The concept of health care as a right cannot be implemented "incrementally".

[Bonobo]

Last edited Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:05 AM - Edit history (2)

It is a conversation that strikes to the very core of the social contract between the state and the citizen that needs to happen.

And only Bernie Sanders is talking about it.

[Hoyt]

1. Some folks want to choose how they get financial access to system.

For you and I, Medicare/caid for all would be fine. Others don't agree, including majority of Congress. That's an obstacle.

[DanTex]

2. The policies that actually provide healthcare to people can, though.

I think it's great that Bernie is talking about abstract concepts. It's also good that we have Hillary to actually get some things done.

[Bonobo]

3. Let's suppose (though I think it is nonsense) that ONLY Hillary could increase the number

of insured people.

In the end, we still will have no change to the "abstract concept" (way to de-value the right of people to health care as opposed to letting them acquire privatized health insurance!) that it is the right of people to receive health care.

Imagine, Dan, if we were talking about water here.

You could argue that it is more important to get people water as opposed to having a conversation about whether or not water is a "right". And maybe it is more important.

But if all we got was making water accessible to everyone by paying high fees to Nestle's for water that was their right as a taxpaying citizen, I think that is not good enough.

I want both. I want everyone to get health care AND I want to reach a national consensus that health care is a right.

Hillary is doing nothing to move us in that direction. And she will NOT do anything to move us in that direction.

That is a failure of vision and represents a sad lack of Progressive values.

[DanTex]

7. Bernie might too, as long as he drops the single payer fantasy.

OK, let's imagine we're talking about water. Yes, I think it's more important to get people water than to discuss whether water is a right.

Sure, talking about water is important, but not at the expense of people actually having water. And you don't need to be president to contribute to the philosophical discourse about what is and what is not a right.

But by far the worst outcome is talking a big talk about water rights and then losing the presidency to a guy who thinks that having people die of thirst is the American way.

[Lordquinton]

52. Your last line ends in a non-sequitur

So your argument is to settle with someone who things what we have is good enough and refuses outright to fight for anything better?

[left lowrider]

58. Your analogy is so clear - thanks

NT

[Bonobo]

59. Thank you for saying so. nt

[Rilgin]

5. I thought your argument was only She would beat back a Republican Victory

I have not seen a single post of your arguing she will actually make progress. You usually step in when people post inconvenient history on Clinton. You then just argue that you are only concerned about having a Republican President.

As far I can see, there are a few (very few) things Hillary has had positive effect on. She was involved in expanding Childrens Healthcare. She also has consistently spoken out for Women's rights although most of this was just speech. Although she redefines herself constantly, I believe that she believes in reproductive rights and for some issues that would support women and children.

However, other than these past speeches and the one program what exactly do you see that Hillary is great about "get some things done." quoting you. speeches really are not getting anything done.

What foreign policy votes do you identify as being correct. As SOS, what decisions (not speeches) were correct and moves us and the middle east forward. On domestic policy, what were her victories.

On the other hand, there are numerous criticisms of specific votes of hers in the past including Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Recently, I posted about her vote on Cluster Munitions and still have not obtained a single post from a Hillary Supporter presenting a reason or justification for her Vote against a ban on using Cluster Munitions in civilian areas.

Mostly I just want to find a basis for your statement that she will "get things done"

[DanTex]

8. That's true also. And that is the most important thing.

Of course she'll make progress. She will make Obama-style progress, and the rate of progress will depend upon the progress we can make in congress. Same with Bernie, although I think that he wouldn't be as effective with the political fights. Either way, we're looking at incremental progress. But since Bernie is more likely to lose to the GOP, Hillary is the clear choice.

[Lordquinton]

53. Bernie is more likely to win against eh Republicans

Might fact check there.

[jeff47]

6. Please explain how she gets a bill to expand the ACA through Congress.

Keep in mind it is nearly mathematically impossible for us to win the House in 2016, and will not have 60 Senate votes even if we retake the Senate.

Also keep in mind the Republicans just held a doomed vote to override Obama's veto of their latest bill to kill the ACA. And Republican governors are literally killing their own citizens instead of letting Medicaid expand, for free.

How, specifically, does she get the Republicans to vote to expand the ACA?

[TCJ70]

9. He can't...neither can she though...

...at the debate she totally dodged that question by going through a list of things she wants.

[DanTex]

10. She doesn't. It'll have to be executive actions, I don't see much coming out of congress.

Maybe with immigration she can pull a few GOP votes and get something done. Obama managed to have a relatively productive second term despite GOP opposition, which reiterates the point that it's political skill and not ideological purity that actually matters. But it's going to be a fight the whole way, whether it's Bernie or Hillary.

The big thing, as always, is that Bernie loses to the GOP.

[Old Crow]

11. I don't get it.

In every poll I've seen that studies the matchups, Sanders does better than Clinton against any Republican opponent.

So why are Clinton supporters still repeating the falsehood that "Bernie loses to the GOP"?

The reality is: Clinton loses to the GOP.

[DanTex]

13. GE polls this far out are meaningless. Everyone knows this.

If you look historically, polls this far out from an election have little or no correlation with the outcome. For some reason Bernie supporters are the only people who seem unaware of this well-documented fact. Might as well check astrological charts.

[Old Crow]

17. That's an interesting response.

As unreliable as they may be, these early GE polls are data.

What you got? Gut instinct? The astrological charts you mention? Since you state that "Bernie loses to the GOP" with such conviction you must have something. What's that? No? You got nothing but an opinion?

Forgive me, but I'll go with the data.

[DanTex]

18. It's a factual response. Astrological charts are data also. Also meaningless.

[Old Crow]

20. Not a factual response.

It's an opinion. The opinion of someone who's choosing to ignore data because it conflicts with said opinion.

And no, astrological charts are not data. Good try, though.

[DanTex]

21. Astrological charts do contain data. It's just that it's useless, as are GE polls this far out.

Obviously, you're going to go with whatever you can to support your predetermined views. That's very common. If you're interested in something more reality-based:
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/5/10923304/bernie-sanders-general-election

[Old Crow]

23. I disagree strongly.

It's an upside-down world you live in.

I'm referring to the data in multiple polls to support a view. You, on the other hand, are choosing to reject the data, have no data of your own, and are instead basing your opinion on who-knows-what.

Yet you make the statement that "you're going to go with whatever you can to support your predetermined views."

Alrighty, then.

[DanTex]

27. Of course you do. That's what usually happens when I present a factual case to Bernie fans.

But you really should read that Vox article. Believe or not, there are people who study political science professionally. Don't be afraid of seeing what they have to say.

[Old Crow]

32. Your condescension and snide tone don't help your argument.

You make a snide remark about how Bernie "fans" react to your "factual case." You imply I don't know that there are people who study political science. You advise me not to be "afraid of seeing what they have to say."

I'll just move past the attitude and respond to the article that you added on to your last post.

The main premise of that Vox piece is based on the psychological principle of loss aversion. And the author uses it to buttress the dishonest campaign strategy of Hillary Clinton herself: If voters are misled into thinking that Bernie Sanders will TAKE AWAY THEIR HEALTHCARE, he reasons, they'll be averse to voting for him.

Well, yeah: If you base your analysis on a lie, you can pretty much arrive at the conclusion that no one will vote for Bernie Sanders. I don't consider that kind of analysis, if you can call it that, helpful.

Furthermore, going back to our earlier topic of data vs. opinion, the article contains not one iota of data. Rather, it is a collection of opinions of six political scientists who are all so far right on the political spectrum that they have somehow not noticed that the general public have grown averse to establishment politics.

Do you have any actual data to share? You know, to make your "factual case"?

[DanTex]

34. You should read past the first paragraph of the Vox article.

There are actual several political scientists who base their cases on both data and history, and though they all come to similar conclusions, there are many different arguments there. Obviously, you want to accuse them of lying, like I said, that's how Bernie fans respond when presented with facts and reason. But try reading it again. It just might be the case that people who study politics for a living might know a little more than someone who wants to trust election polls ten months out because that's "data."

[Old Crow]

36. You can't drop the condescension, can you?

I tend to lose interest in trading posts with anonymous internet posters who are snide, so I'm moving on, thanks.

Have a good night.

[DanTex]

37. Always a good time!

[HERVEPA]

43. The polls are meaningless, but your psychic revelations aren't?

[jeff47]

22. You forgot to be specific.

What executive actions can she take?

And keep in mind, as soon as it costs more than $0, she can't do it without Congress.

As for political skill, you do realize that Sanders has passed more legislation through this Congress than any Democrat, right? There's a reason he's considered "the king of amendments".

[DanTex]

24. It'll be great watching Sanders amend bills from the White House. Umm, wait.

The "king of amendments." LOL. Almost sound like an SNL parody.

Anyway, like I've said, the key thing is beating the GOP, and Sanders loses that one by a margin.

PS. Have you fabricated any quotes lately?

[jeff47]

28. You forgot to list what executive actions Clinton can take

to expand the ACA.

Almost like there aren't any, and you're actually peddling some unicorn farts.

Time to show your hand, Dan. What executive actions can Clinton take to expand the ACA?

[jeff47]

33. Still got no list? But you claimed she had a plan, Dan.

Isn't she the experienced one who has a plan for everything she's going to do?

I don't know the exact executive actions, of course. It's not a simple topic, lawyers spend a lot of time figuring out how to get things accomplished, and until Obama did it, it wasn't clear how far it could go.

Reagan invaded Granada on "executive actions". If you think Obama pushed the envelope, you've got no idea what you're talking about.

How about making some guesses on what executive actions Clinton can take to strengthen the ACA? Surely a man of your massive political experience could propose one or two without the Clinton campaign holding your hand?

I mean, it would be awful if you were just pushing some fantasies that could never actually come to pass, wouldn't it? You'd never let a candidate get away with promising a unicorn, right?

[DanTex]

35. You think I'm just going to forget that you fabricate quotes out of thin air in order to support

arguments that are indefensible? Really? You think that just by pretending that you weren't caught red-handed doing that, that I'm gonna somehow decide, gee, usually people who invent facts aren't to be trusted, but maybe in this case since he's completely ignoring it, it didn't actually happen.

Is that what you think?

Oh, and yeah, executive actions are complicated. As you know. Or maybe you don't. But I'm really curious about the fabricated quotes.

[jeff47]

41. C'mon Dan. It would be wrong to promise something she could never get, right?

After all, that's what you attack Sanders for. So she couldn't possibly be doing the same thing.

Oh, and yeah, executive actions are complicated.

But you insist that other complicated systems like funding university tuition and breaking up too big to fail banks be completely spelled out by a candidate before they are proposed. To do otherwise is that candidate promising a unicorn.

It couldn't possibly be you constructed some sort of hypocritical framework where Clinton's impossible proposals are good while Sanders's impossible proposals are bad. Not someone as aware and politically astute as you are.

(Doesn't it suck when they just won't take the alert-bait, Dan? I mean you hurl personal attack after personal attack, and they just won't stop talking about the original subject.)

So what executive actions could she take to strengthen the ACA?

[DanTex]

42. Man, you sure don't want to talk about fabricated quotes!

That's too bad. I was kinda curious. A far as the other thing, obviously you see what I'm saying. Or maybe not. Or maybe you do, but then you change my words to something else.

In my opinion, it's not something to run away from. YMMV.

[jeff47]

46. Change your words? Your words are right there.

In fact, they're all over DU attacking Sanders and Sanders supporters for not having complete proposals that can realistically be implemented in the next year or so.

So surely you'd be unhappy with the same exact thing from Clinton, right? You wouldn't just toss out "She'll expand the ACA" without there actually being a complete, realistic proposal. You keep saying that kind of thing demonstrates a lack of experience, and with all your praise for Clinton's experience she could never do that.

So what's her proposal, Dan? How does she "build on" the ACA? There must be a specific, implementable plan or you'd never have claimed she had a plan.

[Bonobo]

50. He's dead, Jim. nt

[jeff47]

51. He's pining for the fjords. (nt)

[Bonobo]

54. An ex-parrot. nt

[Contrary1]

60. Can't respond. He's on a time out. n/t

[jeff47]

64. Well, he couldn't respond before the time out either. (nt)

[bettyellen]

66. tell us more about the quotes, Jeff.

[jeff47]

67. What quotes?

Dan was disrupting. He did poorly.

[bettyellen]

68. the fabricated quotes! got a link, so I can see how untrue the accusation was?

[jeff47]

69. A link to I have no idea what he's talking about?

How, exactly, would you like me to produce that?

Dan was trying to goad me into saying something alert-worthy, or at a minimum change the subject.

[Doctor_J]

4. especially when the "increments" are AWAY FROM the actual goal

Conservatives seem to be congenital liars

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. KnR

[Ferd Berfel]

14. another K&R

quite right!


Incremental change just provides the Fascist Bastards the time and opportunity to control and fuck up the changes.

[ThreeWayFanny]

15. Then, I guess . ...

.... it can't be implemented, because it's incremental or nothing. Oh well....

[CharlotteVale]

16. K&R

[SheilaT]

19. Even though I recall the passing of Medicare,

and even though I recall how doctors said it would be the absolute death of any sort of reasonable health care in this country, what I honestly don't know is how long it took to enroll everyone over the age of 65 in it. I'm pretty sure that at the beginning only what today we call Part A was in effect, and that Part B came along some time later.

I do know that after Social Security was passed, there was a time -- maybe two or three years? -- before anyone started receiving SS checks. I do know that a number of people got a one time check, always in a heartbreakingly small amount, and then those who'd been paying into the system started receiving the monthly checks.

I do think we honestly need to consider phasing in universal health care, but do it as quickly as possible. I'd say in no less than five years.

We do also have to give thought to those who will be put out of work because of this. I, for one, would be happy to give them double whatever the length of unemployment is, and that should be mandated at a federal level. There are going to be people who've worked in that field their entire adult lives, who may well be over age 50, and who are going to have trouble finding a new job. We can't just toss them out to starve in the streets.

[Hoyt]

25. When Social Security was first enacted, very few women or minorities were covered. Much better now.

[Uncle Joe]

26. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Bonobo.

[Enthusiast]

29. Kicked and recommended!

[Arazi]

30. Kicked and Recced eom

[pnwmom]

38. That's because "concepts" aren't implemented. Plans are implemented.

And a plan CAN be implemented step by step -- or incrementally.

[senz]

39. K&R. Thanks, Bonobo.

[highprincipleswork]

40. Right on. You can definitely say that again.

[DrBulldog]

44. Remember the incremental approach for African-American rights?

You know, we started with that they were only 3/5 of a human?

How did that work out, folks?

[Akamai]

45. Several years ago, a Scandinavian country was changing from the right lane to the right lane --

and they sure didn't move incrementally, on noon of a day, all the cars moves in the country that were driving moved over to the other lanes.

Incremental changes oftentimes don't work -- this is one of those times.

Go Bernie!!!

[cui bono]

48. But you have to admit, that's not much of a change.

I think you meant to say 'left' for one of those 'rights'.

.

[HERVEPA]

47. FYI (#5)

On Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:23 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You forgot to answer about your fabricated quotes? Any new ones?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1170498

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This guy is badgering another DUer, claiming they "fabricate" things - in other words LIE - and that is against TOS from what I understand.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Feb 7, 2016, 10:36 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Don't be too sensitive. And remember the forum where you choose to post.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This poster (DanTex) is definitely acting as a corrosive element on DU now. If any quotations were "fabricated", they should be adduced. Since this poster could not/did not show that his statement is true - which would have been an adequate defense for such a statement - it should be hidden.

This poster should have a care whether DU's community can survive his kind of support for a candidate.

Both sides should take care not to destroy this community.

Facts and data should be presented and discussed. Opinions should be respectfully discussed.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: What the alerter says. He is *repeatedly* lobbing an unsubstantiated charge of lying against a fellow DUer, and with no evidence, the other guy has no way to defend himself. These accusations seem to be of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" variety.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I am sick unto death of this petty sniping between Democrats. Time outs for everyone!

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Babel_17]

49. If you don't live in that world, it doesn't seem such an obvious point

Thankfully some are aware of a world larger than the one most of our elites glide through.

[Bonobo]

55. Yes, I'm afraid that's true.

They cannot comprehend the fear of such a life on the edge.

[zipplewrath]

56. Kinda depends.

We can definitely implement it one person at a time. Every person who joins moves us towards the ultimate goal, unlike the ACA.bt g.iom

[Bonobo]

57. Yes, but that "goal" is health insurance for all that does not (directly) advance the notion

that health CARE is a right.

And that is a very important distinction.

[area51]

61. +1 n/t

[LWolf]

62. K & R

[MineralMan]

63. While rights are absolute, the implementation of

establishing protection for those rights is almost always incremental. That has long been the case. It shouldn't be, but it is. At some level, every civil right we have is still in progress for establishment and protection.

One cannot simply declare something a right and expect it to be honored. That trick never works.

[Utopian Leftist]

65. Bernie's plan will put most of

the medical Insurance industry out of work. What do we need them for anyway, what good or service do they provide, that has any value to We The People, whatsoever?

It is time to do what Obama did not have the political capital to do . . . and when we pass true universal health care, there will be or should be dancing in the streets for the trillions of dollars that it will save taxpayers over the ensuing decade.