Ah yes, because I don’t support the first universal healthcare bill that took 12 minutes to write, it immediately means that I support the current system.
Sorry about your dad, by the way. It must be hard to lose a family member so young. I have quite a lot of friends who are struggling to get healthcare, and I would share their stories, but I wouldn’t like to use them as political props.....
That’s just low, deranged, and twisted on so many levels. You oughta be ashamed for using him as a prop.
I could address many of the silly points made in this thread (especially the "rationing!!!" one which ehh happens in literally every model of healthcare to some extent no matter the structure: only that the American model where it is based on ones ability to pay is by far the worst) but this one strikes me as being the worst: the idea that you can't use your own personal experiences with a broken and terrible system to argue for change because "you're politicising them!!!" or whatever is a terrible idea. Unless you're wiling to argue the same about people who used similar experiences to argue for a whole array of very important regulations that everyone generally agrees are good today - things like mandating basic safety features like airbags and seat belts in cars, and other similar safety related things that benefit everyone in our day to day life.
I think also this thread shows a significant misunderstanding of the point of private members bills (of which this really is an American equivalent of, in that its not introduced by the majority and will not go very far through the legislative process) and why people introduce legislation that has an incredibly low if not zero chance of passing. Its not about presenting an entirely perfect bill and seriously trying to pass the thing: its about keeping an issue or cause that you believe in alive and actively debated rather than letting it die - this is precisely why the Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare 629 times when Obama was President: they never actually expected the thing to become law but wanted the issue to remain in the news and not allow it to become settled which seemed to work. The problem with this approach is that when you do get in a position to pass whatever you want you actually need to put something workable together and that can prove problematic - to carry on my earlier analogy, look at the issues that the Republicans had passing anything on healthcare when they had the ability to pass practically anything they wanted. The difference between those advocating for a better, single-payer (or multi-payer as well: both models seem to be considered as the same thing in America at the moment) system have at least a vague idea of the sort of system that they want: while Republicans apparently put little to no thought in the system that they wanted to introduce after repealing the ACA. In that respect Sanders has done exactly what he intended to do with this thing - indeed, this thread is proof of that!
In terms of the article itself: its primary points (other than ageist insults and electoral concerns) seem to be based on one main point - that single-payer proposals did not pass at the state level. However there are plenty of reasons why single-payer systems would be untenable at state level - especially in smaller states like Vermont and Colorado where they got the most consideration - and that's because its only a model that sensibly works at a national level. Universal coverage requires costs to fall (American healthcare spending being significantly higher than any other country in the world is untenable: especially since
performance in the US under the current system continue to be amongst the worst in a group of similar nations - incidentally the highest performing country overall is the UK and its Beveridge-based state-managed system, although Australia's single payer insurance system is second and the Netherlands multi-payer private system is third which would suggest to me that there's no single perfect model) and that requires nation-wide organisation since healthcare, like everything, is an economy of scale and a single federal system would be able to negotiate significantly lower costs than, say, Vermont would by itself. The author of that article does not even consider that fact: nor is the fact that although taxation would need to rise in order to fund a single-payer system, this would be balanced by individuals needing to pay significantly lower if any premiums in order to get healthcare coverage: which would likely balance out for a significant number of people. The other concern of the article seems to be "we need to be talking about other issues!!" which isn't really worth taking that seriously: a party can and needs to talk about a large range of issues.
