Sanders single-payer litmus test alarms Dems

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The leader of the democratic party, her great highness Nancy Pelosi, has famously declared "We're capitalists, and that's just how it is!" If Sanders wants to advocate for socialist policies, he should join the green party.

[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.

[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.

[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.