Elizabeth Warren (D) "It’s time for Democrats to run on single-payer health care

[Beet]

Blocking the GOP rollback of provisions in the Affordable Care Act, Ms. Warren said, is not enough. She said Democrats on the ballot in the next two federal elections should back a national single-payer health-care plan.

“President Obama tried to move us forward with health-care coverage by using a conservative model that came from one of the conservative think tanks that had been advanced by a Republican governor in Massachusetts,” she said during an interview in her Senate office last week. “Now it’s time for the next step. And the next step is single payer.”

In Lowell, Ms. Warren said there is broad support for raising the minimum wage, expanding Social Security, forgiving student loan debt and installing tougher federal regulations on the financial services industry.

Democrats, she said, would do better if they campaigned on that progressive platform rather than blurring the lines between themselves and Republicans.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/27/1675699/-MA-Sen-Elizabeth-Warren-D-It-s-time-for-Democrats-to-run-on-single-payer-health-care

[Mr. Morden]

The Boston Globe has a good primer on Warren's past comments on single payer:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/06/27/how-elizabeth-warren-turned-into-enthusiastic-supporter-single-payer-health-care/Uk8rAaRcoOIIiQWa7nDkBN/story.html

[Fuzzy Bear]

Absolutely.

If the GOP healthcare program conspicuously makes VOTERS worse off, the idea will be a winner.

[The Other Castro]

Even if single payer has its own problems, Democrats need some kind of answer on healthcare as a campaign device. It can't just be Obamacare needs improvement, they need an actual, easy to remember, simple idea.

[GlobeSoc]

One of my fears with Warren was that she'd have let single payer health care fall by the wayside. I am glad that she said this.

[heatcharger]

Even if single payer has its own problems, Democrats need some kind of answer on healthcare as a campaign device. It can't just be Obamacare needs improvement, they need an actual, easy to remember, simple idea.

I mean, the term 'single-payer' isn't that intuitive. It needs to actually be explained to the average voter, while 'public option' has the word option in it, which most people have a positive opinion of already.

Anyway, I'm pretty dissapointed she decided to have such a black-and-white view on how to move forward with healthcare.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Anyway, I'm pretty dissapointed she decided to have such a black-and-white view on how to move forward with healthcare.

The American electorate don't care much for nuance anyways.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

This is the only option that will actually work for everyone. The health insurance companies will continue to raise premiums since people will buy their product no matter what. Single payer will end this irrational and cruel system of big corporations leaching off of people getting sick and dying. No other wealthy nation even has this debate.

[Coraxion]

If they do this, goodbye Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

If they do this, goodbye Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

No, it will help the Democrats expand the map.

[Shadows]

If they do this, goodbye Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

No, it will help the Democrats expand the map.

FDR increased tax from 25% to 94%, introduced Minimum Wage, Social Security & won. Harry Truman made the biggest political comeback in US history with a much bigger upset than Trump in 1948 by running on Single Payer. They won the deep South too. That doesn't mean Democrats will win the South on healthcare but there is no indication they would do worse than the status quo.

Jeff Merkley also endorsed Single Payer. I can see Gillibrand flip-flopping if she thinks the idea is popular. O'Malley will run on anything. And I would say there is a 30-40% off chance than Booker & Cuomo embrace this if Trumpcare passes !

Jeff Merkley in a rally with Bernie - Every country gives free healthcare with the right of citizenship. How about we have a Medicare-for-all here? (He posted the remark again separately in his FB Page) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZwlRSh8aE

And then came in a CNN interview - Obamacare & the exchange was the Conservative option. Atleast a public option in ACA would have cut the costs in half which it did in Rhode Island & many other states. My preference is a Single Payer, Medicare for all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQV2F6Un1qI

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Haha, because Coloradocare worked out so well.

[Mr. Morden]

No other wealthy nation even has this debate.

Plenty of other wealthy countries don't have single payer health care.

[libertpaulian]

No other wealthy nation even has this debate.

Plenty of other wealthy countries don't have single payer health care.

Only Canada and the UK do, if I'm correct.

[Shadows]

No other wealthy nation even has this debate.

Plenty of other wealthy countries don't have single payer health care.

Only Canada and the UK do, if I'm correct.

Japan, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Spain, most Gulf countries. Some people call Portugal a multi-payer which is disputed because SNS is free, universal, national, etc. Even the countries which have Multi-payer or Mandates like Germany etc have 80-85-90% of the system as Single Payer within the Multi-payer/Mandate system. Multi-payer potentially could be a better option but ACA was the multi-payer/Insurance Mandate type option & it failed.

It is impossible to implement unless both parties are ideologically similar - So that they don't play around with coverage or income levels. Plus, in US multi-payer/Mandate type universal healthcare is impossible considering the courts will find an income level & forced insurance like Germany unconstitutional !

[RINO Tom]

If they do this, goodbye Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Some would ask, "And if they don't, what's the point of the party?"  I think single payer is a bad idea, but it amazes me how some red avatars here are so content with picking up "states X, Y and Z" even if it means getting the types of voters who won't elect representatives who actually want to do the things you're party says it stands for?

[McGovernForPrez]

If they do this, goodbye Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Some would ask, "And if they don't, what's the point of the party?"  I think single payer is a bad idea, but it amazes me how some red avatars here are so content with picking up "states X, Y and Z" even if it means getting the types of voters who won't elect representatives who actually want to do the things you're party says it stands for?

For some people the party is all that matters. It's a fairly unhealthy mindset.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

No other wealthy nation even has this debate.

Plenty of other wealthy countries don't have single payer health care.

Only Canada and the UK do, if I'm correct.

Japan, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Spain, most Gulf countries. Some people call Portugal a multi-payer which is disputed because SNS is free, universal, national, etc. Even the countries which have Multi-payer or Mandates like Germany etc have 80-85-90% of the system as Single Payer within the Multi-payer/Mandate system. Multi-payer potentially could be a better option but ACA was the multi-payer/Insurance Mandate type option & it failed.

It is impossible to implement unless both parties are ideologically similar - So that they don't play around with coverage or income levels. Plus, in US multi-payer/Mandate type universal healthcare is impossible considering the courts will find an income level & forced insurance like Germany unconstitutional !

Finland has a public option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Finland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare. Canada and Taiwan are the only ones with single-payers. Others have multi-payer. A 2001 article in the public health journal Health Affairs studied fifty years of American public opinion of various health care plans and concluded that, while there appears to be general support of a "national health care plan," poll respondents "remain satisfied with their current medical arrangements, do not trust the federal government to do what is right, and do not favor a single-payer type of national health plan."[106

[Alabama_Indy10]

No other wealthy nation even has this debate.

Plenty of other wealthy countries don't have single payer health care.

Only Canada and the UK do, if I'm correct.

Japan, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Spain, most Gulf countries. Some people call Portugal a multi-payer which is disputed because SNS is free, universal, national, etc. Even the countries which have Multi-payer or Mandates like Germany etc have 80-85-90% of the system as Single Payer within the Multi-payer/Mandate system. Multi-payer potentially could be a better option but ACA was the multi-payer/Insurance Mandate type option & it failed.

It is impossible to implement unless both parties are ideologically similar - So that they don't play around with coverage or income levels. Plus, in US multi-payer/Mandate type universal healthcare is impossible considering the courts will find an income level & forced insurance like Germany unconstitutional !

Finland has a public option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Finland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare. Canada and Taiwan are the only ones with single-payers. Others have multi-payer. A 2001 article in the public health journal Health Affairs studied fifty years of American public opinion of various health care plans and concluded that, while there appears to be general support of a "national health care plan," poll respondents "remain satisfied with their current medical arrangements, do not trust the federal government to do what is right, and do not favor a single-payer type of national health plan."[106
Exactly

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

No other wealthy nation even has this debate.

Plenty of other wealthy countries don't have single payer health care.

Only Canada and the UK do, if I'm correct.

Japan, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Spain, most Gulf countries. Some people call Portugal a multi-payer which is disputed because SNS is free, universal, national, etc. Even the countries which have Multi-payer or Mandates like Germany etc have 80-85-90% of the system as Single Payer within the Multi-payer/Mandate system. Multi-payer potentially could be a better option but ACA was the multi-payer/Insurance Mandate type option & it failed.

It is impossible to implement unless both parties are ideologically similar - So that they don't play around with coverage or income levels. Plus, in US multi-payer/Mandate type universal healthcare is impossible considering the courts will find an income level & forced insurance like Germany unconstitutional !

Finland has a public option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Finland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare. Canada and Taiwan are the only ones with single-payers. Others have multi-payer. A 2001 article in the public health journal Health Affairs studied fifty years of American public opinion of various health care plans and concluded that, while there appears to be general support of a "national health care plan," poll respondents "remain satisfied with their current medical arrangements, do not trust the federal government to do what is right, and do not favor a single-payer type of national health plan."[106

That is the work of decades of anti-socialist corporate propaganda by health insurance companies. This was a 2001 poll which means it took place in the context of the failure of Hillarycare and most people seemed to be against the idea of the government having a surplus budget. Democrats need to stop courting Hollywood and big corporations and crack down on corruption in order to win back Middle America and actually make government programs work for all people.

[Deblano]

Anyway, I'm pretty dissapointed she decided to have such a black-and-white view on how to move forward with healthcare.

The American electorate don't care much for nuance anyways.

[Saint Milei]

Dems have yet to recover from Obamacare. GL with this lol

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Anyway, I'm pretty dissapointed she decided to have such a black-and-white view on how to move forward with healthcare.

The American electorate don't care much for nuance anyways.

[Kringla Heimsins]

Even if single payer has its own problems, Democrats need some kind of answer on healthcare as a campaign device. It can't just be Obamacare needs improvement, they need an actual, easy to remember, simple idea.

I mean, the term 'single-payer' isn't that intuitive. It needs to actually be explained to the average voter, while 'public option' has the word option in it, which most people have a positive opinion of already.

Even better: "Universal Health Care". This is something everybody can understand, and that is harder to think of as a bad thing (as opposed to "free" health care).

[Coraxion]

If they do this, goodbye Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Some would ask, "And if they don't, what's the point of the party?"  I think single payer is a bad idea, but it amazes me how some red avatars here are so content with picking up "states X, Y and Z" even if it means getting the types of voters who won't elect representatives who actually want to do the things you're party says it stands for?

Meh. At this point all I care about is wiping those smirks off those smug Republican faces.