Would the Right Wing be fighting any harder if we were shooting for Single Payer?

[ThomWV]

Considering all the trouble they are going to in order to defeat anything that might come out of Congress one wonders how much harder they would have fought had Single Payer been on the table - or maybe what they are showing us is all they've got. I suspect the latter. These people were never going to support any measures coming out of the White House, fact means as little as community to them; their reprehensible Representatives demand apeasment but still won't vote for whatever bill emerges. Thank god we don't need them.

By the way, they are not going to win you know. There will be a final reconciled bill and each body will pass it. It is just a crying shame that this once-in-a-lifetime chance at real reform was cut off at the knees before it ever had a chance to stand in the light of public scrutiny.

[villager]

1. Exactly the right question to ask -- we should be asking this *in advance*

...of every serious piece of legislation, instead of offering up pre-compromised "Stockholm syndrome" versions of the bills...

[timeforpeace]

25. OP raises an excellent point. Answer is no, so let's go for it.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. It was cut off at the knees by people on our side who thought that compromise

was a useful and viable idea.

Compromise, to a Republican, is reminiscent of my dog's view of sharing, which can be summarized as having 2 phases:
Phase 1: Give me some of what you have.
Pgase 2: Thanks. Now give me the rest of it.

[cdsilv]

4. I believe that they think single payer IS on the table - they're scared of "gov't run healthcare"!

n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

29. Some of them seem to think that the Dems will morph ANY healthcare "reform"

into Single Payer--to which I can only say,"We should be so lucky." Their intention, openly expressed is to kill any reform or departure from the status quo. The insurance companies put a lot of time, effort & bribe ery into getting things the way they want them, and they have no intention of extracting their mastiff teeth from the collective butt of the American public.

[depakid]

3. Not one iota

That's the mistake Democrats make time and time again. No matter what they do- no matteer how much they pander to the right- this is the response they're going to get.

In some ways, the Democratic "leadership" is just a dumb (make that just as stupid) as these nutters are).

[polichick]

5. "Reaching out" to the other side hasn't paid off with any issue. Wonder if the WH gets that yet. nt

[scheming daemons]

6. No... they wouldn't.... but we'd be much farther from having enough votes to pass health care reform

Because you'd lose a good percentage of the Democrats if single-payer was part of the package.


The Republican screaming would be the same... but the prospects for passage would be worse.

[ThomWV]

8. Who do you think we'd lose - the Blue dogs? Hell, we haven't got them now.

[B Calm]

7. That's a question we should ask our Blue Cross (Dog) Democrats!

[ecstatic]

9. No, because they already think that's what we'll be changing to nt

[subterranean]

10. They ARE fighting against single payer, even though it's off the table.

They are equating a watered-down public option with a "government takeover of health care." I don't see how they could fight any harder if single payer were on the table.
They're not going to vote for any bill, of course, but I suspect their goal is to make sure that whatever bill does emerge is so weak that it won't help the Democrats in the next election.

[slipslidingaway]

11. rec #6 they are fighting SP which the Dems took off the table n/t

[Karmadillo]

12. I doubt it. With single payer, we'd have better arguments to make AND we'd know exactly what it was

we were trying to defend (as opposed to whatever it is that is being cobbled together now).

[customerserviceguy]

19. You're exactly right

They're saying, "No Change!" which is a more understandable message than what we're saying, which is, "Have faith in what Congress cobbles together when it comes back in session."

That's why they attack the bullshit topics that they make up, because nobody can truthfully say what will or will not be in the final bill.

[debbierlus]

36. Dead on.

[gatorboy]

13. The opposition is more concerned with the color of Obama's skin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/rosa-parks-poster-torn-up_n_257578.html

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

14. No, the townhall rowdies seem to be set at "eleven"

on the "loud and stupid" meter.

But, if we were really shooting for Single Payer, the money pipe from the insurance industry to the halls of congress would be flowing at an even higher rate than now. It wouldn't stand a chance.

[XemaSab]

15. Exactly

"Compromising" with whack-jobs is a sucker's game.

[yodermon]

16. When the CBO scores Weiner's amendment (i.e. single payer) things might get interesting... n/t

[Richard D]

17. IMNVHO

The right wingnuts don't even know what they are fighting for or against. They're just parroting what they are being told to say - and to think. I doubt that even a small percentage of them really understands anything about the Health care Bill.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Sure they would. The millions spent fighting would become billions.

They'd just have an iota more truth on their side. People would commence to a great deal of panic about their own plans and it would be a stupid worthless nightmare.

Public support is beyond soft on single payer, since the majority still want the insurance companies around in a similar fashion as they are now, Congress would be in a total clusterfuck as opposed to the circus of today.

THERE WAS NO CHANCE FOR SINGLE PAYER AT THIS TIME.

Less than 35 votes in the Senate and around 100 in the House ain't going to cut it against a billion dollar smear campaign. You and I want this so we can't wrap our minds around neutral or against. The only way to single payer is a loud sustained public outcry for it. Not some polls that allude to support without getting into a single nut or bolt but a sincere disgust with the insurance companies that has 60%+ of the public wanting them gone along with 60%+ that are willing to give up the policies they have.

Those are the real matrix. The support isn't there and I suspect we will have to de-Reaganize a bit more before anything near that drastic can happen. I support the option because it is just beyond what I expected we could get. People need to stop pretending that the option is a compromise with Republicans but rather a compromise with ourselves. Push comes to shove, I'm not sure we have a plurality of Democrats (much less the GP) for Single Payer.

Give me some polls that indicate any substantial will to give up existing policies for a government plan AND to put health insurance out of business and I'll join you in the hand wringing but I'm convinced Single Payer purists are overstepping reality. I strongly agree with the goals, just not the assessment of the situation at this time. We have nowhere near the votes, and I mean nowhere near and the sad truth is we don't have the public in any overwhelming sense. Hell, we'll be lucky to get a toehold of an option because so damn many are still under Reagan's spell and Red scare.

[sabrina 1]

21. The main reason for this:

Public support is beyond soft on single payer is that a majority of people have no idea what it is. I know I and many others could better defend such a system than the one now being proposed.

And if democrats were really committed to getting universal healthcare passed, they would make sure people understood it. No effort has been made to educate people on this issue, as is obvious from the stupid arguments being given any credence at all, by the 'opposition'. The lack of will on the part of Democrats to educate people left an opening for the scare tactics of the Healthcare industry who know full well how ignorant the population in general is regarding this issue.

[TheKentuckian]

24. If you claim they don't understand it then you can't trumpet how high

the support is.

I don't think the public understands the benefits but I also understand that a near majority hates government.

[sabrina 1]

27. Well, I didn't trumpet how high the support is, I was agreeing

that the support is not high, but I was blaming that on ignorance. As for a majority hating the government, maybe so, but a majority also supports Social Security and Medicare. I think most rational people understand that government can do some things well. Even the government-hating crazies on the right are happy with the money the government spends on weapons and the military.

[sabrina 1]

20. No, which is why so many of us wanted them

Democrats to go for Single Payer while they had the power to do so and the let the whiners whine, which they were going to do anyway.

It's like dealing with children. Sometimes you just have to overrule them for their own good.

But, it's obvious now that far too many Democrats do not work for us either and they have so many apologists claiming that real Dems couldn't get elected in those districts etc. or whatever other excuses we've heard for so long now.

The Blue Dogs were feeling the pressure on Obama's bill and along came Rahm to protect them so the apologists are probably right to some extent, as long as there are people like Rahm Emmanuel in positions of power, the Republicans will win no matter how big a majority we have.

[jimlup]

22. Salient Point!

This is something we need to remember and take to heart. The right is coo-choo no matter so why do we have to serve the corporate greed. Oh yeah, they own half the democrats too... I keep forgetting.

[sabrina 1]

28. Exactly! Now that we know that

maybe we can work to get a real Democratic majority and ignore the wailing and whining of the DLCers from now on. Some things are worth fighting for and we have not done that, always caving to the 'we can't win that state' nonsense. I know believe that was a lie, that some states were impossible to win and that corporate interests were behind it.. How much more evidence do we need that the half of the Party that he supports, may as well be Republicans?

One word I do not ever want to hear again is 'pragmatic'! It's a DLC talking point and identifies for me, those who are against a real Democratic majority. Besides, they never really understood the word or its origin. It was just tossed around in order to shut down those who did not agree that we what we needed were more Repubs with a D after their names.

[hootinholler]

23. They (Big HC) will win because the rukus has moved single payer off the agenda. n/t

[gravity]

26. The right would have allies in the center if it was single payer

You aren't going to win if you have to convince millions of Americans in the middle class that they will be forced out of their own private insurance and be placed into an unproven government system. Even if people don't like their insurance, they fear an unknown system much more.

Allowing these people to have the option of going into the government system is 10x easier to sell to the public. The average American can weigh the strengths and weaknesses of both the private and public plans and make an informed decision. It essentially gives the choice to the people, instead of the government forcing people to give up their private insurance.

If the government option is superior to the private plans, then it could lead to a single payer plan just because no one will go with private insurance anymore.

[BlooInBloo]

30. I know that single payer or nothing people certainly wouldn't be whining any louder.

[Uzybone]

31. Of course they would

its as if some here don't live in the real world.

They are fighting like hell because the Public option "might" lead to single payer, so of course they would fight that much harder if it was single payer. All the lobbyist groups that are sort of sitting this one out (big Pharma, AMA et al) would be fighting it.

[slipslidingaway]

32. Lobbyist groups are running TV ads in support of reform...

have you seen the new Harry and Louise ad or the AHIP ad where they mention 'when everyone is covered' ... ie mandate to purchase insurance.

Would they be running these ads if they really believed this reform bill would just about put them out of business???

[Uzybone]

33. They'd be running ads talking about Govt chooisng your doctor

if we were talking about single payer.

[slipslidingaway]

38. But they did not have to because the Dems took SP off the table...

and went with the "Uniquely American Solution" of keeping the insurance companies at the table instead.

:(

Uniquely American Solution - What is it ? Why is it being pushed?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6289091&mesg_id=6289091

[debbierlus]

37. Yes, they are indeed supporting their wet dream of forced purchase of their shitty product

Yeah. The big corporations are buying ads to promote legislation that will ensure their continued profiteering off the American citizens.

How decent of them....

You are right. Brilliant strategy to turn the entire process over to the corrupt leeches who broke health care so they won't fight us on the reform!

:sarcasm:

[slipslidingaway]

39. Not only did they turn it over, they silenced the biggest challengers

to the insurance companies when they excluded the SP advocates.

:(

A majority of doctors and citizens polled in favor of a national health insurance system, until they sold some people on the public option and marginalized a SP system.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6289091

The Doctors' Revolt

"The latest sign is a poll published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers. Most industrial societies -- including nations as diverse as Taiwan, France, and Canada -- have adopted universal health systems that provide health care to all citizens and permit them free choice of their doctors and hospitals. These plans are typically funded by a mix of general tax revenues and payroll taxes, and essential health-care is administered by nonprofit government agencies rather than private insurers..."

[leftofthedial]

34. no,

and that is *exactly* what the Democratic Party should have been fighting for all along.

[debbierlus]

35. Pelosi will allow a vote on HR626 after recess, we should be using our energy to convince our Reps

To support this bill for Single Payer.

It is a utter waste of time, bitching and moaning about the right.

The chance has not passed, but the discussion has been all about defending Obama and the right wing crazies instead of policy.

It does NOT have to be this way.

Call Congress today and tell them you want them to support Single Payer Health Care Reform.

WE have taken our eyes off the ball. We expected Obama to fight this fight for us, but he didn't do it. The health care lobbyists dictated the debate and most of us, just stayed silent.

If the chance passes, it will because WE did not advocate for our rights.

D

[Proud Liberal Dem]

40. Apparently not

ANY ideas the slightest bit to the "left" of them- whether it is a "public option" or a full-fledged Single Payer system- is apostasy plain and simple and they will NEVER accept any idea proposed by a Democrat period. Why would they when if it actually helps people it blows their whole "government can't doing anything right" myth right out of the water and makes our party more popular? Which is why I believe that we should just put our ideas on the table and let them rail against a genuine article rather than a prematurely compromised one.

The major problem as I see it is that we have traitors called "Blue Dogs" in our party whom support Republicans in their opposition to things like health care reform and whom, along with the Republicans, make it seemingly impossible to get genuinely non-watered down progressive legislation through Congress. Trying to figure out how to best deal with (and "neuter") the "Blue Dogs" is what we should really be focusing on IMHO as they are the real "snakes in the grass" for us.

Also, in regards specifically to the health care reform, while we're going to have to fight against the Republicans no matter what, I strongly suspect that if we were REALLY pushing seriously for Single Payer, we may find ourselves with less allies than what we have now (i.e. AARP). :shrug:

[BuyingThyme]

41. They would not know the difference.