Hillary supporters are calling single payer health insurance a "pie in the sky" fantasy

[Cheese Sandwich]

Maybe they are just doing that to score political points against Sanders.

But it is a serious problem because by doing that they are actually convincing people that it is a pie in the sky fantasy. Except it's not a fantasy at all because Cananda has it and it works a lot better than what we've got.

Don't believe the hype. A national health insurance program is something worth fighting for. How hard would it be to pass? It will be a lot harder with Democrats fighting against it. With a President Hillary Clinton it would be impossible because she will actively work to crush the dream just like her supporters are doing right now.

[Broward]

1. They are a big part of the problem, not the solution.

We must take the Party back from the conservatives.

[BainsBane]

5. "Conservatives" like Bernie himself?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

[earthside]

13. Political analysis over 5 years old.

Last edited Tue Nov 24, 2015, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)

See ... things change; all that may have been Sen. Sander's analysis half a decade ago.

But he's never given up on what is best for poor and average Americans ... or even for the rich.

Too bad we can't say the same thing about Margaret Thatc... I mean Hillary Clinton.

[BainsBane]

20. What has changed to make single payer more viable now?

In 2009 there was a Democratic majority in both houses. Now we have a GOP majority in both. In what conceivable way does that make single payer more possible?

The principle difference is that Sanders is now running for president, and he sees advantage in promising something he said was a non-started a few years ago.

[earthside]

26. A Sanders Presidency!

What a downer to keep harping on how impossible it is to get progressive legislation passed ... that seems to be the Hillarian mantra.

Hillary and her angry supporters ought to adopt a more positive liberal-progressive agenda -- single payer health care is at the bedrock of what it means to be a forward leading and leaning Democrat.

[BainsBane]

41. How can a president implement single payer without congressional approval?

Yes, it's a downer. It's also employing critical thinking rather than swallowing a bill of goods. You are being had. The sad thing is you prefer pandering to viable policy proposals. It may make you feel better, but it does absolutely nothing to insure Americans.

[earthside]

44. Still a downer ...

... we are going to still have a completely Repuglican Congress in 2017 from what you are arguing.

I'm more optimistic.

[BainsBane]

49. What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?

Which districts can the Democrats pick up to turn the House. Do the math. Tell me which will turn and how the Democrats will get around GOP gerrymandering?

The issue is too important to indulge your desire to feel good. Apparently all you care about is being told what you want to hear. And you wonder why government doesn't change.

[sulphurdunn]

80. Pragmatism is useful

so far as developing strategies to change the status quo, but not for making apologies about its imagined omnipotence.

[Javaman]

113. I find it amazing that you are arguing against single payer. wow. nt

[notadmblnd]

129. All hope is lost. Might as well give up and settle for a Republican president since HRC would be in

the same sinking boat. You keep claiming that republicans wouldn't work with Sanders- what make you think they'll be more inclined to work with HRC? She's more despised than Sanders so unless she has some very persuasive wiles to work on them- she will have the exact same problem.

So please, explain to me how she's going to keep any of her PROMISES?

OH, I know- she's gonna go before congress and tell them to "cut it out."

[Duval]

117. I am also, earthside. And how we accomplish this

is getting out the vote. That's how Obama won, with a huge number of people voting. And that's how we will win!

[DaveT]

74. pandering?

That is rich. The Hillary Campaign on this board is dedicated to the proposition that things like Single Payer are impossible. Well, it is certainly impossible if you don't try.

But the hilarity of your post comes from your implication that something else might be "viable" when the Tea Party controls the House of Representatives. Without a strategy for dealing with the gerrymandered wingnut majority in Congress, your candidate is offering nothing but defeatism.

Obama has spent almost five years trying to get them to compromise with him. How's that working out?

Sanders says out front that his wish list will be a fight. And that it will take pressure from below to pass anything. Which is true. So long as politics is a question of fund raising, there will be nothing worth a crap ever passed by the Congress. You can accept that as the way it has to be -- as you do -- or you can look at the demographic changes in the country and realize that we can beat them. Current polling shows that Sanders matches up against the GOP better than does Madame Juggernaut.

That is the fundamental disagreement between us. You think that liberal politics cannot win. You state it as though it were a fact, but it is just a prediction -- and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Kelvin Mace]

82. There's the difference right there

Sanders will fight, but HRC will seek pragmatic bi-partisan compromises that will safeguard capital markets while allowing for some accommodation for some of the difficulties occasionally experienced by the lower economic strata.

[Sheepshank]

94. Sanders has already conceded that it's not possible

and the rest is reality, knowing he will not get both houses behind his proposal, even if he should ever get elected to the WH.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251845711#post29

[Kelvin Mace]

118. He says it is possible

it just won't come from Washington.

A nuanced difference, but a difference none the less.

[Warren DeMontague]

124. Yeah, and by even the most generous estimates the next POTUS will have to contend with a

GOP house.

Im not sure why you think Secretary Clinton will be able to magically work around that any better than Bernie Sanders would.

[arcane1]

126. That is a question nobody wants to answer, because the answer is toxic:

Clinton will get more done with a republican congress because she'll give the republicans what they want.

[ms liberty]

153. This right here. n/t

[CoffeeCat]

138. I'd rather support a candidate...

...that fights for single payer and is a champion of single payer; as opposed to Hillary, who stands on the sidelines with her curled lip, chiding and mocking Sanders that this is a "pie in the sky idea."

It would not be too difficult to make a case for single payer and put together an effective coalition. We're the only modern country in the world that doesn't have such a system.

Good to know she doesn't have the guts to champion a cause that that is critically important to the majority of Democrats. Good to know that her solution is to publicly mock the idea.

[LiberalArkie]

36. Back then no one wanted to hurt the insurance or pharma companies

The rest of the world does even try to guarantee their profits. When three is only one major player they can say we will pay $X for this drug and $Y for this item in the hospital. If the patient wants something like a breast enlargement then better have a credit card to give to the doctors and hospital.

With the single payer it will be like medicare. Most people will purchase a supplement to cover more that the gov plan does.

[BainsBane]

42. That doesn't address my question

What evidence do you have that the GOP House and Senate supports single payer? And if you believe they do, why not vote for them?

[Turn CO Blue]

149. We're gonna try to pass single-payer in Colorado next year regardless of who thinks it's viable now

AND, at least we will try. Some people are saying single-payer is such a hopeless quest that not even worth discussing, much less fighting for. What?

Let's discuss the viability timeline on another pipedream (pun intended) in Colorado:

In 2007, a referendum failed in Colorado that would have legalized simple possession of marijuana by persons over 21.

IT FAILED BY 20 POINTS.

A mere six years later, Colorado overwhelmingly passed an Amendment to legalize recreational use, that also allows us to grow our own plants, etc. etc.

Point being - things change faster than the you-can't-have-single-payer-for-at-least-twenty-or-thirty-years-crowd wants us to believe.

And we're going to certainly try change the way healthcare works a little faster here in Colorado than the rest of the country may be ready for.

I hope we will be the lead wave on single payer solutions, just like with recreational pot.

And you know what? Even if it doesn't pass on this go round, we can try again a year later, a year after that, a year after that...


Since my family of three is currently paying over $1400 per month for premiums (after employer contribution), you might understand why I will volunteer to work for this amendment to pass like it's a FULL-TIME JOB.

[MADem]

39. Gee, he was hoping Vermont would demonstrate the point--it didn't. It failed BIG time.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/232848-sanders-puts-brave-face-on-single-payer-troubles

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/01/25/costs-derail-vermont-single-payer-health-plan/VTAEZFGpWvTen0QFahW0pO/story.html

[George II]

115. Two things....

First, when Clinton changes a position from about TEN years ago that's a bad thing.

Second, for months we've been hearing that Sanders' big appeal is that he hasn't changed in FIFTY years.

Funny how things work out.

PS - that BS about comparing Clinton to Thatcher is old and never was funny (OR true)

[BlueCaliDem]

54. OOPS. I guess they forgot that.

[Buzz Clik]

105. Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

[MrMickeysMom]

111. I keep seeing the same people re-cycle this article without connecting to its core concept...

Single-payer aside, Sanders chalks up the difficulty Democrats have had passing health care to a mistaken belief about party unity when reform efforts kicked off.

This has always been the fate of getting legislation from the hands of committee to the floor. This latest failure 5 years ago is no different than the iterations of getting the initial Medicare for all to becoming the old-age insurance that it is, and so successfully that it is the model of expansion we need to avoid to catch up with every other industrialized nation who sees healthcare as a RIGHT.

So, you can use the article for reference, but for the interpretation that it represents his "conservative" opinion? No, it's a view of reality over 5 years ago.

Today, the failing system of privately run healthcare under the ACA is still costing us over 17% of the goddamned GDP. You want to wait until complete failure to understand the changes we need to make in it, or are you just going to keep beating the useless drum of ignorance to the issues?

[sabrina 1]

2. I remember during the whole HC bill debate that began from some on the 'left' right away.

Pie in the sky or not, it's what we need and will keep on fighting for no mater how much it bothers those who prefer the Third WAY.

[upaloopa]

67. What bothers people is that they have to figure

out how it works and all you do is "I want this and I want that give it to me."

[Enthusiast]

87. What bothers people....we have the rest of the civilized world as examples. We know how it works.

By the examples already operating know for certain that it more effective and far cheaper than the status quo.

The suggestion all we do is, "I want this and I want that give it to me.", is pure nonsense and insulting.


Suppose Hillary wins the nomination. Do you really think I will vote for her after enduring the abuse from you and others with your constant stream of insults in Hillary's name?

Maybe that is your goal to provoke a fight.

Single payer is dear to my heart. I know all about it. I know those that denigrate single payer are, wittingly or not, doing the work of the health care profiteers.

[Kelvin Mace]

84. It was a simple sell: Medicare "Part E for Everyone"

Leadership requires leading, not back room deals insuring lots of profits for the elites.

[ibegurpard]

3. Hillary will actually fight it

Too much support from people with a stake in medical stocks.

[BainsBane]

4. Bernie Sanders on single payer

March 10, 2010

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it," he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday. . .


Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually -- but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

[Cheese Sandwich]

133. So that's why he wants to help build a mass movement to change that.

Political revolution required to make those changes.

[Jarqui]

6. Maybe what they're admitting is Hillary isn't a good enough leader to get it done ...

or she's too beholden to Wall Street ...

These countries had the leadership to get single payer:
1912 Norway
1938 Japan
1948 United Kingdom
1950 Kuwait
1955 Sweden
1957 Bahrain
1958 Brunei
1966 Canada
1971 United Arab Emirates
1972 Finland
1972 Slovenia
1978 Italy
1979 Portugal
1980 Cyprus
1986 Spain
1990 Iceland

Too bad Hillary isn't up to the task. The good news is Bernie believes he is.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Those countries had the electorates to get single payer.

Hillary isn't a good enough leader to make two plus two equal five, and nor is anyone else.

Here are two facts:

Fact 1: The Republicans will control Congress for the forseeable future, thanks to gerrymandering.
Fact 2: A Republican-controlled Congress will not pass single-payer healthcare.

Yes, single payer would be good for America.
No, that doesn't mean it's not pie in the sky.

[Cheese Sandwich]

22. A Democratic controlled Congress wouldn't pass it either

And if they did Hillary Clinton would probably veto it.

The only way to change that is a mass movement and grass-roots organizing campaign.

And so that's what Bernie Sanders is trying to make happen. That's his political revolution.



edit: DemocratIC

[randys1]

29. Democrat controlled? Dont you mean DemocratIC controlled?

[azurnoir]

43. oooooh good catch

NOT

[randys1]

48. So democRAT is the preferred way around here now?

[azurnoir]

51. except that is not what he wrote - here's a cut and paste of the comment so you can review

Cheese Sandwich (3,749 posts)
22. A Democrat controlled Congress wouldn't pass it either

And if they did Hillary Clinton would probably veto it.

The only way to change that is a mass movement and grass-roots organizing campaign.

And so that's what Bernie Sanders is trying to make happen. That's his political revolution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=845635

[randys1]

55. Democrat should say Democratically...that is how we used to say it anyway

This is not a debate

FACT

RAT is done, on purpose (whether this poster did or not I dont dare say because i dont know, but in general) to demean Democratic party

[azurnoir]

57. no this is about about a rather weak sauce gott-cha type of thing at least IMO

[Lil Missy]

130. No it isn't. Sometimes it's a red flag for a wolf in sheeps clothing.

[azurnoir]

136. and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

and maybe some us define wolf by which candidate a person supports

[treestar]

121. a slip?

[randys1]

123. Dont want to think so

[Cheese Sandwich]

125. Are you sure? Democrat is a noun and Democratic is an adjective right?

In this case it's being used as a noun so wouldn't it be Democrat-controlled?

[randys1]

127. Always say Democratically controlled, Democratic candidate, etc. This is how it has been said

for decades.

The ONLY person or group who benefits by calling it RAT is a rightwinger.

I thought this was a liberal message board.

[Cheese Sandwich]

131. I'm not sure about that. It sounds weird to my ears to it that way

I will research the standard practice and adjust my usage in the future if need be.

Thank you for bringing this important issue to my attention.

[randys1]

135. Senator Joseph McCarthy started calling us rats

[Cheese Sandwich]

137. I don't know what the hell your talking about

I said Democrat-controlled Congress. You want me to say Democratically-controlled Congress. Got it thanks.

[randys1]

139. I was just explaining who started this, whether you are familiar with it or not

Back in the 50's that ass told all the cons to never use the IC or ically and always only use DemocRAT as it makes us sound like rats

just providing a back story is all

thanks

[Cheese Sandwich]

141. OK no problem.

My spelling and grammar are horrible to begin with so that doesn't help either.

I think you have a good point it should be Democratic-controlled Congress because it refers to the Democratic Party.

I'll try to fix it.

[randys1]

142. THanks and I would never pick on spelling or grammar, I am terrible at both

THere are actually times when the "rat" version probably is grammatically correct, but that wasnt the reason they used it, back then

[upaloopa]

71. Mass movement?

A mass twitter movement or mass facebook likes?
Hell people can't be bothered to vote let alone get out from behind their keyboards

Have the country wants to dump the ACA

[DaveT]

85. perfect Hillary supporter

You think that people don't vote because they don't care.

You think that pressure from the people is impossible.

You have already given up.


You can keep your "realism." We won the election of 2008 with an African American whom the right wing called a Muslim and a Socialist. We swept everything. Then, again, in 2012 -- with a horrible record and a terrible economy running against a not-crazy Republican, we defended the White House.

The disastrous elections of 2010 and 2014 were the result of bad turnout by our core constituency. You can blame them for not caring. That is one interpretation.

I say that we should emulate the huge success of the GOP and put a huge emphasis on playing to our base -- not insulting them as being unrealistic.

[rhett o rick]

25. How can you predict "facts"? Not having Single Payer is literally letting some Americans

die. Progressives believe we must fight to fix that. To us it isn't "pie in the sky" or other negative-nellie rationalization.

We were told by the Conservative Wing of the Party to accept Obamacare as the first step to a real honest health insurance system. How long do we wait for step 2?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. Until a large chunk of America's congressional boundaries are redrawn, at the earliest.

I have no reason to believe that will happen any time soon.

[Enthusiast]

92. You have no reason to believe that will happen any time soon.

I have every reason to believe it will happen. Once the American people actually know the truth rather than 100% dishonest misinformation they will insist on single payer.

Bernie won't sit back and allow the insurance industry to define Medicare for All.

We have allowed the profiteers to control the narrative only because politicians collected contributions from the profiteers.

That is the only reason we don't have single payer right now.

It couldn't be more obvious.

[jwirr]

28. Rs control both houses in Congress right now. We have a

chance to take the Senate back in 2016. We will see.

[randys1]

32. It is pie in the sky

but not for the reason you seem to be saying.

The reason is at this time with the vicious and violent teaparty in control of the GOP, it cant happen.

Even if the vicious and violent and racist teaparty were to disappear tomorrow, there is so much money in for profit health/rx/hospitals that you will have to remove more than 2/3rds of house and senate members to get there.

Can be done, will take a long time, many of us will die in the process from not having that which is a basic right

[restorefreedom]

110. plus a thousand. nt

[MaggieD]

50. Reality has a liberal bias

Or should I say it used to have a liberal bias.

Bernie's whole shtick is to promise shit he can in no way deliver, and then smear other candidates who won't make promises they can't keep. He's about has dishonest as they come.

[Jarqui]

65. Those electorates, certainly Canada, was howling "No way!! Commies!!!"

until their leaders walked through the merits, stuck to their guns and got it done

Here's Canada's Saskatchewan (almost Vermont) story
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/healthc.pdf

The CCF won the 1960 election, in spite of a well-funded campaign by doctors in opposition
to the health program. As the government proceeded to put its program into legislation through the
Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act (1961), the doctors continued their campaign against what
they termed "socialized medicine." Accusing the government of "communism" and "compulsory state
medicine," the doctors warned that the province was interfering with their right as professionals to
practice medicine and was attempting to make them "salaried government employees." They warned
that doctors would leave the province rather than work under such a system. Finally, in a last-ditch
effort to force the government to back down on its health care reform, the doctors went on strike on
July 1, 1961, the first day the new legislation came into effect.

The doctors' strike in Saskatchewan lasted 23 days and gained worldwide attention. While
the doctors agreed to maintain emergency services and the provincial hospitals remained open with
reduced staff, most private practitioners closed their offices. Ironically, the mortality rate in the
province declined during the strike, primarily because of the decline in surgery.

While much of the national and international media condemned the doctors action, the local
media supported the doctors and demanded that the government back down on its program. In spite
of the local media's support, as the strike wore on public opinion in Saskatchewan turned against the
doctors. As communities started to recruit doctors willing to work under the health plan from other
parts of Canada, the local doctors' resolve rapidly dwindled. The strike ended with the new health
program still intact. The provincial government negotiated a face-saving agreement with the doctors
which permitted them to opt entirely out of the plan and bill patients privately. With over 900 doctors
in the province at the time, none chose this option. The agreement also permitted doctors to maintain
their own medical insurance companies as clearinghouses for the Medical Care Commission, though
these were eventually eliminated by the doctors themselves as needless duplication.

In spite of the controversial start to the Saskatchewan program, it quickly proved to be a
success. Within a few years, the Saskatchewan model became the prototype for other provinces.

That's the kind of progression Bernie is talking about.

And look:
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f3f51624680366b198b6c5dea8687621?convert_to_webp=true
US spends four times as much on health care per capita as the Czech Republic and has a similar life expectancy - one of the worst of the developed nations. That shouldn't be a hard thing to sell: the US is getting ripped off badly and the real American victims of the policy can't complain very loudly because they're either too sick or dead.

Between 2001 and 2014, 3,063 Americans died in terrorist attacks in America.
In that same time, 631,700 Americans died because they didn't have healthcare. I'm not exaggerating. Think about that number for a moment. And then convince me why I should accept "pie in the sky" tax cuts that won't stop those deaths without healthcare. If Bernie's leader, at least we're past the point of having to argue with the President about it. This is a disgusting travesty. With Hillary, she'll have to ask Wall Street what they think about it because unlike Bernie, she lacks the fortitude to take a stand and really save some lives. Hillary's policy is to kick that can down the road with tax cuts - and continue to let folks die.

I don't think that's a pie in the sky argument if the Koch Brothers and Wall Street don't own your leaders like they seem to own Hillary and Congress. The costs and life expectancies and deaths without health care are facts - the simple truth. The rest of the "pie in the sky" crap is largely smoke to cover for the fat cats siphoning money from hard working Americans that cuts their loves short.

Enough.

[BainsBane]

21. Yet he wasn't in 2009

When we had a Democratic majority in both houses. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

[azurnoir]

46. Thanks the article highlights the problem with 3rd wayers and DINO's

[Enthusiast]

102. Huge +1!

[Gary 50]

109. To dream the impossible dream...

that America might aspire to catch up to Norway in 1912.

[eridani]

150. And in the 90s, Taiwan and South Korea

Both of which chose the Canadian model.

[BootinUp]

7. We are just repeating what Bernie Sanders said. Nice try though. nt

[rhett o rick]

27. Does that mean you think it's "pie in the sky"? nm

[BootinUp]

40. A full blown single payer? I don't see that any time soon, but,

I can see a Public Option added to ACA maybe in 10 years. Something like what many of us wanted in ACA.

The Democratic Party has a lot of work to get there though, and not do anything stupid to add to the anti-government feelings in our society.

[rhett o rick]

64. At the current rate the ACA will implode before that. My rates went up 33% this year. How

many years of that can we take? We need to fight for better now. The Status Quo is killing people today. Please join the fight to get corruption out of politics.

[mmonk]

8. Canada's pie in the sky system

works better than our "free dumb" "realistic" plan.

[pinebox]

9. And it's not just that either

See my OP here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=76743

[winter is coming]

11. So the US is incapable of doing something other countries have accomplished?

How does that square with the usual "we're the best country in the world!" rhetoric?

[TIME TO PANIC]

12. It is "pie in the sky" if Hillary is elected.

at least for another eight years. I don't know how they sleep at night.

[smiley]

66. They don't sleep at night...

They're political vampires sucking the lifeblood out of the hopes and aspirations of the American middle class.
(sorta)

[Enthusiast]

95. Huge +1!

[brooklynite]

14. Two of the three Democratic candidates have issued health care plans w/o Single Payer

Maybe they have a broader understanding of the issue and the political implications than Sanders does.

[pinebox]

16. Which would still leave millions uninunsired

[brooklynite]

17. Which issue would you like not to be addressed while time is spent on Single-Payer?

[pinebox]

148. you can't address the uninsured with the ACA

because it's state dependent with Medicaid.

[Major Hogwash]

99. BOOM goes the dynamite!

They must not be paying attention to the details.

[randys1]

31. NO, but the health insurance and hospital and RX lobbies are so rich and powerful

that it may appear they do.

[brooklynite]

33. So Martin O'Malley is a sell-out as well?

[randys1]

38. So you think there is NO influence by the BILLIONS in healthcare on a politician

who does NOT promote universal healthcare?

If so you are saying he and you both believe that yes many countries can do this but we cant

This is your position

[brooklynite]

45. My opinion is that a thoughful politician knows how much political capital was expended on ACA...

...and having a range of policy issues he/she wants to address (minimum wage; bank reform; immigration) may reasonably feel that investing time and energy in an almost certainly futile effort to implement Single Payer (at least until the House shifts -- not likely until 2022) is not the best plan for the immediate future.

FWIW - Elizabeth Warren also doesn't support Single Payer; another sell-out?

[azurnoir]

47. and so is the candidate they support

[randys1]

53. Well, once again, if the GOP gets to decide, you will have NO HC unless you have a job

I mean NO

Medicare
Medicaid
nothing

Oh, social security, Nope, not that either

So while I am fully in support of single payer I do remind myself what the reality might be

[azurnoir]

56. except it's already law the GOP tried 45 times to change it and can not

same with medicare
same with medicaid

[randys1]

59. So you support the use of RAT...got it...BTW, you need to know that I point this out no matter

who does it or what the context is

So sell your weak sauce elsewhere

[azurnoir]

63. Nice try false accusations can indicate a rather weak position

let's go back and review the subthread you ran away

Cheese Sandwich (3,749 posts)
22. A Democrat controlled Congress wouldn't pass it either

And if they did Hillary Clinton would probably veto it.

The only way to change that is a mass movement and grass-roots organizing campaign.

And so that's what Bernie Sanders is trying to make happen. That's his political revolution.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #22)Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:13 PM

randys1 (12,867 posts)
29. Democrat controlled? Dont you mean DemocratIC controlled?

https://twitter.com/DidTheyLetUVote http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#campaign
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers

Response to randys1 (Reply #29)Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:28 PM
Star Member azurnoir (41,209 posts)
43. oooooh good catch


NOT
The people evolve to catch up to Bernie, Hillary evolves to catch up to the people
Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers

Response to azurnoir (Reply #43)Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:32 PM
randys1 (12,867 posts)
48. So democRAT is the preferred way around here now?

https://twitter.com/DidTheyLetUVote http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#campaign
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers

Response to randys1 (Reply #48)Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:35 PM
Star Member azurnoir (41,209 posts)
51. except that is not what he wrote - here's a cut and paste of the comment so you can review

Cheese Sandwich (3,749 posts)
22. A Democrat controlled Congress wouldn't pass it either

And if they did Hillary Clinton would probably veto it.

The only way to change that is a mass movement and grass-roots organizing campaign.

And so that's what Bernie Sanders is trying to make happen. That's his political revolution.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=845635

The people evolve to catch up to Bernie, Hillary evolves to catch up to the people
Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers

Response to azurnoir (Reply #51)Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:38 PM

randys1 (12,867 posts)
55. Democrat should say Democratically...that is how we used to say it anyway

This is not a debate

FACT

RAT is done, on purpose (whether this poster did or not I dont dare say because i dont know, but in general) to demean Democratic party


https://twitter.com/DidTheyLetUVote http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#campaign
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers

Response to randys1 (Reply #55)Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:40 PM
Star Member azurnoir (41,209 posts)
57. no this is about about a rather weak sauce gott-cha type of thing at least IMO

The people evolve to catch up to Bernie, Hillary evolves to catch up to the people

starts here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251845444#post22

[reallygosh]

152. I know I am a first poster

why are you so sad?

[think]

15. When Hillary evolves they'll sing it's praises...

[Menshunables]

18. I saw that. Strange times indeed.

So many republican dear to heart things are getting popular here.

[arcane1]

19. Whatever It Takes(tm)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. The 8 hour work day and voting rights for women were once "Pie in the Sky".

Just to name a couple of other "Pie in the Sky" ideas that weren't fantasies.

[Enthusiast]

96. Thank you.

[treestar]

122. So is single payer right now

It's where voting rights for women were in about 1880

[MisterP]

24. Clintonistas are already maple-baiting

[senz]

30. Hillary's in the bag for Corporate America.

So it's no surprise.

[-none]

35. Single payer is not health insurance.

single payer is health care. There are no insurance companies to get in the way of people's health care with Single payer.

[bunnies]

93. Unpossible.

Hillary supporters are sweet, friendly angels who never insult anyone!

[jkbRN]

52. Colorado is looking to get single payer,

I believe it will appear on the ballot this year

Website link: http://www.healthcareforallcolorado.org

[Renew Deal]

58. I'd love to see it happen and it should happen, but I don't think it will happen any time soon.

We couldn't even get a public option when we had 60 votes in the Senate. Good luck getting anything resembling Single Payer.

[ruffburr]

60. All They Know is the Status Quo-

Stuck on their corporatist third way agenda, As morally bankrupt as it is.

[jalan48]

61. It's called "Republican Lite" politics.

Liberal on social issues, conservative on economic ones.

[doc03]

62. Unless Democrats start voting in off year

Elections that is ecactly what it is.

[Romulox]

68. Don't forget whining about taxes on the "middle class" ($250,000/year). nt

[blackspade]

69. Clinton supporters are calling it "pie in the sky" fantasy?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
A 'fantasy' so there is no point in trying.
I guess the same will be said about Wall St reform, Climate Change mitigation, perpetual war, and all the other problems that plague this country.
It's like a broken record.

[Enthusiast]

98. +100%!

[n8dogg83]

104. It really is a self-fullfilling prophecy isn't it? They claim it can never happen, so they dont try

and then it never happens. Every time I hear these types of defeatist arguments, it makes me sad. It makes me wonder how many people told MLK and civil rights leaders that fighting for equal rights for AA's was a lost cause. How many people told women they would never get the vote, so just give up on the women's suffrage movement. We will never have the right to unionize so just give on fighting for labor rights. Thank god they didn't take their advice. No progressive thing in this country has been accomplished without a massive populist movement behind it bringing pressure to bear on our elected leaders. That's why I support Bernie and progressives down ballot 'cuz incrementalism just won't do.

[onecaliberal]

70. It is only a fantasy to those who support the corporate healthcare system we now have.

[Beartracks]

72. Were such HRC supporters FOR single-payer...

... during the whole ACA negotiation several years back?

I wonder.

I thought EVERYBODY here wanted to see single-payer.

Maybe when Obama didn't get it done, they changed their idea about it being possible. And Congress has even more conservative extremists in it now than ever. But, yeah, calling it pie-in-the-sky unicorn stuff just means they've given up.

However, I can't help but think that if HRC was pushing for it, they'd be back onboard.

=============

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. "Sky?" Canada, UK, Australia, Spain, Taiwan... you say tomato. n/t

[Betty Karlson]

75. So all of Western Europe has had pies in the sky for the past three to seven decades?

Nice to know that Clinton's mindset (and that of her supporters) is still stuck in the EARLY twentieth century.

[Enthusiast]

101. It really is good to know the truth now in case Hillary wins the nomination.

It is possible. As sad as that prospect might be.

[billhicks76]

76. Republicans For Hillary!

I hear it's a new group being started.

[JDPriestly]

77. Virtually every other developed nation has it. It's a proven, efficient, good way to deliver

healthcare. We do not need for-profit insurance companies.

Investors add a lot of value in our economy.

They take risks on new products. They invest in ideas and creativity. They keep companies going through hard times. And they deserve to enjoy the benefits when their risk-taking succeeWe ds, when new, good, helpful products come to our markets.

But when it comes to health insurance, they should stick to investing in companies that make medical equipment or medications, etc.

It's the doctors and nurses and medical technicians and other personnel who deliver our healthcare. We should keep the bureaucracy in healthcare to a minimum so that the people who serve, who feel called to care for us, can do their jobs without the encumbrance of the health insurance naysayers.

We need investment capital in our country for so many good ventures. We don't need it in healthcare service delivery. We should all be the investors in improving healthcare service delivery including improving the role technology can play in more efficient healthcare, more precise healthcare, better communication among doctors and between doctors and patients.

The healthcare insurance business's place in our society should be very limited.

Single payer is the way to go. We can insure everyone for less.

Think of the treatments we could have -- even earlier detection of cancer, alcoholism, diabetes, high blood pressure,, venereal diseases, drug addiction, etc. if we didn't have the for-profit insurance companies limiting our access to healthcare, constantly gouging and imposing a huge but unneeded bureaucracy to protect their profits.

Profit-making has no place in health-care delivery. It is quite fine when it comes to producing products used in health-care.

[upaloopa]

81. How does saying other countries do it

solve our problems?

Maybe some day Bernie will tell us how he plans to get there.

The a argument isn't single payer is good or bad. Taking what we have today and getting to single payer involves solving a bunch of hurdles.

Thinking people need to understand what that entails before they go for something.
But then it is easier to say you are for something and leave the problems to somebody else.

[JDPriestly]

89. If other countries do it, and they like it (Germany has had single payer or national health

insurance most years since the 1870s when the Kaiser -- the German king sort of -- introduced it), we can certainly do it.

If it were all that expensive, other countries would have done away with it.

We used to have a lot of non-profit insurance companies.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Blue changed from non-profit to for-profit in the 1990s.

https://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/yourhealthdollar.org_blue-cross-history-compilation.pdf

A lot of our hospitals started out as sponsored by religious organizations or as community-supported entities.

I am very familiar with this because there were a lot of problems when non-profits changed to become for-profits since the donations that supported the non-profits were tax-free and were not supposed to be converted into cash that made profits. The whole change from non-profit to for-profit in the health insurance business was a big fad that started slowly in the 1970s and became very popular maybe in the 1990s.

If we could change to for-profit insurance companies that fast, we can change back to not-for-profit healthcare and better yet single-payer healthcare that insures that everyone is covered quite quickly.

There is nothing complicated or unknown about not-for-profit and single-payer healthcare insurance.

It's an old American tradition.

Don't let Hillary and her friends fool you on this one. Read some history. Check with the attorney general's office in your state. They may have been responsible for signing off on the conversion of community and not-for-profit healthcare facilities and insurers to for-profit entities.

Virtually all o the developed world has single payer insurance. It's cheaper, just as good as ours if not better, and insures universal coverage. It permits doctors to work together better since they are pretty much all on the same insurance provider lists. It's just better all the way around.

I should know. I lived in Europe and enjoyed single payer insurance for years.

[brooklynite]

91. Hmm...what could be the difference between...

having a KAISER and having a President and bicarmel legislature?

[Enthusiast]

108. The support of the people can even overcome the influence of gifts of money by the profiteers.

We don't need thousands of new nay sayers doing this in an effort to defeat Bernie.

I suggest you back off now before your damage is too great.

Tell you right now. I will not support a single Democrat for office that does not support the goal of single payer. That is a pledge. Bad mouthing single payer is a huge mistake.

[brooklynite]

112. So long Elizabeth Warren?

As for "doing this in an effort to defeat Bernie", I'd say the Democratic electorate is being pretty clear about whom they prefer.

[Enthusiast]

114. Just keep it up.

[JDPriestly]

140. Ir the Kaiser is stupid and negqtive, there is no hope.

If you have a presient and a bicameral legislature there is always hope.

The current single payer plans have been adopted and maintained mostly in developed countries, i.e. democracies like Canada, Sweden, Germany, Austria, etc.

[Dcoast]

78. Go Big or Go Home

I just wrote a post on this.

[Gamecock Lefty]

79. Worry About Your Own Candidate

and leave Hillary and her supporters alone.

But I do find it quite interesting you talk so much about Hillary.

[tazkcmo]

154. LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!! n/t

[SHRED]

83. Because they are corporate conservatives by comparison

[AtomicKitten]

86. How very Third Way of them.

[Rose Siding]

88. How do you get it? What is Bernie's plan to make it happen?

[Cheese Sandwich]

132. Mass mobilization aka political revolution

He's trying to help build a movement. That's the kind of president we need right now. Someone who wants to help lead a revolutionary transformation that will make more things possible, like a national health insurance program.

[Rose Siding]

146. So I've heard but that's pretty vague

What are the logistics? Will it be local? Are there any overall outlines of how it will work? What I'm hearing from Bernie is.as you say, we need a movement. The only action I've heard him recommend is that we're supposed to stand up and speak out. That's the only instruction I've heard beyond "millions of people coming together" and showing up on days there are important votes in congress. Do we all just take to the streets? In DC? For how long? How will the district handle that many showing up? We might have to stay awhile because I've seen a million women there for rallies and anti-choice crap still passes.

I already call my reps, write letters to papers, canvass for candidates and work at a neighborhood voting center. Beyond that, what does The Revolution look like? How do we get time off work to "show up" to see members of Congress before they vote? What if we can't afford it? I'd need to kennel my dog and have the car serviced -it's a very long drive, and put aside for gas and hotels. I don't know where that'll come from. Some people might need to find child care because the kids will have to stay home for school. Could we just phone, because I already do that. When we do all this, will the congress critters in red districts listen this time? Why when their constituents don't want them to? Or will everyone spontaneously realize that there's only one way to go?

Has there been any organizing of this epic undertaking? How will it work? What is the plan? We need way more details before deciding to attend this "revolution".

[Dont call me Shirley]

90. That sounds like a Republican response, not a Democratic response.

[grahamhgreen]

97. Right. If Slovenia can do it, so can we.

[Gman]

100. Don't fret about that

I I don't know which Hillary supporters you're talking about. This Hillary supporter certainly does not believe that. And I don't think people are that dumb that these folks could convince anyone it's pie in the sky unless they are compketely ignorant as we'll as gullible. on the issue.

Granted under the current make up of Congreas it's not going to happen before 2023 at the earliest.

[Zorra]

103. DLC/Third Wayers said the same thing about gay marriage in 2007-2008, and earlier.

They told us we needed to STFU and get in line when we advocated for our rights. They mocked us, and said we wanted a pony. A whole lot of them are Hillary supporters now, but were Obama supporters back then.

Well, turns out that, despite their opposition, we got that lovely marriage pony we were dreaming about. Elect Bernie, and we will get that pretty single payer pony we've always wanted, too.

Ya gotta believe, despite what "they" tell ya:

Post # 163, by Sapphocrat ~

From 2003:

“I am not anti-gay rights but…. I don’t think this is a good time for the gay-marriage issue.”

“Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not gay, but I’m not homophobic either. I’m just thinking that this decision is bad, bad timing politically. ...”

“It is too soon for gay marriage”

“Why not advance the idea of civil unions first. Let people get use to that idea and then push for marriage.”

“This isn’t the time. Our number one priority has to be getting bush the hell out of office. This won’t help that cause.”

“I’ve never met anyone, liberal or not who didn’t express utter disgust at the idea of gay marriage. This includes people I know who are otherwise open-minded and liberal on most every other issue.

“Some form of gay rights such as a civil union of some sort would be more acceptable. But for 99% of the people out there the very idea of gay marriage is just repulsive with capitial R. The gay marrige issue would severely cripple any democratic candidate’s to beat Bush if they support it. Let’s not go down that road."

“... These are much more pressing issues then whether a gay person should be allowed to marry. I’m not homophobic, but I feel that gays ought to think about the well-being of others much less fortunate than themselves.”

“How should we handle wedge issues? Like gay marriage, flag burning & abortion… I say we dismiss them completely. Firmly say that it’s manufactured to divide us & leave it at that. When pressed, just say you won’t take the bait. If someone feels so strongly about it, they can join a special interest group.”

From 2004:

“The gay marriage issue hijacked our party. I think the gay and lesbian community decided to make this a visible issue on state ballots because they thought they could ride on the coattails of the Mass. court decision and Kerry. They ended up hurting him. They could have waited until an off Presidential election year to go ballistic. This issue ended up being identified directly with Kerry on the Ohio ballot and ten other states. Many Democratic Christians who would have normally voted for Kerry went with their family and moral values. I’m not homophobic…”

What would be hilarious if it weren't so utterly ridiculous: This poster seems to believe gay people were responsible for putting anti-gay marriage BANS on twelve state ballots in 2004! These were marriage BANS, not marriage-equality bills!

“You DO need to get over it! You are a citizen of the United States before you are gay. You owe a responsibility to your country FIRST!! Yeah, you’re gay, many people are, we cannot allow the you know who’s to use gays as the new ‘blacks’ to divide our country with the gay marriage issue.”

“I think the Democratic Party should not even come close to this issue. The farther away the better. If this becomes a major issue with leading Democrats crusading for gay marriage, George McGovern will end up looking like a successful candidate.”

“my gay friends, delay marriage … Just delay till December. Why hand Republicans 5 percent more of the vote, when you can stay quietly on the sidelines and deny them this issue?”

“I Am Outraged By Gay People … Well, not really. But I am kinda annoyed by their (meaning those forcing the issue, not all gays) impeccably bad sense of timing. … By pushing this into an unpopular culture war during an election year, these gay activists are screwing up their own agenda. If they demonstrated a few months of patience, it would serve them well.”

Another one who thinks we were responsible for the timing of the Massachusetts SJC decision, and/or putting anti-gay marriage bans on the ballots.

“The gay marriage issue is a disaster waiting to happen. We will lose on this issue if we allow it to become an entrenched part of the debate. So here’s the question: will the gay community, and those who heavily support gay rights, keep quiet during the primaries and the election? Will they trust the Democratic party to do the right thing once they are in office? ...”

“... The country is not ready for this yet. Maybe in a decade, not now.

“Keep believing that the gay marriage issue didnt cost us Ohio, when it clearly did. Since Ohio cost us the race well what else can I say. … The turnout in southern Ohio was beyond the wildest dreams of Karl Rove and they all turned out for the gay marriage ban.”

Whose idea do you think putting marriage bans on state ballots was? Hint: His initials are K.R.

“Homos will just need to have a little patience and trust us in the long run.”

"Homos"?

From 2005:

“You are impatient.”

“It’s political suicide to come out in favor of gay marriage.”

“Everyone just needs to shut up about their ‘own issue’ and stand behind the party.”

“Get a grip on reality! This is not a winning issue right now.”

From 2006:

“This issue is going to lose us elections right now and we should lay off until a good chunk of the old farts who oppose it die off. In about 10 or 15 years the Nation will be ready for this fight but right now it’s too early.”

“Why not take what you can get with bills like Howard Deans for the meantime and hopefully in two years you will get someone like Dean or Gore as President, who will change the law and give you all the same rights Married people have without changing the name and pissing off all the fundies?”

“Goddamn it…gays I love ya’, but couldn’t you have waited. WTF. Why is it that the gay marriage issues always crops up right before the election. I fully support homosexual rights, but this ruling by the NJ Supreme Court just energized the Christofascist vote and will likely result in an erosion of Dem wins in Nov. Next time, can we just table the homosexual marriage thing until mid-election cycle?”

“(T)his victory is likely to cost us control of Congress or the Senate. What good is this victory when it just sets us all back and puts more anti-gay politicans in office? Make NO MISTAKE there will be push-back on this…just like in 2004.”

“Politically speaking this victory just handed Rove a MAJOR campaign issue.”

“(T)he Christian fundamentalists are sure to turn out in droves because of this decision now. They were the ones who might have helped us win the election, by staying home. So I wouldn’t be surprised in the next week or so that it becomes widely accepted we are going to lose. Worst fucking time for this, you have to wonder why this happened right before the election and not after the election.”

“You will see. I would say this decision has put a Democratic win in the House in Jeapordy.”

In reality, as I wrote in my blog post: "Contrary to all the Criswell-like predictions, Democrats swept the 2006 mid-terms, picking up 31 seats in the House (putting Republicans in the minority for the first time in twelve years), the largest gain for the Dems since 1974.

"Meanwhile, Democrats replaced Republicans in five open gubernatorial races, and booted the Repub incumbent, Robert Ehrlich, out of Maryland’s governor’s mansion.

"Not a single Democratic incumbent in Congress, or in any gubernatorial race, lost his or her seat.

"We’re still waiting for an apology from all those Democrats who opened with the usual disclaimer, “I’m not homophobic / Some of my best friends are gay / I think you deserve equal rights, but…,” and then went on to blame us uppity gays for what was sure to be a huge loss for the Dems.

"We’re not holding our collective breath."

“The Civil Rights Act cost the Democrats the South for a generation.”

Which reminds me: Isn't it funny how LGBTs are attacked for pointing out the unmistakable similarities between the Civil Rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s (as if we were equating them, which I've never seen anyone do) -- yet when it is convenient for pinning blame on LGBTs, all of a sudden, such comparisons are perfectly acceptable?

“Right now, the priorities are different in this country, and if gay marriage can detract from other, more pressing issues, yeah, the Democrats are going to eat it yet again in November, because the diversion will have worked. And gay marriage can kiss its own ass goodby for another decade or two.”

“All the special interest issues on the ballots like gay marriage helped keep bu$h close enough that swapping a few thousand votes made it harder to prove it was stolen.”

“How many of those people wouldn’t have even come out to vote if those initiatives weren’t on the ballot? Besides, they see the Democrats as the party of the queers anyway, so it doesn’t matter whether or not Kerry was against it. He’s guilty by association.”

From 2007 to early 2008:

"Handing a huge wedge issue to the GOP … let’s see how the gay community feels knowing they helped put McCain in the White House this November. they will be lucky to have civil unions, much less gay marriage, when that happens."

"This is 2004 all over again. Talk about history repeating itself. WOW. Kerry had his Massachusetts. Obama will have his California. I knew this was going to happen. Well, it was a nice dream anyway."

"I’m All For Gay Rights, Women’s Rights And Getting Our Privacy rights back but I think it would be better to wait till after the election to push these issues."

"If we lose the election, none of the rights will come to pass and we will lose even more. Grow up and have some patience. What the hell is another 6 months when you’ve waited this long already?"

"After we win, we can press Obama and the Congress to do what is right and long over due."

“Personally I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.”
–Barack Obama
"I think he speaks for most of us. I have nothing against gay rights, but marriage is something that should be reserved for man and woman. ..."

"...your priority should be to get a Democrat in the WH first. THEN make gay marriage an issue. Self-righteous indignation accomplishes nothing for gay rights except handing the GOP a massive divisive wedge issue that will almost guarantee another democratic defeat in November."

"And the Democratic Party just possbily lost California in November"

Last I time checked, in 2008, Obama was elected president and the Dems retained control of both the House and the Senate.

But here's my favorite of all, from 2008:

The gay community is fucking it up for everybody else.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x173419

Same shit, different day.

[upaloopa]

106. How?

Not what but how?

I know leave the thinking to somebody else.
Single payer is a change in how we do something not how we think about something.

[Buzz Clik]

107. Bullshit.

Give us a direct quote.

[Duval]

116. She or her supporters are on the wrong side of this.

It worked in Vermont and it works in other countries. Give me a flipping break! Thanks for the OP Cheese Sandwich.

[Hepburn]

119. Wow...just frickin' wow...

...talk about people supporting positions that hurt them!

[treestar]

120. It is until Congress is made up of people

who will pass it. Doesn't look like that is happening soon.

[darkangel218]

128. You mean majority?

Like it was in the first 2 years of Obama's presidency??

Why wasn't it passed then, treestar?

[treestar]

145. Because evan the democrats

Last edited Wed Nov 25, 2015, 09:25 AM - Edit history (1)

From red states are not that liberal.

[darkangel218]

147. Yah sure. Lol

[treestar]

155. It is true. That is why no public option

is passed. The Democrats from places like Montana and Missouri would not go along with that. So it follows they would not go along with single payer.

[darkangel218]

156. Think what you want.

[reformist2]

134. I was just about to start a thread with the exact same title. Hillary want us to settle for less.

Even though they have all these things in Europe, we are told by leaders in both parties that we can't have them here.

That's a surefire way to guarantee you NEVER get what you want.

And with that kind of thinking dominant, it's no wonder Democrats have lost control of Congress.

[Cheese Sandwich]

144. I mean look, it's true we can't pass single payer right now, that's why we need to organize

and fight for it. A president should be helping to lead and inspire people to organize ad fight for changes like that.

I sort of thought Obama was going to do that but it didn't pan out. Bernie says he wants to do that.

[Segami]

143. K&R!

[cantbeserious]

151. HRC Supporters Are Doing The Bidding Of Their Ideological Masters

eom

[Baitball Blogger]

157. Didn't we vote for pie in the sky in 2008 and 2012?