Healthcare is not a right
Bernie Sanders Unveils his Medicare for All Plan
- Thread starter Dr. Acula
- Start date
southpawstyle
Superstar
Can you clarify this for me?
Techniec
Drugs and Kalashnikovs
Healthcare is not a right
Any country where that's a prevailing view is absolutely pathetic
Tragic ass posts like this is why I stopped posting in HL. The bar for being intellectual in here is very low. Number 1, you assume the Overton window is a static thing and that people cannot be moved. In other words, you believe that being to the right or left are fixed things and that people fit into rigid ideological barriers. Second, you don't comprehend what I was saying. The point was simple, if you begin the debate arguing from the framework of the right then you end up with a right wing bill. We have been arguing in that framework for 40 years. The most progressive legislature in America occurred when we argued from a left framework. There was a reason for Nixon proposing Obama care pretty much. The entire social safety net was based on that framework. Moreover, you're arguing thay the very idea of debate in a democratic society and any hope of persuasion while complaining that somehow I'm the narrow minded one. The rear of your shyt isn't even worth addressing. Now that I laid out what I said try again.Let me ask you something.
If you need the right to get your bill passed....why the fukk on Google Earth would you not frame your proposal in the terms of the right???????
Jesus fukking Christ. Have we got to the point in this country where considering the perspectives and concerns of anyone who doesn't think like we do as a bad thing? You sound like the right wingers you hate. Like I said, you progressives need to step the fukk out of your echo chamber. If your ideas only make sense to people who think just like you they must not be that good
You don't a thing about me, politics or organizing. You have sat on here for years and try to act like some mature authority but people like you are how we got the Clintons. The people who negotiate with themselves before even getting to the table. Last I checked the Democrats had 60 votes 9 years ago and did not move for singlepayer. Last I checked Republicans are doing whatever the fukk they want and it's fellow Republlicans that have them shook on things like Obama care. The winning coalition doesn't include the type of Republican opposed to healthcare and you don't need their votes to pass progressive legislation. You them to not be in office. Don't negotiate before you have to.
The notion that Bernie Sanders is going to pass a progressive program presented as a progressive program with a Republican WH and both houses of Congress is fukking laughable. This is the lack of pragmatism and common sense that has undermined the progressive agenda for the last decade.
YES, if you want to get something pushed when the right is in power, you have to frame things in their ideological contextg. Let's revisit
So like I suggested, use their own arguments against them as I did in my opening post here. There is plenty of proof that single payer programs cost less and plenty of common sense reasons that demonstrate it would work better- not on some progressive kumbaya feel good liberal guilt bullshyt, but in what matters to the right- dollars and cents. Progressives have the ammunition they need to sell this to the American people across the political spectrum, but yall are so fukking high and mighty you won't even consider discussing how healthcare might benefit someone who thinks differently from you. Is it any fukking surprise you haven't made any progress with this shyt?
Just because a Republican isn't up to repeal ACA doesn't mean they are on board with single payer, and if I remember correctly the repeal failed by the narrowest of margins. As you said, Democrats didn't go single payer when they had the chance, and as I said most Republicans are opposed to any kind of govt involvement in healthcare. So if Bernie wants to move single payer forward, he needs to stop selling his plan to people who are already on board and work to get people, specifically Congressmen/women, who are not on board.
You want to play the blame game? You progressives running a circle jerk campaign and refusing to reach beyond your base is a large part of what did Bernie in (though I still blame the DNC the most). This is real life. You don't get other people to agree to your ideas by calling them idiots and all kinds of horrible things if they don't agree. You're a lawyer, you should understand the value of making a convincing argument to all kinds of people
The culture dictates the terms.
In Europe, values don't have these ideological battle lines. Thus, the frame of the argument shifts.
It would help if we focused on shifting the argument to one of "values" not rights.
Seems like sensible neoliberalismLet me ask you something.
If you need the right to get your bill passed....why the fukk on Google Earth would you not frame your proposal in the terms of the right???????
Jesus fukking Christ. Have we got to the point in this country where considering the perspectives and concerns of anyone who doesn't think like we do as a bad thing? You sound like the right wingers you hate. Like I said, you progressives need to step the fukk out of your echo chamber. If your ideas only make sense to people who think just like you they must not be that good
People hate the center-left, but they're the ones who get shyt done
People hate realizing that you can be as left wing as you want, but you won't get shyt done in THIS country. This just isn't the place you think you live in and people won't realize this.
I fukk with the CHapo Trap House mindset...but that shyt is useful only for shyts and giggles, theres no policy plans or logical plans of action.
THUS, why Hillary was 100% right about Sanders being a fraud more focused about ranting than implementing policy
This isn't the country you think it is. All this democrat infighting ignores the reality of a VERY far right wing.
Yes, if you argue on the framework of the sides, the sides have a say.
Yeah, thats the most obvious thing ever.
Having a system that results in two parties causes that sort of ideological compromise.
Compare it to the multi-party countries you're trying to emulate...its no surprise nuance reigns there.
Clearly the span of time doesn't mean anything
Historical babble.
This isn't a policy proposal, just mastubatory analysis.
No one believes you
Do you know why no democrat won for decades before the Clintons?
This is NOT a left wing country.
See this is why this comment is useless.
You're wasting space typing out comments that are just aimless rants.
No policy
No plans
No proposals
No new ideas
Meta analysis won't create policy.
GnauzBookOfRhymes
Superstar
Let me ask you something.
If you need the right to get your bill passed....why the fukk on Google Earth would you not frame your proposal in the terms of the right???????
Jesus fukking Christ. Have we got to the point in this country where considering the perspectives and concerns of anyone who doesn't think like we do as a bad thing? You sound like the right wingers you hate. Like I said, you progressives need to step the fukk out of your echo chamber. If your ideas only make sense to people who think just like you they must not be that good
You have zero political instincts and one of the most important lessons of the 2016 election and the failure of Trump to repeal Obamacare went right over your head.
Let me say it simply so all you simpleton centrist/Third Way/DLC/Blue Dog/wishy washy/gutless/spineless/yellow bellied/self flagellating/emasculated eunuchs can understand.
Whether you like it or not - there has been a fundamental shift in the political discourse with respect to health care. The reason the GOP can't repeal Obamacare isn't just because the Dems are fighting it - THEIR OWN CONSTITUENTS ARE AGAINST IT. The playing field of acceptable political discourse has changed so drastically that even conservative support for Medicare for all/Single Payer is between 20-33%. REREAD THAT.
And you know why? Because people are no longer seeking validation from those who have a vested interest in maintaining the current system. That is how you get your policies passed. You demand a mile up front, intially refuse to compromise, mobilize public opinion, and then when it comes time to draft the legislation you can appear magnanimous by giving the opposing side a few feet.
In the meanwhile, stop sitting there soiling yourself worried about what the "right" wants. Because the truth of the matter is that the only thing the "right" ever wants, is to make sure the "left" doesn't implement policies that might 1) help minorities/women/working class people or 2) lead to higher taxes for wealthier taxpayers. If it really was an issue of compromising on things that the "right" would support, then damn near every single Republican would've happily supported Obamacare since it was largely based on Romneycare and a plan that was originally developed/supported by the fukking Heritage Foundation!
THE MACHINE
night owl
Opinion | Sanderscare is all cheap politics and magic math
Sanderscare is all cheap politics and magic math
Play Video 1:06
Sanders introduces 'Medicare for All'
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced his "Medicare for All" plan to provide universal health coverage to all Americans on Sept. 13. The bill has 16 Democratic co-sponsors.(Reuters)
By Catherine Rampell Opinion writer September 14
For years Democrats have (rightfully) hammered Republicans for spouting empty slogans and magic math.
Tax cuts will pay for themselves? Uh-huh, if you say so. Maybe have a chat with Kansas.
Build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it? Hmm, that’s not what Mexico says.
Repeal and replace Obamacare? Right-o, show us a replacement plan, any replacement plan, that won’t raise rates and cause millions of Americans to lose their insurance.
These were hollow promises, with no serious plan backing any of them.
Thanks to the Grand Old Party’s demagoguery, Democrats have for a little while enjoyed a virtual monopoly on facts, evidence and experts. Dems — or some of them, anyway — embraced serious, solutions-based, often technical policymaking and the hard choices that went along with it.
But the lesson the Democrats seem to have taken from the 2016 electoral trouncing is that they need to become more like Republicans. Meaning: Abandon thoughtful, detail-oriented bean-counting and attempts to come up with workable solutions grounded in (occasionally unpopular) reality, and instead chant virtue-signaling catchphrases.
Such as “single-payer.”
On Wednesday, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, unveiled his latest iteration of “Medicare for All.” Unlike the last time he introduced such legislation, in 2013, this bill had 16 co-sponsors — a third of the Democratic caucus. Among those co-sponsors were many potential contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, such as Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala D. Harris (Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Cory Booker (N.J.).
In a sense, they had to sign on. Single-payer is rapidly evolving into a litmus test for Democrats wishing to prove themselves sufficiently progressive for their leftward-shifting party’s base.
Even as Republicans attempt to rip health insurance away from millions, single-payer has become astonishingly popular — among the public generally and Democrats in particular. A June Pew Research Center survey found that a slim majority of Democrats say health insurance should be provided through a single national insurance system run by the government. Among Democrats under 30, the share was two-thirds.
And why not? Single-payer certainly sounds far simpler, fairer, less wasteful and cheaper than the patchwork of private and public insurers and providers we have today. Today’s system was created more by historical accident than deliberate design. President Barack Obama(among others, including me) said many times that if we were building a health-care system from scratch, we’d probably concoct something that falls under the broad category of “single-payer.”
But we’re not starting from scratch. We live in our patchwork world, which means if we want single-payer — an ill-defined catchall, by the way — we need to figure out how to get from here to there. This involves painful political choices, sharp tax hikes and some degree of buy-in from the many stakeholders who are going to get shafted in the transition.
What about the 178 million people who currently have employer-sponsored health insurance and overwhelmingly like it? What about the sticker shock awaiting individuals and employers over the tax increases necessary to pay for such a program? What happens if hospitals go bankrupt because Medicare reimburses at much lower rates than private insurance? Would the government step in and run them, as is the case in Britain?
And most important, how do you actually pay for this enormous, multi-trillion-dollar overhaul? (Is Mexico paying?) Given Americans’ allergy to higher taxes, it’s not enough to dismiss fiscal concerns by assuming Americans will gladly give Uncle Sam the money they currently earmark for a private health insurance system.
On this and other major questions, the Sanders plan punts. Anyone who asks such questions, or raises an eyebrow at the lowball estimates cooked up by the Sanders camp, gets branded a wet blanket, a heartless technocrat, a corporate shill or worse.
The goal should be universal health care, however we get there. And we’re much likelier to get there if we start from a baseline of reality than if both parties hand-wave away inconvenient truths. There is no courage in saying everyone should have health care. The courage is in staking out a plan to pay for it.
One of the things about representative democracy is that you need the people’s representatives to actually work out the details. On this aim, both parties are barreling toward failure. Democrats learned in 2016 that they needed a message and not just a slate of policies; now with unified government power, Republicans are learning in 2017 that they need a slate of fleshed-out policies and not just a catchy message.
Someday, maybe one of these parties will decide to invest in both.
@GzUp @wire28 @Atlrocafella @Blessed Is the Man @ezrathegreat @Jello Biafra @humble forever @Darth Nubian @88m3 @GinaThatAintNoDamnPuppy!
Last edited:
The feckless sycophant speaks again.
You didn't read the article.
He only praises its ambition. He knows it won't pass.
We've had enough of the emotional pleas.