Support NeoGAF

[Cbajd5]

But saying 'we will pay for it with tax increases, don't ask me for specifics' is not really having a plan and is horrible optics for midterms.

It just gives the GOP ammo in the form of 'well we got nothing done but the Democrsts want to increase your taxes and refuse to give any specifics!'

But the GOP will say that regardless of this. Hell, they'll say worse than that regardless of this.

Why should all democrat decision making be done so that a reasonable GOP can't attack democrats on it when the GOP isn't reasonable and will attack democrats as if they were literally robbing each and every citizen regardless of anything democrats do or don't do? The truth does not matter in the slightest too them, and not working towards fixing things is part of what's losing elections for democrats.

 

[E-Cat]

Booker is supporting it because he knows this bill is going nowhere and you're at a complete disadvantage in 2020 if you don't back this.

Of course he is. But more importantly, why will he be at a disadvantage by not supporting it? Because the majority of Americans want some form of "Medicare for all". The inability of the Democrats to capitalize on this is pathetic, if typical.

Try for a minute, if you can, to conceive of the Republicans similarly framing an issue (not gonna happen, because bla-bla...) on which they have the overwhelming support of the population on their side. It's not gonna happen, because they're more savvy.

 

[Pandora012]

Bernie Sanders can fuck right off.

We are in the middle of a fight to keep a million Americans from being deported by a fuckshit of a president and he wants to start in-fighting within the party to pull us left that will fracture the party further and make it harder to gain a majority in Congress.

And he is starting this fight over a bill that HE KNOWS is DOA and has no fucking chance of becoming law in the next 3 years because of principal™. He is the lefts Ron Paul.

Fuck that guy. He's not a fucking democrat. Go back to being an independent and getting your rocks off by being super liberal man (except for gunz) on your own time.

Yeah normally I don't really care about this guy, but things like this makes it hard to like him. He is literally fracturing the party, because he want to make grand gestures that won't equate to anything.

 

[Armaros]

But the GOP will say that regardless of this. Hell, they'll say worse than that regardless of this.

Why should all democrat decision making be done so that a reasonable GOP can't attack democrats on it when the GOP isn't reasonable and will attack democrats as if they were literally robbing each and every citizen regardless of anything democrats do or don't do? The truth does not matter in the slightest too them, and not working towards fixing things is part of what's losing elections for democrats.

So we should give the GOP more ammo to attack Dems because Dems need to support a legislation that everyone admits is not real legislation? And is just for show?

This becomes Democrats 'Repeal and Replace'?

 

[Fenderputty]

Because she doesn't have a disagreeable position on DACA. That argument is one large straw man.

Poo Pooing Pelosi and demanding her head while ignoring the thing she does that's agreeable is my entire fucking point. It's short sighted nonsense.

If anyone on the far left is happy about her DACA performance I seriously would have no fucking clue.

 

[StarCreator]

Bernie Sanders can fuck right off.

We are in the middle of a fight to keep a million Americans from being deported by a fuckshit of a president and he wants to start in-fighting within the party to pull us left that will fracture the party further and make it harder to gain a majority in Congress.

And he is starting this fight over a bill that HE KNOWS is DOA and has no fucking chance of becoming law in the next 3 years because of principal™. He is the lefts Ron Paul.

Fuck that guy. He's not a fucking democrat. Go back to being an independent and getting your rocks off by being super liberal man (except for gunz) on your own time.

Single payer healthcare is not a popular opinion. It is currently at it's highest approval ratings of all time at 33%.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...er-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/

And that is before it becomes an actual battle over legislation and the Republicans tar and feather it and start beating it up.

This is not only a non-starter, this is a losing position for the Dems. I believe in Universal healthcare, but this is buying a new door mat while the house is on fire. We have other real priorities right now to consider.

This is the equivalent of asking for a raise in the middle of being fired.

Thank you so much for this. You stated this so much more eloquently than I could.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

You know what this means? The progressive wing of the party is crushing the corporate Dems right now, winning in the realm of ideas. The old guard needs to gtfo, ASAP. That he's preparing for a 2020 run and needs to start gearing up his unrealistic campaign promises.

ftfy

 

[E-Cat]

Reading comprehension: single-payer can be a realistic plan, this bill does not outline one.

Spoiler

Mainly because it's not actually meant to!

This bill is a purely symbolic gesture to get the ball rolling in the form of conversation. And that's fine.

But it will also show the public the true colors of some self-entitled 'progressives'. This is not the time to err on the side of caution to score imaginary political points (imaginary, because you won't gain any).

 

[Armaros]

This bill is a purely symbolic gesture to get the ball rolling in the form of conversation. And that's fine.

By telling people it will cost a lot of money but 'don't ask me how we are going to pay for it'.

 

[Agent_Carnage]

Its time the DNC started running actual more Left candidates. Running the status quo candidates isnt going to win or drive people to the polls. Its time to go bold instead of playing it safe. What the DNC needs is Obama 2.0 at the time there is no exciting 2020 ticket. Joe Biden is much too old. They need to find a younger Bernie Sanders type.

 

[Cbajd5]

So we should give the GOP more ammo to attack Dems because Dems need to support a legislation that everyone admits is not real legislation? And is just for show?

This becomes Democrats 'Repeal and Replace'?

They already have that ammo because they don't care about the facts. Even if this bill didn't exist they'll still say democrats want to increase taxes for *insert any or no reason to get their voters mad and feeling they need to vote here*.

The only difference here is between democrats being able to say they're working towards this and having facts for people who care versus having nothing to show for it.

 

[Aaronrules380]

This bill is a purely symbolic gesture to get the ball rolling in the form of conversation. And that's fine.

But it will also show the public the true colors of some self-entitled 'progressives'. This is not the time to err on the side of caution.

if the bill is poorly written you can bet your ass the Republicans will use this to set back further conversations on the topic

 

[jack_package_200]

Bernie Sanders can fuck right off.

We are in the middle of a fight to keep a million Americans from being deported by a fuckshit of a president and he wants to start in-fighting within the party to pull us left that will fracture the party further and make it harder to gain a majority in Congress.

And he is starting this fight over a bill that HE KNOWS is DOA and has no fucking chance of becoming law in the next 3 years because of principal™. He is the lefts Ron Paul.

Fuck that guy. He's not a fucking democrat. Go back to being an independent and getting your rocks off by being super liberal man (except for gunz) on your own time.

Single payer healthcare is not a popular opinion. It is currently at it's highest approval ratings of all time at 33%.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...er-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/

And that is before it becomes an actual battle over legislation and the Republicans tar and feather it and start beating it up.

This is not only a non-starter, this is a losing position for the Dems. I believe in Universal healthcare, but this is buying a new door mat while the house is on fire. We have other real priorities right now to consider.

This is the equivalent of asking for a raise in the middle of being fired.

Hmm...can't really argue with that. Great posts.

 

[E-Cat]

By telling people it will cost a lot of money but 'don't ask me how we are going to pay for it'.

By raising taxes, of course.

 

[eBay Huckster]

This bill is a purely symbolic gesture to get the ball rolling in the form of conversation. And that's fine.

Yes, which is precisely why Pelosi isn't signing on, because she's kind of the best dealmaker in Congress and not really big on symbolic gestures.

But it will also show the public the true colors of some self-entitled 'progressives'.

lmao, Pelosi worked her ass off to get a public option through a House with a 54-person Blue Dog coalition but somehow not signing onto a bill with no chance of passing demonstrates her "true colors", I just fucking can't with you people

 

[phanphare]

Been my stance on Bernie and his theatrics for a while now. Thank God he's not the future of the Democratic party.

you might want to sit down..

 

[Armaros]

They already have that ammo because they don't care about the facts. Even if this bill didn't exist they'll still say democrats want to increase taxes for *insert any or no reason to get their voters mad and feeling they need to vote here*.

The only difference here is between democrats being able to say they're working towards this and having facts for people who care versus having nothing to show for it.

A poor bill can easily then worse then no bill, look at the GOP repeal and replace debaucle. They looked better on the topic to the public when they didn't have a terrible bill on the table.

If the public get the wrong impression of universal healthcare with Bills such as these, then you set back the ability to actually get a real one.

 

[TurnipFritters]

Its time the DNC started running actual more Left candidates. Running the status quo candidates isnt going to win or drive people to the polls. Its time to go bold instead of playing it safe. What the DNC needs is Obama 2.0 at the time there is no exciting 2020 ticket. Joe Biden is much too old. They need to find a younger Bernie Sanders type.

If you wanted someone who wasn't the status quo or someone who is even remotely left wing why would Joe Biden even be on your vocabulary.

 

[Aaron Strife]

you might want to sit down..

Bernie will be 78 in 2020. I don't think he's much the future of anything.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Bernie is making Pelosi and Schumar look very bad right now, not sure what his strategy is right now but I know Trump must be loving this

 

[VendettaRed07]

Bernie Sanders can fuck right off.

We are in the middle of a fight to keep a million Americans from being deported by a fuckshit of a president and he wants to start in-fighting within the party to pull us left that will fracture the party further and make it harder to gain a majority in Congress.

And he is starting this fight over a bill that HE KNOWS is DOA and has no fucking chance of becoming law in the next 3 years because of principal™. He is the lefts Ron Paul.

Fuck that guy. He's not a fucking democrat. Go back to being an independent and getting your rocks off by being super liberal man (except for gunz) on your own time.

The republicans campaigned on repealing and replacing the ACA for eight years. Now with full government control, they have shown they are full of crap and don't have an actual replacement or plan on what to do with healthcare.

The point of proposing this isn't some vanity driven ego trip. It's to show that democrats have a plan to expand insurance coverage, lower costs, and fix the issues with our current system. It's also there for something for our base to rally around and turn out to make happen in 2018.

If you are going to tell him to fuck off then tell Blumenthal, Murphy, Harris, Warren, Franken, and all the others that are cosponsoring and working on this bill with him then as well. Doesn't look like he's starting infighting to me. Anyone else in the party who wants to propose a better plan can go right ahead.

 

[excelsiorlef]

If you wanted someone who wasn't the status quo or someone who is even remotely left wing why would Joe Biden even be on your vocabulary.

Because consistency is for chumps

 

[E-Cat]

lmao, Pelosi worked her ass off to get a public option through a House with a 54-person Blue Dog coalition but somehow not signing onto a bill with no chance of passing demonstrates her "true colors", I just fucking can't with you people

In general, supporting a cause should not be contingent on the likelihood of a bill passing.

 

[Armaros]

The republicans campaigned on repealing and replacing the ACA for eight years. Now with full government control, they have shown they are full of crap and don't have an actual replacement or plan on what to do with healthcare.

The point of proposing this isn't some vanity driven ego trip. It's to show that democrats have a plan to expand insurance coverage, lower costs, and fix the issues with our current system. It's also there for something for our base to rally around and turn out to make happen in 2018.

If you are going to tell him to fuck off then tell Blumenthal, Murphy, Harris, Warren, Franken, and all the others that are cosponsoring and working on this bill with him then as well. Doesn't look like he's starting infighting to me. Anyone else in the party who wants to propose a better plan can go right ahead.

This bill is the definition of vanity.

The first question asked is how to pay for it and that is not answered. How do you know get to the other issues? When the big elephant in the room of Healthcare is not addressed?

 

[TheMan]

I think pelosi's play to protect the aca and maybe even build upon it to expand coverage is more practical given that the dems don't control shit right now. Bernie's plan sounds ideal (on the surface, anyway), but let's get real, even if the dems controlled all three branches they'd have a tough sell. Now? Not gonna happen.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Bernie is making Pelosi and Schumar look very bad right now, not sure what his strategy is right now but I know Trump must be loving this

No he isn't. He wants more power and influence. And no he probably isn't, given how he likes Pelosi and Shumer giving him good press.

In general, supporting a cause should not be contingent on the likelihood of a bill passing.

When it's your job to actually pass legislation, it sure as hell is.

What's the point if you know you'll never amount to anything and never make anyone's life better, but dammit, you held your ground.

 

[kirblar]

In general, supporting a cause should not be contingent on the likelihood of a bill passing.

She is majority leader. If she backs something, she needs to have the vast majority of her caucus backing it as well. That level of support does not exist.

 

[jack_package_200]

If you wanted someone who wasn't the status quo or someone who is even remotely left wing why would Joe Biden even be on your vocabulary.

White male. The ideological inconsistency drives me nuts.

 

[excelsiorlef]

In general, supporting a cause should not be contingent on the likelihood of a bill passing.

Support for a cause shouldn't be contingent on support for a specific bill

 

[phanphare]

Bernie will be 78 in 2020. I don't think he's much the future of anything.

I'm not talking about him running, more so the things he pushes for being popular within the base of the party as a whole

 

[Agent_Carnage]

If you wanted someone who wasn't the status quo or someone who is even remotely left wing why would Joe Biden even be on your vocabulary.

I heard Joe is considering on making a 2020 bid hes not the answer to the problem. Good guy but too old.

 

[E-Cat]

She is majority leader. If she backs something, she needs to have the vast majority of her caucus backing it as well. That level of support does not exist.

And if their constituents know what's good for them, they'll primary the hell out of them in the midterms with fresh candidates.

 

[shamanick]

In general, supporting a cause should not be contingent on the likelihood of a bill passing.

I'm not saying they're remotely the same thing, but gay marriage, for example, was an impossibility 10 years ago. It's disheartening to see arguments presenting single-payer as impossible because of the insurance industry. Things change, and bold vision is necessary. Obamacare had low public opinion due to marketing, not policy, and the repeal was immensely unpopular. I believe that the US will be able to achieve what every other first-world country has, and it's up to the Democratic Party to lead the way with the belief that health care is a right of all people.

 

[StarCreator]

She is majority leader. If she backs something, she needs to have the vast majority of her caucus backing it as well. That level of support does not exist.

She's the House minority leader. You probably just want to say she leads the House Democrats though. But yes, she doesn't have as many luxuries to just speak out about things as rank and file representatives do.

 

[Kin5290]

Private insurance still exists in countries with universal healthcare.

But it doesn't exist in countries with single payer, does it?

Single payer is not the only path to universal healthcare, of course.

As for the bill in question, if it doesn't die in committee (the Republicans as the majority power have all the power necessary to strangle a bill before it ever reaches a floor vote) that's because the Republicans have found a way to make the bill a trap for Democrats.

 

[Kill3r7]

In general, supporting a cause should not be contingent on the likelihood of a bill passing.

Supporting a cause takes political capital. Pelosi clearly has other priorities, whether her motivations for doing so are selfish, strategic or political we will never know.

 

[Red Blaster]

The republicans campaigned on repealing and replacing the ACA for eight years. Now with full government control, they have shown they are full of crap and don't have an actual replacement or plan on what to do with healthcare.

The point of proposing this isn't some vanity driven ego trip. It's to show that democrats have a plan to expand insurance coverage, lower costs, and fix the issues with our current system. It's also there for something for our base to rally around and turn out to make happen in 2018.

If you are going to tell him to fuck off then tell Blumenthal, Murphy, Harris, Warren, Franken, and all the others that are cosponsoring and working on this bill with him then as well. Doesn't look like he's starting infighting to me. Anyone else in the party who wants to propose a better plan can go right ahead.

for the record franken isn't co-sponsoring cause he wants to persevere 'choice' in healthcare (lol)

but yah p much every major 2020 candidate is co-sponsoring so saying Bernie should fuck off is delusional

 

[legacyzero]

you might want to sit down..

Yep.

I feel like I'm seeing a lot of "Single Payer yaaay! But duck Bernie Sanders!" In threads like these. The more things change, they more they stay the same.

I also don't see how this is "fracturing the party". When 3-4 of the early 15 supporters (and growing even today) are highly suspected to be running for President im 2020 (Warren, Booker, Harris, and maybe Gillibrand), you just know they're trying to read the winds. But y'all keep being mad at Bernie while he keeps putting that hard work in, even in red states. And I always get a chuckle out of the "he's not a Democrat!!". I'd argue that he's more Democrat that his Primary opponent. Dude is only Independent because he doesn't want to align with a corporate party that loses elections. It's just so weak.

The republicans campaigned on repealing and replacing the ACA for eight years. Now with full government control, they have shown they are full of crap and don't have an actual replacement or plan on what to do with healthcare.

The point of proposing this isn't some vanity driven ego trip. It's to show that democrats have a plan to expand insurance coverage, lower costs, and fix the issues with our current system. It's also there for something for our base to rally around and turn out to make happen in 2018.

If you are going to tell him to fuck off then tell Blumenthal, Murphy, Harris, Warren, Franken, and all the others that are cosponsoring and working on this bill with him then as well. Doesn't look like he's starting infighting to me. Anyone else in the party who wants to propose a better plan can go right ahead.

This. If you only message is "we're not Trump!" Settle in for 4 more years.

Edit: I don't think Franken has cosponsored this bill (yet)

 

[VendettaRed07]

This bill is the definition of vanity.

The first question asked is how to pay for it and that is not answered. How do you know get to the other issues? When the big elephant in the room of Healthcare is not addressed?

Maybe the actual bill itself will provide how it's being funded.

He announced plans to introduce this after the Republican plans fell apart. It's a direct response to republicans revealing they have no solution while we do have ideas.

If it was just him being a lone madman disrupting the party not sure what so many other famous and notable senators are doing helping him construct it.

 

[Aaronrules380]

I'm not saying they're remotely the same thing, but gay marriage, for example, was an impossibility 10 years ago. It's disheartening to see arguments presenting single-payer as impossible because of the insurance industry. Things change, and bold vision is necessary. Obamacare had low public opinion due to marketing, not policy, and the repeal was immensely unpopular. I believe that the US will be able to achieve what every other first-world country has, and it's up to the Democratic Party to lead the way with the belief that health care is a right of all people.

Gay marriage was decided by the courts, not congress. And single payer is possible eventually, just not right now

 

[TurnipFritters]

But it doesn't exist in countries with single payer, does it?

Single payer is not the only path to universal healthcare, of course.

Private insurers would still exist under Bernie's single payer bill.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

No he isn't. He wants more power and influence. And no he probably isn't, given how he likes Pelosi and Shumer giving him good press.



When it's your job to actually pass legislation, it sure as hell is.

What's the point if you know you'll never amount to anything and never make anyone's life better, but dammit, you held your ground.

Bernie is splitting the party in ways Trump could only dream of doing with the Republicans

 

[DietRob]

Everyone with a lick of political knowledge knows that at this point in time the single payer proposal is a nonstarter in Washington. I agree that the attention needs to be on the ACA while we are not in power and it's directly under attack. It is common sense.

But, common sense doesn't win elections. Big lofty often unattainable goals win elections. It's a bad move for Pelosi to expect people to understand why she's "against" this proposal. We need to unite behind our lofty goals, get our Dems elected and work to change the current climate to make single payer an option in the future.

 

[shamanick]

possible eventually, just not right now

Vote Dem 2020

 

[Kyzer]

universal healthcare is not being proposed by people to "have the most liberal position." The richest country on earth has no excuse for not having universal healthcare.

Clearly it is, since theres not a chance in hell it would pass, will waste time and unity, and completely ignores the fact that we already have a broken healthcare system that cant be replaced and fixed simply by a government mandating it to be done

 

[E-Cat]

I'm not saying they're remotely the same thing, but gay marriage, for example, was an impossibility 10 years ago.

This is my point, exactly. Should you have been against gay marriage laws 10 years ago, because "it's just not realistic to pass in the current political environment"?

That is, incidentally, what political hacks and phoneys like GAF darling Hillary did, only throwing their weight behind it years later, when it was safe to do so.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Everyone with a lick of political knowledge knows that at this point in time the single payer proposal is a nonstarter in Washington. I agree that the attention needs to be on the ACA while we are not in power and it's directly under attack. It is common sense.

But, common sense doesn't win elections. Big lofty often unattainable goals win elections. It's a bad move for Pelosi to expect people to understand why she's "against" this proposal. We need to unite behind our lofty goals, get our Dems elected and work to change the current climate to make single payer an option in the future.

It's a worse move for her to support it though as others have explained

 

[Sub_Level]

She has said before that the democratic party doesn't run on a platform of raising taxes.

But raising taxes is the only direct way to get a lot of things that liberals want, whether it has to do with healthcare or tuition costs or infrastructure. As long as they emphasize that the bulk of tax raises will be for the rich percentage-wise, its still more marketable to the general public than "uh we're gonna reallocate some of our bloated defense budget".

 

[Aaronrules380]

Vote Dem 2020

Vote dem 2018. People need to understand that the presidency isn't the only position that matters

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Bernie is splitting the party in ways Trump could only dream of doing with the Republicans

I don't think those splits are really all that major. They tend to be blown way out of proportion on message boards.

This is my point, exactly. Should you have been against gay marriage laws 10 years ago, because "it's just not realistic to pass in the current political environment"?

That is, incidentally, what political hacks and phoneys like GAF darling Hillary did, only throwing their weight behind it years later, when it was safe to do so.

The gay marriage comparison falls apart because there are alternates to single payer that achieve the same goal of universal healthcare, while gay marriage only has one solution to the problem.

You'll find basically everyone wants some type of UH. I think either the Swiss method or a public option are the best solution. Others feel the best and only solution is single payer. Either way, it's just different roads to the same destination. With Gay Marriage, there was only one road. Either you're for it, or against it. There isn't a way to be for gay marriage, but have an alternate solution unless it's the civil union nonsense that isn't the same as marriage and isn't the same end destination.