Sanders single-payer litmus test alarms Dems

[Tartarus Sauce]

In the end, winning elections is the most important part. If progressive issues play badly in West Virginia and North Dakota, then moving towards the center is a matter of survival. When democrats had 60 seats in 2009,  there were at least 17 centrist Democrats by my count.

Depends on what we need to move to center with. I think the leftwards shift on social issues has probably hurt Democrats a good bit with various white demographics in the midwest/rust belt, and there is no reason economically liberal/culturally conservative Democrats can't win there and possibly in some parts of Appalachia.

Honestly the last thing I want to see is any faction of Democrats justifying a shift to the center on economic issues based on the results of the past few elections. That seems like an excuse for Democrats to satisfy rich donors and special interests, when such a shift is totally unnecessary.

I agree that a shift towards centrism on economics is not necessary for Democrats to win elections. If anything, this last election proved that populism has viable currency in today's political climate, so god knows why anybody thinks that cranking the moderation up to 11 is the way to go if winning is what we want to do.

But the last thing I want to see right now is the Sander's wing demanding it call the shots on everything. It's not because I dislike their progressive priorities mind you, the vast majority of the Democratic Party holds progressive priorities at this point including me, despite how fashionable it's become lately to complain about the party being overrun with corporatists. I think that the fears expressed over losing elections if we become too progressive is a misplaced one.

So I think the party should stop worrying about losing over the calls for more progressivism. Instead, the party should focus its concerns on the fact that the Sander's wing has consistently been advocating for sh*t policy. We've already had one of our major parties descend into economic illiteracy and fantasy pandering, they've been rewarded with full control of government and we are all worse off for it. I'm not keen on seeing the same fate of "win at all costs" befall the other party if it costs us sound judgement and working knowledge on how to actually govern in a responsible manner. Watching progressives consistently conflate single-payer with the entire concept of universal healthcare as a whole and then demanding everybody fall in line with their thinking or get pushed aside doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence that they are getting any more knowledgeable on the matter.  

I would kill to have a progressive wing that puts policy capable people front and center in its movement, but that's not what's happening right now.

[Chief Justice Keef]

In the end, winning elections is the most important part. If progressive issues play badly in West Virginia and North Dakota, then moving towards the center is a matter of survival. When democrats had 60 seats in 2009,  there were at least 17 centrist Democrats by my count.

Depends on what we need to move to center with. I think the leftwards shift on social issues has probably hurt Democrats a good bit with various white demographics in the midwest/rust belt, and there is no reason economically liberal/culturally conservative Democrats can't win there and possibly in some parts of Appalachia.

Honestly the last thing I want to see is any faction of Democrats justifying a shift to the center on economic issues based on the results of the past few elections. That seems like an excuse for Democrats to satisfy rich donors and special interests, when such a shift is totally unnecessary.

I agree that a shift towards centrism on economics is not necessary for Democrats to win elections. If anything, this last election proved that populism has viable currency in today's political climate, so god knows why anybody thinks that cranking the moderation up to 11 is the way to go if winning is what we want to do.

But the last thing I want to see right now is the Sander's wing demanding it call the shots on everything. It's not because I dislike their progressive priorities mind you, the vast majority of the Democratic Party holds progressive priorities at this point including me, despite how fashionable it's become lately to complain about the party being overrun with corporatists. I think that the fears expressed over losing elections if we become too progressive is a misplaced one.

So I think the party should stop worrying about losing over the calls for more progressivism. Instead, the party should focus its concerns on the fact that the Sander's wing has consistently been advocating for sh*t policy. We've already had one of our major parties descend into economic illiteracy and fantasy pandering, they've been rewarded with full control of government and we are all worse off for it. I'm not keen on seeing the same fate of "win at all costs" befall the other party if it costs us sound judgement and working knowledge on how to actually govern in a responsible manner. Watching progressives consistently conflate single-payer with the entire concept of universal healthcare as a whole and then demanding everybody fall in line with their thinking or get pushed aside doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence that they are getting any more knowledgeable on the matter.  

I would kill to have a progressive wing that puts policy capable people front and center in its movement, but that's not what's happening right now.

Why should the people who have lost all control of the federal government over 8 years make the decisions for the party going forward?

[Kingpoleon]

In the end, winning elections is the most important part. If progressive issues play badly in West Virginia and North Dakota, then moving towards the center is a matter of survival. When democrats had 60 seats in 2009,  there were at least 17 centrist Democrats by my count.

Depends on what we need to move to center with. I think the leftwards shift on social issues has probably hurt Democrats a good bit with various white demographics in the midwest/rust belt, and there is no reason economically liberal/culturally conservative Democrats can't win there and possibly in some parts of Appalachia.

Honestly the last thing I want to see is any faction of Democrats justifying a shift to the center on economic issues based on the results of the past few elections. That seems like an excuse for Democrats to satisfy rich donors and special interests, when such a shift is totally unnecessary.

Hang on - you think Obama and Clinton were economic moderates?

[Virginiá]

Hang on - you think Obama and Clinton were economic moderates?

I didn't comment on their economic bonafides, or at least that was not my intention.

[Virginiá]

Why should the people who have lost all control of the federal government over 8 years make the decisions for the party going forward?

Honestly if you want to go in that direction, I'd say the better argument is why should the faction that has gotten the Democrats in a hole with the House and Senate for the better part of the past generation make the decisions going forward. Just slowly losing control of the federal govt over the 2-term tenure of a Democratic president shouldn't be grounds alone for tossing them out, imo. I wouldn't call for the Sanders' wings ouster if a President Sanders and their faction cost the Democratic Party control in the same way Obama did. It really has to be a longer sequence of losses, because it's not uniquely bad for a 2-term president to cost their party seats over 8 years.

Of course I think there is a reason Republicans have held control so consistently that is largely separate from whatever Democrats have done, so it's not an argument I'm receptive to, but still.

[Shadows]

The idea about the incumbent losing seats during the Presidency is a strawman argument. No President in recent history has lost as many seats as Obama has if you combine the results of both terms (& Bush had a wave election against him in 2016). You can argue that he had a high point in 2018, but he lost the house in 2010, 2012 & 2014 (& Dems continued that trend).

Now look at the broader picture - Governor races, State Legislature. Close to two-third of the state houses are with Republicans. That is awful. Dems have like 5 odd Trifecta at the State Level. On the whole, this isn't Mid-term backlash against the President. The Democrats are in their worst position in the last 100 years. If that is now news that Status Quo is not working then I don't what is. It is fair & rational that the progressive wing is given the opportunity now.

[Shadows]

In the end, winning elections is the most important part. If progressive issues play badly in West Virginia and North Dakota, then moving towards the center is a matter of survival. When democrats had 60 seats in 2009,  there were at least 17 centrist Democrats by my count.

Depends on what we need to move to center with. I think the leftwards shift on social issues has probably hurt Democrats a good bit with various white demographics in the midwest/rust belt, and there is no reason economically liberal/culturally conservative Democrats can't win there and possibly in some parts of Appalachia.

Honestly the last thing I want to see is any faction of Democrats justifying a shift to the center on economic issues based on the results of the past few elections. That seems like an excuse for Democrats to satisfy rich donors and special interests, when such a shift is totally unnecessary.

I agree that a shift towards centrism on economics is not necessary for Democrats to win elections. If anything, this last election proved that populism has viable currency in today's political climate, so god knows why anybody thinks that cranking the moderation up to 11 is the way to go if winning is what we want to do.

But the last thing I want to see right now is the Sander's wing demanding it call the shots on everything. It's not because I dislike their progressive priorities mind you, the vast majority of the Democratic Party holds progressive priorities at this point including me, despite how fashionable it's become lately to complain about the party being overrun with corporatists. I think that the fears expressed over losing elections if we become too progressive is a misplaced one.

So I think the party should stop worrying about losing over the calls for more progressivism. Instead, the party should focus its concerns on the fact that the Sander's wing has consistently been advocating for sh*t policy. We've already had one of our major parties descend into economic illiteracy and fantasy pandering, they've been rewarded with full control of government and we are all worse off for it. I'm not keen on seeing the same fate of "win at all costs" befall the other party if it costs us sound judgement and working knowledge on how to actually govern in a responsible manner. Watching progressives consistently conflate single-payer with the entire concept of universal healthcare as a whole and then demanding everybody fall in line with their thinking or get pushed aside doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence that they are getting any more knowledgeable on the matter.  

I would kill to have a progressive wing that puts policy capable people front and center in its movement, but that's not what's happening right now.

Single Payer = Universal Healthcare in US. That is the truth. Multi-payer can't be Universal, you can't force people to buy Insurance or have income levels. That will likely be deemed unconstitutional or Voluntary.

Do you have any other alternate. There is already a single payer named Medicaid/Medicare which is working & which is popular & could be expanded. Besides most Multi-payer systems including Germany has a large Single Payer in it (85% odd in Germany is Single payer). This whole argument about Single Payer not being Universal Healthcare is ridiculous !

[Virginiá]

The idea about the incumbent losing seats during the Presidency is a strawman argument. No President in recent history has lost as many seats as Obama has if you combine the results of both terms (& Bush had a wave election against him in 2016). You can argue that he had a high point in 2018, but he lost the house in 2010, 2012 & 2014 (& Dems continued that trend).

It's undeniable that Democrats have been beaten back beyond where they "should" be, but when you look at a lot of the lost states/seats under Obama, it's at least a little more understandable. Democrats were never going to keep power in all those Southern states, and the Midwest has been mostly Republican at the state level since at least the 90s, if not longer. When people say Democrats lost over 1,000 legislative seats, I think they are using the most dramatic number they can to sell their view of the party. Democrats were very over-extended after 2 waves in a row, and they were bound to crash after that sugar high was depleted.

Ftr, I think I have even had this discussion with you before in the past.

[anthonyjg]

I am so sick of this argument that we should all support the candidates "who can win" in the general. Obviously winning matters, but a winning political party isn't necessarily the same as a good political party. A candidate who runs on being able to win and not on policies that will help those who need it has no moral credibility.

If you want to win: lie, pander, and seek support from the powerful. It isn't that difficult. But I have no interest in running a candidate who only knows how to win, I'd much rather run someone who knows why they should win.

You don't have to support single payer, but please don't argue for a candidate who opposes it by saying that they "can win." I'm fine with arguing about what healthcare policy is best for people, I'm not ok with arguing about what healthcare policy is the most electorally pleasing. In my eyes, the moral consequences of the current state of healthcare far outweigh the potential electoral consequences of single payer. Let's take a stand and set our eyes on justice, winning is secondary.

[Tintrlvr]

I am so sick of this argument that we should all support the candidates "who can win" in the general. Obviously winning matters, but a winning political party isn't necessarily the same as a good political party. A candidate who runs on being able to win and not on policies that will help those who need it has no moral credibility.

If you want to win: lie, pander, and seek support from the powerful. It isn't that difficult. But I have no interest in running a candidate who only knows how to win, I'd much rather run someone who knows why they should win.

You don't have to support single payer, but please don't argue for a candidate who opposes it by saying that they "can win." I'm fine with arguing about what healthcare policy is best for people, I'm not ok with arguing about what healthcare policy is the most electorally pleasing. In my eyes, the moral consequences of the current state of healthcare far outweigh the potential electoral consequences of single payer. Let's take a stand and set our eyes on justice, winning is secondary.

Better to have some healthcare system reform than no healthcare system reform at all. This is the supremely privileged argument of someone well positioned enough to be able to hold out for "the best" option rather than dying for lack of healthcare because the privileged were holding out for better options.

[anthonyjg]

I am so sick of this argument that we should all support the candidates "who can win" in the general. Obviously winning matters, but a winning political party isn't necessarily the same as a good political party. A candidate who runs on being able to win and not on policies that will help those who need it has no moral credibility.

If you want to win: lie, pander, and seek support from the powerful. It isn't that difficult. But I have no interest in running a candidate who only knows how to win, I'd much rather run someone who knows why they should win.

You don't have to support single payer, but please don't argue for a candidate who opposes it by saying that they "can win." I'm fine with arguing about what healthcare policy is best for people, I'm not ok with arguing about what healthcare policy is the most electorally pleasing. In my eyes, the moral consequences of the current state of healthcare far outweigh the potential electoral consequences of single payer. Let's take a stand and set our eyes on justice, winning is secondary.

Better to have some healthcare system reform than no healthcare system reform at all. This is the supremely privileged argument of someone well positioned enough to be able to hold out for "the best" option rather than dying for lack of healthcare because the privileged were holding out for better options.

Personally, I think the privileged route is the one that leaves 28 million people off of healthcare in exchange for political office. We don't need incremental change, we need to change the entire system.

[Tintrlvr]

I am so sick of this argument that we should all support the candidates "who can win" in the general. Obviously winning matters, but a winning political party isn't necessarily the same as a good political party. A candidate who runs on being able to win and not on policies that will help those who need it has no moral credibility.

If you want to win: lie, pander, and seek support from the powerful. It isn't that difficult. But I have no interest in running a candidate who only knows how to win, I'd much rather run someone who knows why they should win.

You don't have to support single payer, but please don't argue for a candidate who opposes it by saying that they "can win." I'm fine with arguing about what healthcare policy is best for people, I'm not ok with arguing about what healthcare policy is the most electorally pleasing. In my eyes, the moral consequences of the current state of healthcare far outweigh the potential electoral consequences of single payer. Let's take a stand and set our eyes on justice, winning is secondary.

Better to have some healthcare system reform than no healthcare system reform at all. This is the supremely privileged argument of someone well positioned enough to be able to hold out for "the best" option rather than dying for lack of healthcare because the privileged were holding out for better options.

Personally, I think the privileged route is the one that leaves 28 million people off of healthcare in exchange for political office. We don't need incremental change, we need to change the entire system.

All we need to cover everyone else *is* incremental change. A lot of those 28 million are not the fault of the ACA; many of them are the result of Medicaid not being expanded in 19 states. The ACA of course required Medicaid expansion, but that portion was made optional by the Supreme Court. Get the remaining 19 to expand with time and additional incentives, add in a public option and you're set. That's very realistic for the Democrats to achieve even with only narrow majorities in Congress (does not require the very unlikely circumstance of the Democrats winning 60 seats in the Senate again any time soon). The Dutch system works pretty much exactly that way and covers everyone. Single-payer is an aberration even among the countries with great healthcare systems.

But apparently it's better to waste time and energy while people die and while other pressing issues are ignored on promoting a system that is much more than is needed to achieve goals and that realistically can't be passed into law for ages if ever because the Democrats will not have 60 Senate seats to do it on their own even if every single Democrat could be convinced to back single-payer.

[GoTfan]

I am so sick of this argument that we should all support the candidates "who can win" in the general. Obviously winning matters, but a winning political party isn't necessarily the same as a good political party. A candidate who runs on being able to win and not on policies that will help those who need it has no moral credibility.

If you want to win: lie, pander, and seek support from the powerful. It isn't that difficult. But I have no interest in running a candidate who only knows how to win, I'd much rather run someone who knows why they should win.

You don't have to support single payer, but please don't argue for a candidate who opposes it by saying that they "can win." I'm fine with arguing about what healthcare policy is best for people, I'm not ok with arguing about what healthcare policy is the most electorally pleasing. In my eyes, the moral consequences of the current state of healthcare far outweigh the potential electoral consequences of single payer. Let's take a stand and set our eyes on justice, winning is secondary.

Better to have some healthcare system reform than no healthcare system reform at all. This is the supremely privileged argument of someone well positioned enough to be able to hold out for "the best" option rather than dying for lack of healthcare because the privileged were holding out for better options.

Personally, I think the privileged route is the one that leaves 28 million people off of healthcare in exchange for political office. We don't need incremental change, we need to change the entire system.

All we need to cover everyone else *is* incremental change. A lot of those 28 million are not the fault of the ACA; many of them are the result of Medicaid not being expanded in 19 states. The ACA of course required Medicaid expansion, but that portion was made optional by the Supreme Court. Get the remaining 19 to expand with time and additional incentives, add in a public option and you're set. That's very realistic for the Democrats to achieve even with only narrow majorities in Congress (does not require the very unlikely circumstance of the Democrats winning 60 seats in the Senate again any time soon). The Dutch system works pretty much exactly that way and covers everyone. Single-payer is an aberration even among the countries with great healthcare systems.

But apparently it's better to waste time and energy while people die and while other pressing issues are ignored on promoting a system that is much more than is needed to achieve goals and that realistically can't be passed into law for ages if ever because the Democrats will not have 60 Senate seats to do it on their own even if every single Democrat could be convinced to back single-payer.

Democrats who don't back it should switch parties or get primaried.

[anthonyjg]

All we need to cover everyone else *is* incremental change. A lot of those 28 million are not the fault of the ACA; many of them are the result of Medicaid not being expanded in 19 states. The ACA of course required Medicaid expansion, but that portion was made optional by the Supreme Court. Get the remaining 19 to expand with time and additional incentives, add in a public option and you're set. That's very realistic for the Democrats to achieve even with only narrow majorities in Congress (does not require the very unlikely circumstance of the Democrats winning 60 seats in the Senate again any time soon). The Dutch system works pretty much exactly that way and covers everyone. Single-payer is an aberration even among the countries with great healthcare systems.

But apparently it's better to waste time and energy while people die and while other pressing issues are ignored on promoting a system that is much more than is needed to achieve goals and that realistically can't be passed into law for ages if ever because the Democrats will not have 60 Senate seats to do it on their own even if every single Democrat could be convinced to back single-payer.

Alright, my last post didn't cover my entire point and I apologize for any confusion. My anger towards incrementalists is because I think we largely share different goals. However much I may disagree with them, I'm not saying that incrementalists have no moral credibility, people who argue for their candidate because they "can win" have no moral credibility.

If you want to advocate for a universal healthcare system that isn't single payer because you think it's what working people need right now, go for it. I disagree, and I'll let you know that, but go for it. It doesn't bother me as much as the whole "we oppose Trump but have no actual vision of our own" rhetoric. I have no time for somebody who wants to nominate a Bill Clinton solely because he can win, the reason being that Bill Clinton and those like him only ever won for themselves. Rolling back welfare, expanding the death penalty, and signing in a disastrous crime bill hardly sounds like a win for the marginalized to me.

That's what I fear with opposition to this litmus test and I think it's our fundamental disagreement. I'm a cynic when it comes to these sorts of people. It's easy to win if you don't care what you've won. The fact of the matter is that there are many in the party who aren't on my side and as such, I don't care if they win. Bill Clinton's presidency was a net negative for ordinary people, Obama could've been better than he was (though I obviously don't think he's as awful as Clinton), and Hillary Clinton didn't give a damn about what policies she advocated for so long as they were the ones that got her into office.

Not all wins are the same and I have become increasingly convinced that third-wayers and I don't share the same goals. That's what bothers me. The politics I like are deeply ingrained, but not so much as the principles that back them up. I'll listen to someone who isn't as revolutionary as I am and, as much as I hate it, I'll take incremental change if it's all that's there, but capitulating to the powerful crosses a line. The Democratic Party is supposed to be a vehicle that drives forward change to help those who need it. If that vehicle is moving slowly, oh well, so be it. But too often it seems like we're going in reverse or standing still out of fear that we'll damage the engine.

I don't see the Clinton's as people with different routes to the same end goal, I see them as political strategists who aren't particularly interested in smashing tenets of capitalism. They just aren't on my side.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I am so sick of this argument that we should all support the candidates "who can win" in the general. Obviously winning matters, but a winning political party isn't necessarily the same as a good political party. A candidate who runs on being able to win and not on policies that will help those who need it has no moral credibility.

If you want to win: lie, pander, and seek support from the powerful. It isn't that difficult. But I have no interest in running a candidate who only knows how to win, I'd much rather run someone who knows why they should win.

You don't have to support single payer, but please don't argue for a candidate who opposes it by saying that they "can win." I'm fine with arguing about what healthcare policy is best for people, I'm not ok with arguing about what healthcare policy is the most electorally pleasing. In my eyes, the moral consequences of the current state of healthcare far outweigh the potential electoral consequences of single payer. Let's take a stand and set our eyes on justice, winning is secondary.

Better to have some healthcare system reform than no healthcare system reform at all. This is the supremely privileged argument of someone well positioned enough to be able to hold out for "the best" option rather than dying for lack of healthcare because the privileged were holding out for better options.

Personally, I think the privileged route is the one that leaves 28 million people off of healthcare in exchange for political office. We don't need incremental change, we need to change the entire system.

All we need to cover everyone else *is* incremental change. A lot of those 28 million are not the fault of the ACA; many of them are the result of Medicaid not being expanded in 19 states. The ACA of course required Medicaid expansion, but that portion was made optional by the Supreme Court. Get the remaining 19 to expand with time and additional incentives, add in a public option and you're set. That's very realistic for the Democrats to achieve even with only narrow majorities in Congress (does not require the very unlikely circumstance of the Democrats winning 60 seats in the Senate again any time soon). The Dutch system works pretty much exactly that way and covers everyone. Single-payer is an aberration even among the countries with great healthcare systems.

But apparently it's better to waste time and energy while people die and while other pressing issues are ignored on promoting a system that is much more than is needed to achieve goals and that realistically can't be passed into law for ages if ever because the Democrats will not have 60 Senate seats to do it on their own even if every single Democrat could be convinced to back single-payer.

Democrats who don't back it should switch parties or get primaried.

To what party? The other major Political party literally tried to pass bills that would have killed 16-32 million people. Improving ObamaCare preserves capitalism while expanding insurance Access and saving lives. There's no particular reason why we ever need to go for single payer.

[GoTfan]

I am so sick of this argument that we should all support the candidates "who can win" in the general. Obviously winning matters, but a winning political party isn't necessarily the same as a good political party. A candidate who runs on being able to win and not on policies that will help those who need it has no moral credibility.

If you want to win: lie, pander, and seek support from the powerful. It isn't that difficult. But I have no interest in running a candidate who only knows how to win, I'd much rather run someone who knows why they should win.

You don't have to support single payer, but please don't argue for a candidate who opposes it by saying that they "can win." I'm fine with arguing about what healthcare policy is best for people, I'm not ok with arguing about what healthcare policy is the most electorally pleasing. In my eyes, the moral consequences of the current state of healthcare far outweigh the potential electoral consequences of single payer. Let's take a stand and set our eyes on justice, winning is secondary.

Better to have some healthcare system reform than no healthcare system reform at all. This is the supremely privileged argument of someone well positioned enough to be able to hold out for "the best" option rather than dying for lack of healthcare because the privileged were holding out for better options.

Personally, I think the privileged route is the one that leaves 28 million people off of healthcare in exchange for political office. We don't need incremental change, we need to change the entire system.

All we need to cover everyone else *is* incremental change. A lot of those 28 million are not the fault of the ACA; many of them are the result of Medicaid not being expanded in 19 states. The ACA of course required Medicaid expansion, but that portion was made optional by the Supreme Court. Get the remaining 19 to expand with time and additional incentives, add in a public option and you're set. That's very realistic for the Democrats to achieve even with only narrow majorities in Congress (does not require the very unlikely circumstance of the Democrats winning 60 seats in the Senate again any time soon). The Dutch system works pretty much exactly that way and covers everyone. Single-payer is an aberration even among the countries with great healthcare systems.

But apparently it's better to waste time and energy while people die and while other pressing issues are ignored on promoting a system that is much more than is needed to achieve goals and that realistically can't be passed into law for ages if ever because the Democrats will not have 60 Senate seats to do it on their own even if every single Democrat could be convinced to back single-payer.

Democrats who don't back it should switch parties or get primaried.

To what party? The other major Political party literally tried to pass bills that would have killed 16-32 million people. Improving ObamaCare preserves capitalism while expanding insurance Access and saving lives. There's no particular reason why we ever need to go for single payer.

Sorry, no sympathy. I don't want provate companies deciding who should be covered and who shouldn't be. I'm not willing to play politics when someone can't afford healthcare. Government should run the essentials like healthcare, infrastructure, public education, ans regulate banks more closely than they do now.

Sorry, but I will not budge on this point. Either get onboard with it, or go away.

[publicunofficial]

I am so sick of this argument that we should all support the candidates "who can win" in the general. Obviously winning matters, but a winning political party isn't necessarily the same as a good political party. A candidate who runs on being able to win and not on policies that will help those who need it has no moral credibility.

If you want to win: lie, pander, and seek support from the powerful. It isn't that difficult. But I have no interest in running a candidate who only knows how to win, I'd much rather run someone who knows why they should win.

You don't have to support single payer, but please don't argue for a candidate who opposes it by saying that they "can win." I'm fine with arguing about what healthcare policy is best for people, I'm not ok with arguing about what healthcare policy is the most electorally pleasing. In my eyes, the moral consequences of the current state of healthcare far outweigh the potential electoral consequences of single payer. Let's take a stand and set our eyes on justice, winning is secondary.

Better to have some healthcare system reform than no healthcare system reform at all. This is the supremely privileged argument of someone well positioned enough to be able to hold out for "the best" option rather than dying for lack of healthcare because the privileged were holding out for better options.

Personally, I think the privileged route is the one that leaves 28 million people off of healthcare in exchange for political office. We don't need incremental change, we need to change the entire system.

All we need to cover everyone else *is* incremental change. A lot of those 28 million are not the fault of the ACA; many of them are the result of Medicaid not being expanded in 19 states. The ACA of course required Medicaid expansion, but that portion was made optional by the Supreme Court. Get the remaining 19 to expand with time and additional incentives, add in a public option and you're set. That's very realistic for the Democrats to achieve even with only narrow majorities in Congress (does not require the very unlikely circumstance of the Democrats winning 60 seats in the Senate again any time soon). The Dutch system works pretty much exactly that way and covers everyone. Single-payer is an aberration even among the countries with great healthcare systems.

But apparently it's better to waste time and energy while people die and while other pressing issues are ignored on promoting a system that is much more than is needed to achieve goals and that realistically can't be passed into law for ages if ever because the Democrats will not have 60 Senate seats to do it on their own even if every single Democrat could be convinced to back single-payer.

Democrats who don't back it should switch parties or get primaried.

To what party? The other major Political party literally tried to pass bills that would have killed 16-32 million people. Improving ObamaCare preserves capitalism while expanding insurance Access and saving lives. There's no particular reason why we ever need to go for single payer.

Sorry, no sympathy. I don't want provate companies deciding who should be covered and who shouldn't be. I'm not willing to play politics when someone can't afford healthcare. Government should run the essentials like healthcare, infrastructure, public education, ans regulate banks more closely than they do now.

Sorry, but I will not budge on this point. Either get onboard with it, or go away.

Completely agree.

[Yank2133]

Of course it alarms them. The pharma industry donates millions to them.

This isn't why.

It alarms them because they don't know if they could actually do it if they return to power. Single-payer is a complex issue and the implementation would mean making painful politic decisions that could backfire on them.

Dumb*** Berniebots aren't thinking long-term here at all. They should just back universal healthcare, it gives Democrats some room to maneuver.

[Yank2133]

I don't see why Democrats are so hesistant to just support single-payer wholeheartedly, considering it's a more popular policy than the ACA.

If it was actually debate and treated seriously, this would dramatically change. Single payer would result in massive tax hikes to every American, which is part of what would kill it.

Except it would cost less than the current bureaucratic mess we have now.

It would, but most Americans are shielded by the true cost of medical bills.

They would see it as a tax hike

[Tintrlvr]

All we need to cover everyone else *is* incremental change. A lot of those 28 million are not the fault of the ACA; many of them are the result of Medicaid not being expanded in 19 states. The ACA of course required Medicaid expansion, but that portion was made optional by the Supreme Court. Get the remaining 19 to expand with time and additional incentives, add in a public option and you're set. That's very realistic for the Democrats to achieve even with only narrow majorities in Congress (does not require the very unlikely circumstance of the Democrats winning 60 seats in the Senate again any time soon). The Dutch system works pretty much exactly that way and covers everyone. Single-payer is an aberration even among the countries with great healthcare systems.

But apparently it's better to waste time and energy while people die and while other pressing issues are ignored on promoting a system that is much more than is needed to achieve goals and that realistically can't be passed into law for ages if ever because the Democrats will not have 60 Senate seats to do it on their own even if every single Democrat could be convinced to back single-payer.

Alright, my last post didn't cover my entire point and I apologize for any confusion. My anger towards incrementalists is because I think we largely share different goals. However much I may disagree with them, I'm not saying that incrementalists have no moral credibility, people who argue for their candidate because they "can win" have no moral credibility.

If you want to advocate for a universal healthcare system that isn't single payer because you think it's what working people need right now, go for it. I disagree, and I'll let you know that, but go for it. It doesn't bother me as much as the whole "we oppose Trump but have no actual vision of our own" rhetoric. I have no time for somebody who wants to nominate a Bill Clinton solely because he can win, the reason being that Bill Clinton and those like him only ever won for themselves. Rolling back welfare, expanding the death penalty, and signing in a disastrous crime bill hardly sounds like a win for the marginalized to me.

That's what I fear with opposition to this litmus test and I think it's our fundamental disagreement. I'm a cynic when it comes to these sorts of people. It's easy to win if you don't care what you've won. The fact of the matter is that there are many in the party who aren't on my side and as such, I don't care if they win. Bill Clinton's presidency was a net negative for ordinary people, Obama could've been better than he was (though I obviously don't think he's as awful as Clinton), and Hillary Clinton didn't give a damn about what policies she advocated for so long as they were the ones that got her into office.

Not all wins are the same and I have become increasingly convinced that third-wayers and I don't share the same goals. That's what bothers me. The politics I like are deeply ingrained, but not so much as the principles that back them up. I'll listen to someone who isn't as revolutionary as I am and, as much as I hate it, I'll take incremental change if it's all that's there, but capitulating to the powerful crosses a line. The Democratic Party is supposed to be a vehicle that drives forward change to help those who need it. If that vehicle is moving slowly, oh well, so be it. But too often it seems like we're going in reverse or standing still out of fear that we'll damage the engine.

I don't see the Clinton's as people with different routes to the same end goal, I see them as political strategists who aren't particularly interested in smashing tenets of capitalism. They just aren't on my side.

The thing is... there's (virtually) no one actually like the people you describe.

When the Democrats controlled Congress in 2008-2010, there were enormous strides in progressive policies making their way into legislation, especially in the House, which passed numerous pieces of extremely progressive legislation, some of which made it into law, although others eventually got gummed up in the Senate because the Democrats only had 60 seats for a few short months between Specter's party switch and Ted Kennedy's death, and otherwise the Democrats always needed at least one Republican vote to pass anything through the Senate. But now icons like Nancy Pelosi, who were instrumental to that progressive flowering, get attacked by people who don't know their history who have this bizarre and wrongheaded notion that Democrats don't want to enact the policies they stand for.

I'm sorry, you're totally in the wrong here.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I am so sick of this argument that we should all support the candidates "who can win" in the general. Obviously winning matters, but a winning political party isn't necessarily the same as a good political party. A candidate who runs on being able to win and not on policies that will help those who need it has no moral credibility.

If you want to win: lie, pander, and seek support from the powerful. It isn't that difficult. But I have no interest in running a candidate who only knows how to win, I'd much rather run someone who knows why they should win.

You don't have to support single payer, but please don't argue for a candidate who opposes it by saying that they "can win." I'm fine with arguing about what healthcare policy is best for people, I'm not ok with arguing about what healthcare policy is the most electorally pleasing. In my eyes, the moral consequences of the current state of healthcare far outweigh the potential electoral consequences of single payer. Let's take a stand and set our eyes on justice, winning is secondary.

Better to have some healthcare system reform than no healthcare system reform at all. This is the supremely privileged argument of someone well positioned enough to be able to hold out for "the best" option rather than dying for lack of healthcare because the privileged were holding out for better options.

Personally, I think the privileged route is the one that leaves 28 million people off of healthcare in exchange for political office. We don't need incremental change, we need to change the entire system.

All we need to cover everyone else *is* incremental change. A lot of those 28 million are not the fault of the ACA; many of them are the result of Medicaid not being expanded in 19 states. The ACA of course required Medicaid expansion, but that portion was made optional by the Supreme Court. Get the remaining 19 to expand with time and additional incentives, add in a public option and you're set. That's very realistic for the Democrats to achieve even with only narrow majorities in Congress (does not require the very unlikely circumstance of the Democrats winning 60 seats in the Senate again any time soon). The Dutch system works pretty much exactly that way and covers everyone. Single-payer is an aberration even among the countries with great healthcare systems.

But apparently it's better to waste time and energy while people die and while other pressing issues are ignored on promoting a system that is much more than is needed to achieve goals and that realistically can't be passed into law for ages if ever because the Democrats will not have 60 Senate seats to do it on their own even if every single Democrat could be convinced to back single-payer.

Democrats who don't back it should switch parties or get primaried.

To what party? The other major Political party literally tried to pass bills that would have killed 16-32 million people. Improving ObamaCare preserves capitalism while expanding insurance Access and saving lives. There's no particular reason why we ever need to go for single payer.

Sorry, no sympathy. I don't want provate companies deciding who should be covered and who shouldn't be. I'm not willing to play politics when someone can't afford healthcare. Government should run the essentials like healthcare, infrastructure, public education, ans regulate banks more closely than they do now.

Sorry, but I will not budge on this point. Either get onboard with it, or go away.

Completely agree.

Taken Literally, you are effectively suggesting that you want Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin, Tester, and King, who are on record as being against single payer, to join the republican party. Well congratulations, you've just sent the republican majority to 57-43, which is big enough to stick around for the foreseeable future.

[anthonyjg]

All we need to cover everyone else *is* incremental change. A lot of those 28 million are not the fault of the ACA; many of them are the result of Medicaid not being expanded in 19 states. The ACA of course required Medicaid expansion, but that portion was made optional by the Supreme Court. Get the remaining 19 to expand with time and additional incentives, add in a public option and you're set. That's very realistic for the Democrats to achieve even with only narrow majorities in Congress (does not require the very unlikely circumstance of the Democrats winning 60 seats in the Senate again any time soon). The Dutch system works pretty much exactly that way and covers everyone. Single-payer is an aberration even among the countries with great healthcare systems.

But apparently it's better to waste time and energy while people die and while other pressing issues are ignored on promoting a system that is much more than is needed to achieve goals and that realistically can't be passed into law for ages if ever because the Democrats will not have 60 Senate seats to do it on their own even if every single Democrat could be convinced to back single-payer.

Alright, my last post didn't cover my entire point and I apologize for any confusion. My anger towards incrementalists is because I think we largely share different goals. However much I may disagree with them, I'm not saying that incrementalists have no moral credibility, people who argue for their candidate because they "can win" have no moral credibility.

If you want to advocate for a universal healthcare system that isn't single payer because you think it's what working people need right now, go for it. I disagree, and I'll let you know that, but go for it. It doesn't bother me as much as the whole "we oppose Trump but have no actual vision of our own" rhetoric. I have no time for somebody who wants to nominate a Bill Clinton solely because he can win, the reason being that Bill Clinton and those like him only ever won for themselves. Rolling back welfare, expanding the death penalty, and signing in a disastrous crime bill hardly sounds like a win for the marginalized to me.

That's what I fear with opposition to this litmus test and I think it's our fundamental disagreement. I'm a cynic when it comes to these sorts of people. It's easy to win if you don't care what you've won. The fact of the matter is that there are many in the party who aren't on my side and as such, I don't care if they win. Bill Clinton's presidency was a net negative for ordinary people, Obama could've been better than he was (though I obviously don't think he's as awful as Clinton), and Hillary Clinton didn't give a damn about what policies she advocated for so long as they were the ones that got her into office.

Not all wins are the same and I have become increasingly convinced that third-wayers and I don't share the same goals. That's what bothers me. The politics I like are deeply ingrained, but not so much as the principles that back them up. I'll listen to someone who isn't as revolutionary as I am and, as much as I hate it, I'll take incremental change if it's all that's there, but capitulating to the powerful crosses a line. The Democratic Party is supposed to be a vehicle that drives forward change to help those who need it. If that vehicle is moving slowly, oh well, so be it. But too often it seems like we're going in reverse or standing still out of fear that we'll damage the engine.

I don't see the Clinton's as people with different routes to the same end goal, I see them as political strategists who aren't particularly interested in smashing tenets of capitalism. They just aren't on my side.

The thing is... there's (virtually) no one actually like the people you describe.

When the Democrats controlled Congress in 2008-2010, there were enormous strides in progressive policies making their way into legislation, especially in the House, which passed numerous pieces of extremely progressive legislation, some of which made it into law, although others eventually got gummed up in the Senate because the Democrats only had 60 seats for a few short months between Specter's party switch and Ted Kennedy's death, and otherwise the Democrats always needed at least one Republican vote to pass anything through the Senate. But now icons like Nancy Pelosi, who were instrumental to that progressive flowering, get attacked by people who don't know their history who have this bizarre and wrongheaded notion that Democrats don't want to enact the policies they stand for.

I'm sorry, you're totally in the wrong here.

Of course Democrats want to enact the policies they stand for, that's my problem. I'm well to the left of these folks and that's just a fact. Pelosi's comments about capitalism were hugely disappointing. Obama droned other countries, wasn't strong on protecting civil liberties from NSA surveillance, and signed a healthcare law that could've been better given their numbers in Congress. And, as I mentioned before, Bill Clinton, a figure still admired by many in the party, had a complete disaster of a presidency.

Most elected officials in the Democratic Party aren't leftists. Hell, even Sanders can be weak on things like public education and foreign policy. There is no evidence that Democrats and I have our eyes set on the same future. I don't particularly care for a party that only wants to tinker around the edges of capitalism.

There are people like Al Franken who I'm fine with. Specifically with single payer, Franken has argued for a slow and steady wins the race type approach. We have the same goals, Franken just doubts the feasibility of a single payer system in today's climate. I can't say the same for many other leaders in the Democratic Party. Call me a skeptic, but I doubt that Obama, Pelosi, or the Clinton's are interested in a socialist future and as such, I don't care if they win or not. To hell with the lesser of two evils argument.

[Yank2133]

I am so sick of this argument that we should all support the candidates "who can win" in the general. Obviously winning matters, but a winning political party isn't necessarily the same as a good political party. A candidate who runs on being able to win and not on policies that will help those who need it has no moral credibility.

If you want to win: lie, pander, and seek support from the powerful. It isn't that difficult. But I have no interest in running a candidate who only knows how to win, I'd much rather run someone who knows why they should win.

You don't have to support single payer, but please don't argue for a candidate who opposes it by saying that they "can win." I'm fine with arguing about what healthcare policy is best for people, I'm not ok with arguing about what healthcare policy is the most electorally pleasing. In my eyes, the moral consequences of the current state of healthcare far outweigh the potential electoral consequences of single payer. Let's take a stand and set our eyes on justice, winning is secondary.

Better to have some healthcare system reform than no healthcare system reform at all. This is the supremely privileged argument of someone well positioned enough to be able to hold out for "the best" option rather than dying for lack of healthcare because the privileged were holding out for better options.

Personally, I think the privileged route is the one that leaves 28 million people off of healthcare in exchange for political office. We don't need incremental change, we need to change the entire system.

All we need to cover everyone else *is* incremental change. A lot of those 28 million are not the fault of the ACA; many of them are the result of Medicaid not being expanded in 19 states. The ACA of course required Medicaid expansion, but that portion was made optional by the Supreme Court. Get the remaining 19 to expand with time and additional incentives, add in a public option and you're set. That's very realistic for the Democrats to achieve even with only narrow majorities in Congress (does not require the very unlikely circumstance of the Democrats winning 60 seats in the Senate again any time soon). The Dutch system works pretty much exactly that way and covers everyone. Single-payer is an aberration even among the countries with great healthcare systems.

But apparently it's better to waste time and energy while people die and while other pressing issues are ignored on promoting a system that is much more than is needed to achieve goals and that realistically can't be passed into law for ages if ever because the Democrats will not have 60 Senate seats to do it on their own even if every single Democrat could be convinced to back single-payer.

Democrats who don't back it should switch parties or get primaried.

To what party? The other major Political party literally tried to pass bills that would have killed 16-32 million people. Improving ObamaCare preserves capitalism while expanding insurance Access and saving lives. There's no particular reason why we ever need to go for single payer.

Sorry, no sympathy. I don't want provate companies deciding who should be covered and who shouldn't be. I'm not willing to play politics when someone can't afford healthcare. Government should run the essentials like healthcare, infrastructure, public education, ans regulate banks more closely than they do now.

Sorry, but I will not budge on this point. Either get onboard with it, or go away.

Completely agree.

Taken Literally, you are effectively suggesting that you want Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin, Tester, and King, who are on record as being against single payer, to join the republican party. Well congratulations, you've just sent the republican majority to 57-43, which is big enough to stick around for the foreseeable future.

Exactly.

This kind of stupidity will just end up hurting people more in the long-run because the ACA would be toast in this scenario.

[Sumner 1868]

If they won't deliver on this issue then exactly what will Democrats accomplish when they return to power? Deregulate a few more industries? Tax credits for tech monopolies?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If they won't deliver on this issue then exactly what will Democrats accomplish when they return to power? Deregulate a few more industries? Tax credits for tech monopolies?

Immigration reform, minimum wage increase, a health care bill that is better than ObamaCare but isn't single payer, tax reform that doesn't involve tax cuts for the top 1%, NAFTA repeal, the Equality Act, etc.

Acting as if single payer is the only worthwhile thing a democratic administration can do for liberal Americans is pretty ridiculous.