Sanders single-payer litmus test alarms Dems

[Tintrlvr]

Seriously though, there should be no litmus test for democrats outside of a sure vote against Obamacare repeal. If democrats held majorities in both houses of congress than maybe it'd be something to consider but not when every seat is important and damaging incumbents is unhelpful.

This this this this this. There are a lot of great, cost-efficient and effective healthcare systems in the world that are not single-payer; the Dutch system, for example, which is basically Obamacare with some patches. We don't need to create a National Health Service to have a great healthcare system, and claiming we do is wasting energy when there are other mega-issues the party could also be addressing, like improving the tax system or fighting climate change.

[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.

[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.

[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.