their employer. But the mere fact of having some sort of coverage does not mean that the coverage functions to cover actual healthcare needs.

I have read articles about employers offering minimal coverage with high premiums, the WalMart model. I personally know a few families who have employer-based coverage with very high deductibles and co-pays. It is coverage but it does not cover much.

The US system is ranked 37th for a reason, and it is not because everything is working smoothly. And the messaging is critical.

The same negatives you cite were also cited as the reasons that many things could not be done. Things like marriage equality, and medical marijuana, and numerous other issues.

[Plucketeer]

32. Nurse, I'm old enough to remember

the positive outlook and the Can Do attitude that this nation once bulged at the seams with. "Grandstanding pie-in-the-sky"? How about forward-thinking, progressive pursuits? How unrealistic would it have been to think we could bust the sound barrier and survive? There were lots of "experts" who said a human couldn't survive such! How about the advancements in medicine that have been made in my 72 years on earth? How about the idea of putting humans on the moon nine years after it was proposed? And yet.... you see it taking more than 25 to 35 years to strangle the money-grubbing, death panel twiddling, middle-scum out of the health care "business"? Really???

[NurseJackie]

36. Single-payer gets closer to reality with an ACA that functions well and delivers what's promised.

[Plucketeer]

60. "delivers what's promised"

To patients or the leech-emulating insurers? The same insurers that more willingly give "payouts" to legislators than their ailing clients.

[Arazi]

2. Yup that point was explicitly made in today's announcement

Those who keep saying Bernie and the co-sponsors are not going to keep pushing for the ACA and improvements are just demonstrating their ignorance (and that they didn't watch today)

[Demsrule86]

16. Where can I find information on the bill submitted by Sen. Sanders which improves the ACA...

We will lose insurance companies if something isn't done soon...and those who think the ACA's demise would usher in single payer are delusional, we would have nothing for years.

[guillaumeb]

49. Yes, that point was made.

But people insist that single payer is unrealistic, or decades away, or it will never be accepted. And they have no proof, simply opinions.

[Autumn]

5. Some people can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Talking about Medicare for All will not prevent or distract any Democrat from defending the ACA.

If anyone gets distracted that easily from two very important issues perhaps they need a diffent job?

[beam me up scottie]

8. Yes, and it's insulting to imply the senators who support this bill won't fight for the ACA.

They have been fighting for the ACA and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.

This is a false dilemma, it's not either the ACA or the Medicare for All bill, they can easily support both.

Health care as a basic human right isn't a distraction, and legislators who support Medicare for All aren't indulging in "grandstanding pie-in-the-sky" pony chases.

Like they said, it's the right thing to do.

[Autumn]

9. It's worse than an insult. Dems have been fighting on all fronts and people who suggest they can't

fight for a better program while defending what little the Republicans have left us with all their tricks they have used attempting to wipe out the ACA is a disgrace.

[beam me up scottie]

19. A poster up-thread lost their home because of health care costs.

To call this a distraction is a slap in the face to everyone who is suffering under the current system.

We can do both, fight for what we have and demand better. Not trying isn't an option.

[Autumn]

22. I saw that. We can and should do both. I'm shocked to see Dems who think that we just need to

wrire bills toi improve the ACA. They overlook the fact that the Republicans don't have to put up bills to repeal it. All the GOP has to do is let it die.

[beam me up scottie]

25. That is the GOP plan, they even admitted it

So why would Republicans vote to improve the ACA when they're trying to appeal it and stated they're willing to let it die if they can't? And even if by some miracle Democrats managed to change Republicans' minds Trump won't sign any bill that improves the ACA.

I don't think that's a very realistic scenario.

Neither will happen but that's not a reason to stop fighting for both the ACA and Medicare for All.

Our senators can walk and chew gum at the same time, they can play defense and offense. I think they're more than up for the challenge.

[Demsrule86]

15. That is not the point...all this talk about single payer and doing a bill at this time reminds

me of the numerous bills to repeal the ACA during the Obama years. It won't happen. Single payer has no shot at the moment, and we could be writing bills to improve the ACA right now instead of focusing on this which is a waste of time and energy. If we lose the ACA, we will have no health insurance and God knows how many will die.

[Ken Burch]

75. Bills should be written to fix the ACA. But those who want us to just fix the ACA

are the people with the responsibility for writing those bills.

The creation of bills like that(bills everyone who backs MFA would obviously all support) is up to people like Pelosi and Schumer.

The introduction of the MFA bill doesn't prevent those bills from being written.

[murielm99]

13. Not there are groups threatening

to primary any Democrat who does not follow their path. That is exactly what you are saying too, by suggesting they they need to find a different job. We need unity, not threats from the naive far left.

This is a purity test and pure grandstanding.

[Autumn]

35. You are really reaching to get there from what I said.

If anyone gets distracted that easily from two very important issues perhaps they need a diffent job?

That in no way suggests anyone be primaried. I don't know about you but I wouldn't hire anyone who can't focus on more than one thing and I sure wouldn't vote for a politiciuan who can only focus on one thing.

My whole post

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029590265#post5

Autumn (30,214 posts)

Some people can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Talking about Medicare for All will not prevent or distract any Democrat from defending the ACA.

If anyone gets distracted that easily from two very important issues perhaps they need a diffent job?

[guillaumeb]

41. Your initial post was quite clear. eom

[murielm99]

53. I read it the first time.

You implied a threat to any Democrat who does not do exactly what you want. And I don't need to read it a third time. Your implication is clear.

And what would that threat be, other than a a primary challenge? And what is Our Revolution doing? Threatening to primary Democrats. We don't need this crap.

[Demsrule86]

17. Oh by the way, it already has distracted attention from the ACA.

[tomp]

28. Apparently, we have some Gerald Ford democrats. nt

[Demsrule86]

44. Right anyone that disagrees with you is not a Democrat...you should read TOS.

Single payer is not the be all end all people think...in this country, the majority of people get healthcare at work..subsidized by their employers...and you think they will willingly assume the burden of substantially higher taxes plus some sort of gap insurance as Medicare only covers 80%? I say they won't and will punish us for trying. They like the ACA...keep an improved version, add a public option and reduce medicare to 55. We have a shot at that.

[tomp]

50. You misinterpret.

This was a kind of joke. Gerald ford was said not to be able to walk and chew gum simultaneously. I used his name because in my memory he is associated with the phrase, not because he was a Repub.

I knew some tho-skinned person would respond as you did.

That being said, I agree with the premise that democrats in congress can do more than one thing at a time, and to suggest otherwise should be considered an insult to any intelligent and well-meaning dem.

[Demsrule86]

55. Calling someone a Ford Democrat is really calling them a Republican and you know it.

As for doing both things at once...sure they could, but they are not...and single payer won't happen any time soon... and now the ACA is endangered. Personally, if we lose the ACA, I will never forgive any politician involved and neither will the voters.

[Autumn]

59. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Al Franken and the others all know what they are doing.

They can defend the ACA and push for better health care at the same time. I have complete faith in them.

[disillusioned73]

63. Those names..

siding w/ Bernie is realing causing some problems around these parts..

[Autumn]

64. True.

[Demsrule86]

86. They all plan to run for president. I don't blame them...but I think it is a foolish thing to do.

[Demsrule86]

87. Really.

You have offered no explanation for this comment.

"Apparently, we have some Gerald Ford democrats. nt"

What is your meaning...unless I missed a post...you have not addressed this.

[Autumn]

58. It's a feature. If you say "the sky is blue" what you actualy said is "the sky is green and I'm

going shopping and will be combing my hair for a week."

[George II]

11. If it distracts even an ounce of energy required to fight for maintaining the ACA it conflicts.

[guillaumeb]

31. And who set that standard? Apart from you?

Are you only able to focus on one issue at a time? If the answer is no, do you assume that politicians cannot work on more than one issue?

[George II]

37. Thanks for your courteous response.

[guillaumeb]

40. You are welcome.

And you are welcome to your opinion.

[Demsrule86]

12. Yes it does...and we will be demonized in 2020

It will be just like Hillarycare...and lose our shot at Congress...so stupid to do this now.

[Lee Adama]

20. I completely disagree with your take.

[Ken Burch]

66. Care to say why?

I'd like to hear what your argument is on that.

[Lee Adama]

67. No, thanks.

[Ken Burch]

69. Is it just because I was the one who posted the OP?

Last edited Thu Sep 14, 2017, 06:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Some people take all of my posts as code for "adopt Bernie's platform, word for word".

They aren't. That isn't my objective, and I wish everybody could just accept that.

[Lee Adama]

72. I choose not to answer that question.

[Ken Burch]

73. Actually, you just did.

Last edited Fri Sep 15, 2017, 01:46 AM - Edit history (1)

You clearly believe that about me.

And clearly, you will respond with automatic hostility to whatever I post here.

I will make a mental note of that and take any such response from you in that spirit.

Such is life, I guess.

[Lee Adama]

74. On second thought.

Just not worth it.

[Atticus]

102. Ken, you have correctly assessed this individual. Note that he's been here

5 whole days and has almost 80 posts.

[Warpy]

39. No, it's to frighten the wingnuts into voting against repeal

because if they repeal the ACA, they'll be largely unemployed in January 2019 because of it and Medicare for All will get passed, insurance companies still out there but offering supplementary insurance, only.

[Demsrule86]

46. You can't be sure of that with the gerrymander...and after 18,we still have Trump...thus

thousands will die...maybe you are OK with that...I don't understand such an attitude , but I am not. It took 100 years to get the ACA and now you and others are willing to throw it away for nothing.

[Warpy]

47. Your leaps of illogic are truly astonishing

and insulting as hell.

Buh-bye.

[Ken Burch]

93. That isn't true. We are all equally committed to saving the ACA from repeal.

And the introduction of the MFA bill has nothing to do with the fact that nobody has introduced a bill fixing the ACA. THAT bill should have been introduced in 2013, when we still had a majority in the Senate. Even passing it in one chamber would have reshaping the debate.

[ucrdem]

52. Oh please. Does it do anything else is the question.

Because ACA isn't good enough for some of us I guess.

[Bradical79]

65. It's defenitely not good enough for some -nt

[Ken Burch]

94. It does a number of other things.

It helps mobilize grassroots support for the concept of universal healthcare.

It helps move us past the Clinton/Sanders divide of the past-a divide no one has any good reason to want preserved.

Also, it increases support for the ideas of saving and fixing the ACA(why HAVEN'T any of the original sponsors of the ACA introduced an ACA repair bill yet? They're the ones who have the primary responsibility for doing that), by allowing supporters of those bills to argue that saving and improving the ACA is a way to hold off single-payer.

Those three things would do a lot to change the political dynamic in our favor.

[kentuck]

56. There should be a transition from ACA to single payer.

Unless, the Republicans can come up with a better idea?

[Autumn]

62. I read Bernie's plan would be a 4 year transition.

I need to look for that post.

[PatrickforO]

77. I agree. It does not distract or confuse. It is what we stand for.

[Joe941]

88. Honestly I don't care if it does...

ACA is dead - way too expensive. I can't afford it and am without insurance now. We need free healthcare for all! Let ACA die! Bernie's plan is the correct path forward!

[ZX86]

95. I completely agree.

The disturbing trend of false dilemmas between social justice vs economic justice and single payer vs ACA is getting quite tiresome.