Support NeoGAF

[-Plasma Reus-]

Mr.Bernie "it's just economic anxiety" sanders should be out of the spotlight. He didn't win the primaries. Dems need to focus on getting the country back.

Don't be played by republicancrooks

 

[Armaros]

Also you don't think the Republican propaganda empire would just suddenly not try and viciously take down Pelosi's replacement as soon as they could?

Also if her unpopularity mattered in the House, you would think Pelosi's caucus would have people that voted against the party line...

but so far there have been zero defections in the House, even among vulnerable Democratic House seats up for reelection in 2018

 

[ultratruman]

As pigeon said, accumulating baggage is part of the job as you become responsible for everything your party does in that chamber of congress, because the other party will always be working to de-legitimize you.

Of course, to some extent that's the job of every party leadership, but the benefit of carrying all that baggage is you can eventually step aside and allow for renewal.

 

[The Technomancer]

Of course, to some extent that's the job of every party leadership, but the benefit of carrying all that baggage is you can eventually step aside and allow for renewal.

If Pelosi wasn't so damn good at her job I might be more there with you. She knows how to work that chamber though, and I don't quite want to give that up yet

 

[JABEE]

Dreaming is fine and all but personally I'd just as soon win and pass progressive legislation, which we will not do if we assume that Republican voters are all secretly yearning for socialized medicine.

Even, I don’t really believe it will happen. I’m ready for things to continue to get worse.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So why is the solution for party unity for everybody to fall in line behind Bernie Sanders?

Because falling in line behind Hillary Clinton was a disaster last year and ultimately a party does need a singular leader to rally behind. So far the only remotely viable individual that anyone wants to rally behind is Bernie. If you don't like it, go find another neoliberal centrist to inspire the rank and file. Except that the neoliberal centrists are all about telling the people they should stop asking for ponies and zero-minute abs and then are surprised when the people aren't inspired by them.

 

[Armaros]

Of course, to some extent that's the job of every party leadership, but the benefit of carrying all that baggage is you can eventually step aside and allow for renewal.

The GOP propaganda machine wont just stop and now become ineffective just because there is a new Minority Leader.

But now you have a minority leader without the political experience to keep a diverse caucus in line...

 

[OceanBlue]

Of course, to some extent that's the job of every party leadership, but the benefit of carrying all that baggage is you can eventually step aside and allow for renewal.

Renewal means having to re-establish all of the long term political relationships, quid pro quo or otherwise, wouldn't it? Isn't that why the baggage is important?

 

[pigeon]

Because falling in line behind Hillary Clinton was a disaster last year and ultimately a party does need a singular leader to rally behind. So far the only remotely viable individual that anyone wants to rally behind is Bernie. If you don't like it, go find another neoliberal centrist to inspire the rank and file. Except that the neoliberal centrists are all about telling the people they should stop asking for ponies and zero-minute abs and then are surprised when the people aren't inspired by them.

Even for you this is a pitiful argument. "Rally behind Bernie because who else are you going to rally behind, one of the other forty-seven senators?"

 

[Aaronrules380]

The GOP propaganda machine wont just stop and now become ineffective just because there is a new Minority Leader.

But now you have a minority leader without the political experience to keep a diverse caucus in line...

yep. Of course, eventually we'll have to shift leaders, but I feel like it'd probably be better to do so in a position of strength where we can afford a less unified party and still get stuff done

 

[ultratruman]

The GOP propaganda machine wont just stop and now become ineffective just because there is a new Minority Leader.

But now you have a minority leader without the political experience to keep a diverse caucus in line...

Propaganda machines work a lot better against people who have long-running negative stereotypes you can reinforce (Clinton/Pelosi) than new characters that the entire country hasn't made their mind up over (Obama).

 

[GillianSeed79]

What actual political capital is there in a bill with zero chance of passing?

Having the discussion is fine, you can rally support among the populace. But this is just a publicity stunt and it's really fucking obvious

So like the GOP spending more than 8 years trying pass bills to repeal the ACA when Obama was president/ they didn't control all branches of government. Now they control everything. Politics has always been part theater. At least stand up for something even if there is no hopeof it ppassing.

 

[Fenderputty]

If Pelosi wasn't so damn good at her job I might be more there with you. She knows how to work that chamber though, and I don't quite want to give that up yet

She's currently working to fuck the GOP and get DACA passed congressionally. Shes fuckin' ace, man

 

[The Technomancer]

So like the GOP spending more than 8 years trying pass bills to repeal the ACA when Obama was president/ they didn't control all branches of government. Now they control everything. Politics has always been part theater. At least stand up for something even if there is no hopeof it ppassing.

I mean, how did that work out for the GOP? Maybe legislation with gaping logistical holes (like "we'll figure out how to pay for it later") in its premise isn't a great idea to promise?

 

[AmayaPapaya]

Everyone...the bill is being sent in to die. While, the costs would be a nice thing to have, it's, apparently, just not available. Or necessary. The obvious point of the bill is symbolic, and to build political support for something that is already extremely popular with the people. It's also to kind of test the grounds.

The only thing stopping a nod endorsement like this are the nods they would rather give to donors. Nancy should endorse, at the very least, because there is no way in hell her personal constituency doesn't support it in huge numbers (I doubt it is less than 70%). But the people, like Nancy, aren't running for president in 2020, or about representing the people. They are the part of the party that gets donor money, and they can't justify to a drug corporation a bill that will, inevitably, regulate prices on their products. They like charging 2000% or more for prescriptions that people have to buy, cause they always will pay the price (or die). No way certain Dems are going to cosponsor a bill that drug companies absolutely hate. They give them more money than any other interest group in Washington.

And that's just one perspective. Doesn't even cover insurance companies.

Medicare for all is too popular, especially with Democrats, for it to ever be a popularity issue. It's always a donor issue. The sheer popularity of Medicare in West Virginia is the only thing keeping someone like Joe Manchin, from outright denying this bill. It's the same popular support that stopped the Republican senator there, from supporting Trump's bill. Although, he probably will end up not endorsing it.

Link to copy of poll results.

 

[Grug]

Slightly diverging here, but as someone who grew up in Australia knowing nothing other than our universal Medicare system, I find the health care issue in the US to be a fascinating cultural case study.

I was genuinely gobsmacked to see people protesting Obamacare as an assault on their freedom and calling it a communist conspiracy. Why do people readily accept that the government can pay for things like the military but struggle so much with the idea of establishing a health care safety net worthy of a first world western nation, especially in a country that was built on supposed Christian values and the stated right of everyone to life and happiness amongst other things?

I am going to name a few medical situations my family has experienced in the last few years, and I'd be really interested to hear an estimate on what sort of money you'd be paying in America if you didn't have insurance or Obamacare. I'm not bragging, I'm just genuinely interested in the cost structure... you read nightmare hospital bills in the media sometimes but I'm not sure how representative they are of reality.

1. Wife sliced her finger open with a stick mixer, went to the ER, within 30 minutes she saw a nurse who cleaned the wound and glued/bandaged it it, and then had a 5 minute consultation with a doctor who gave her the all-clear and some care instructions - total cost $12 for parking.

2. Two weeks ago my toddler tripped and hit his head hard on the corner of an exercise bike. Took him to the children's hospital where they cleaned and dressed the open cut, administered a concussion protocol and gave him an X-Ray to confirm there was no cheekbone fracture. Total cost - 45 dollars for parking and a toy from the gift shop.

3. Wife gave birth 2 years ago, private birthing suite, epidural. Had a major tear that required a trauma specialist to stitch her back up, spent 6 nights in hospital in a two person maternity ward, ongoing care from midwives and doctors, antibiotics in a drip, all meals supplied. Baby got a free hearing test. Total cost - about 150 dollars in parking from my constant visits and snacks from the cafeteria.

What sort of financial impost would an uninsured person be looking at in America for these sorts of rather pedestrian medical situations?

What are the payment terms like?

What happens if you get hit by a car and wake up in hospital with a 50,000 dollar bill and have no capacity to pay?

 

[JABEE]

I mean, how did that work out for the GOP? Maybe legislation with gaping logistical holes (like "we'll figure out how to pay for it later") in its premise isn't a great idea to promise?

I’m saying be ready with it and pounce once the opportunity arises, but it has to be the principle.

 

[The Technomancer]

Medicare for all is too popular, especially with Democrats, for it to ever be a popularity issue. It's always a donor issue. The sheer popularity of Medicare in West Virginia is the only thing keeping someone like Joe Manchin, from outright denying this bill. It's the same popular support that stopped the Republican senator there, from supporting Trump's bill. Although, he probably will end up not endorsing it.

Link to copy of poll results.

I'm going to suggest that maybe the reason it is so popular is because there isn't even a sketch of how or who will be paying for it at this point

 

[Aaronrules380]

So like the GOP spending more than 8 years trying pass bills to repeal the ACA when Obama was president/ they didn't control all branches of government. Now they control everything. Politics has always been part theater. At least stand up for something even if there is no hopeof it ppassing.

You're not hurting my point. Ultimately, the GOP's theater was completely and utterly pointless after all in that situation. Theater is part of politics, but this isn't the right time or place for this type of theater. Again, you can drum up support for stuff like this among your base without actually bringing up a bill.

 

[The Technomancer]

I don't really mind that Bernie is bringing up this bill, I think, but I'm not a fan of the way its currently being set as the "with us or against us" fulcrum

 

[Foffy]

If Pelosi is averse to it because Americans are usually little chickenshits that run for the hills when the term "increased taxes" come along, I can understand the pragmatism. You have to inch these things along.

That said, they are playing with fire. No sane person would call the ACA a quality project. Improves situations, yes, but the have/have not dichotomy problem still exists: who gives a shit if you have a plan and are covered but actually cannot cover costs, thus preventing you from even using it. This is one of the reasons most people agree that more must be done. The problem is, other than this symbolic idea by Sanders, the only ideas coming along are from the GOP, and it's all straight faced carpet bomb plans for tax breaks to the rentiers who are the truest of parasites in this culture.

Sanders' plan is at least the endgame: to have a program that escapes that. What, exactly, is Pelosi's other than trying to stop the GOP? That's a fine position in the present, but where is the vision for the future?

 

[kirblar]

Because everyone who witnessed the 2008 Election stopped believing a long time ago. It was the last time change seemed possible.

And we got the ACA out of it. Then the GOP wave hit a year later, and nothing happened for 6 years because white people freaked the fuck out.

 

[Armaros]

I'm saying be ready with it and pounce once the opportunity arises, but it has to be the principle.

Being ready for it means having an answer for the first question everyone will ask

'how are you going to pay for it, please give specifics'

and not having a proper answer besides is just going to give lots of ammo to opponents.

 

[kitsunelaine]

I don't really mind that Bernie is bringing up this bill, I think, but I'm not a fan of the way its currently being set as the "with us or against us" fulcrum

That's his entire persona, though.

 

[Fenderputty]

I don't really mind that Bernie is bringing up this bill, I think, but I'm not a fan of the way its currently being set as the "with us or against us" fulcrum

This x1000

 

[OceanBlue]

I'm slightly uninformed on this topic. Why does the Democratic party have to go with single payer as the future of the party? I thought the whole first page of this thread was saying that single payer isn't the only path to UHC.

 

[AmayaPapaya]

I'm going to suggest that maybe the reason it is so popular is because there isn't even a sketch of how or who will be paying for it at this point

Then Dems just have to craft a good bill then, when they actually have to do it. But they don't, and popular opinion is on their side right now. They should milk it, for all it's worth, and build as much support as they can.

 

[Aaronrules380]

I'm slightly uninformed on this topic. Why does the Democratic party have to go with single payer as the future of the party? I thought the whole first page of this thread was saying that single payer isn't the only path to UHC.

I'm no expert either, but if I had to guess it's because these people only know of single payer and haven't bothered to actually educate themselves on any method of achieving universal health care before coming to post that theirs is the only way

 

[Suikoguy]

Sanders' plan is at least the endgame: to have a program that escapes that. What, exactly, is Pelosi's other than trying to stop the GOP? That's a fine position in the present, but where is the vision for the future?

I understand this thinking, but the details revealed thus far, including implementing this (and thereby destroying an entire industry) over a short 4 years is insane.

And by kicking the can down the road on funding, they effectively let the GOP frame it however they want.

This bill may very well end up making new obstacles to get to the end goal than doing nothing.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm slightly uninformed on this topic. Why does the Democratic party have to go with single payer as the future of the party? I thought the whole first page of this thread was saying that single payer isn't the only path to UHC.

It isn't, but Medicare is an established government program and framing it as an expansion of an established government program which is generally well-liked is just the method being used to get the proverbial foot in the door.

 

[pigeon]

I'm going to suggest that maybe the reason it is so popular is because there isn't even a sketch of how or who will be paying for it at this point

This is the poll I consistently refer to on single-payer: http://www.kff.org/health-reform/po...lleable-support-for-single-payer-health-care/

These graphs are quite striking:

In other words, both on the for and against side, a large proportion of people have extremely poorly-considered opinions, such that just hearing a single argument at least temporarily changes their position.

This does not prove that single-payer would not be popular. It also doesn't prove it would be popular. It mostly just proves that we don't really know!

In the end, I think maybe that's a good enough argument for Bernie to push this. We should have the arguments, let things shake out, and find out where Americans actually stand afterwards. But it's also a very good argument for Pelosi to not take a strong stand right now, because no matter how things work out she'll still be Minority Leader.

So everybody's basically doing their part, I guess. Good job, Democrats!

 

[Fenderputty]

Sanders' plan is at least the endgame: to have a program that escapes that. What, exactly, is Pelosi's other than trying to stop the GOP? That's a fine position in the present, but where is the vision for the future?

Ma dude, she's said she supports the public option. That's more than just stopping the GOP. I think she's even said she supports the idea in theory but that not enough of the caucus (and the voting populace) is ready

 

[OceanBlue]

It isn't, but Medicare is an established government program and framing it as an expansion of an established government program which is generally well-liked is just the method being used to get the proverbial foot in the door.

I was under the impression that Medicare for All isn't necessarily single payer, but that's because I heard the name and assumed it meant a public option. Was I wrong?

 

[AcceptableGhost]

Slightly diverging here, but as someone who grew up in Australia knowing nothing other than our universal Medicare system, I find the health care issue in the US to be a fascinating cultural case study.

I was genuinely gobsmacked to see people protesting Obamacare as an assault on their freedom and calling it a communist conspiracy. Why do people readily accept that the government can pay for things like the military but struggle so much with the idea of establishing a health care safety net worthy of a first world western nation, especially in a country that was built on supposed Christian values and the stated right of everyone to life and happiness amongst other things?

I am going to name a few medical situations my family has experienced in the last few years, and I'd be really interested to hear an estimate on what sort of money you'd be paying in America if you didn't have insurance or Obamacare. I'm not bragging, I'm just genuinely interested in the cost structure... you read nightmare hospital bills in the media sometimes but I'm not sure how representative they are of reality.

1. Wife sliced her finger open with a stick mixer, went to the ER, within 30 minutes she saw a nurse who cleaned the wound and glued/bandaged it it, and then had a 5 minute consultation with a doctor who gave her the all-clear and some care instructions - total cost $12 for parking.

2. Two weeks ago my toddler tripped and hit his head hard on the corner of an exercise bike. Took him to the children's hospital where they cleaned and dressed the open cut, administered a concussion protocol and gave him an X-Ray to confirm there was no cheekbone fracture. Total cost - 45 dollars for parking and a toy from the gift shop.

3. Wife gave birth 2 years ago, private birthing suite, epidural. Had a major tear that required a trauma specialist to stitch her back up, spent 6 nights in hospital in a two person maternity ward, ongoing care from midwives and doctors, antibiotics in a drip, all meals supplied. Baby got a free hearing test. Total cost - about 150 dollars in parking from my constant visits and snacks from the cafeteria.

What sort of financial impost would an uninsured person be looking at in America for these sorts of rather pedestrian medical situations?

What are the payment terms like?

What happens if you get hit by a car and wake up in hospital with a 50,000 dollar bill and have no capacity to pay?

Without insurance youd be bankrupted probably. With insurance you would pay premiums of several thousand a year plus several thousand from deductibles for actually using your insurance. It all depends though, no one knows the bill till they get it and it depends on what insurance you have.

 

[Fenderputty]

I'm no expert either, but if I had to guess it's because these people only know of single payer and haven't bothered to actually educate themselves on any method of achieving universal health care before coming to post that theirs is the only way

This and ... there's sentiment on the left that for profit companies shouldn't exist in healthcare, period.

 

[pigeon]

I was under the impression that Medicare for All isn't necessarily single payer, but that's because I heard the name and assumed it meant a public option. Was I wrong?

Medicare for all is a deliberately vague phrase that could refer to a wide variety of plans.

 

[Evil Monkey DTT]

We also knew when this was pitched this was never a really going to pass, it was more of a "let's push it and get it out there" kinda thing so in my eyes this really is a nonstory. Even still I'm happy this is getting out there.... I mean let's fix the trump thing first holy shit but i feel like we are making good steps.

 

[The Technomancer]

Then Dems just have to craft a good bill then, when they actually have to do it. But they don't, and popular opinion is on their side right now. They should milk it, for all it's worth, and build as much support as they can.

Is it possible for a well crafted bill to be unpopular? I think that that's what's probably going to happen, something gets through and we face blowback for it

 

[Fenderputty]

It isn't, but Medicare is an established government program and framing it as an expansion of an established government program which is generally well-liked is just the method being used to get the proverbial foot in the door.

I do agree that "Medicare for all" will be the single payer path. Just not until after a public optionis successfully passed.

Why can't Medicare be offered as an option next to private insurers on the exchanges for example? Get that foot futher in the proverbial door

 

[OceanBlue]

Is it possible for a well crafted bill to be unpopular? I think that that's what's probably going to happen, something gets through and we face blowback for it

Isn't that what happened with the ACA? I guess you could argue on whether it was a good bill.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I was under the impression that Medicare for All isn't necessarily single payer, but that's because I heard the name and assumed it meant a public option. Was I wrong?

I expect the name of the bill will be a surprisingly straightforward explanation of what it proposes. We'll see when it's officially unveiled. If the name is anything to go by, it simply expands Medicare to potentially cover all Americans instead of only the ones over the age of 65.

In that sense the bill could have been more accurately named Medicaid for All since Medicaid is the program which covers all Americans who have an economic need for subsidized health care regardless of age.

Medicare and Medicaid is regarded as being "single-payer" because the government ultimately funds the entire program, although private insurers are the ones to administer the benefits. Thus Medicare for All would also be "single-payer" by extension.

 

[pigeon]

Is it possible for a well crafted bill to be unpopular? I think that that's what's probably going to happen, something gets through and we face blowback for it

The ACA was mostly pretty well-crafted. The SCOTUS decision against it caused a lot of damage, especially by creating a gap in states that refused to expand Medicaid, but they could hardly have anticipated that.

 

[Measley]

Without insurance youd be bankrupted probably. With insurance you would pay premiums of several thousand a year plus several thousand from deductibles for actually using your insurance. It all depends though, no one knows the bill till they get it and it depends on what insurance you have.

Yeah, I was once billed $2,500 because I wanted to get a blood clot in my leg X-Rayed. This was right after college and before I got a job with benefits. Good thing I got it X-Rayed, because it was dangerous and had to be removed. Fortunately I was able to apply for some program that paid 90% of the cost of the operation. However, I was still on the hook for the $2,500.

 

[makingmusic476]

I just don't get why you wouldn't support this, at least in spirit. People decry this as some sort of "with us or against us" litmus test, but it seems like a fairly basic thing to support.

I just spent a week in Scotland with my (Scottish) ex, and the healthcare situation here in the US blows her mind. Yet people here are acting like it's crazy to expect a leader of the left wing party to support a government provided universal health insurance program.

 

[kirblar]

I expect the name of the bill will be a surprisingly straightforward explanation of what it proposes. We'll see when it's officially unveiled. If the name is anything to go by, it simply expands Medicare to potentially cover all Americans instead of only the ones over the age of 65.

In that sense the bill could have been more accurately named Medicaid for All since Medicaid is the program which covers all Americans who have an economic need for subsidized health care regardless of age.

Medicare and Medicaid is regarded as being "single-payer" because the government ultimately funds the entire program, although private insurers are the ones to administer the benefits. Thus Medicare for All would also be "single-payer" by extension.

No, they are not called single-payer, and that is not the definition of a single-payer system.

They are government/public health care/insurance plans.

Single-Payer is when one entity does all of the baseline coverage for everyone in the market. You can have supplemental plans in a single-payer system, but everyone is mandated to be part of the baseline system. It is called single payer because only one organization is paying for the bills.

 

[Foffy]

Ma dude, she's said she supports the public option. That's more than just stopping the GOP. I think she's even said she supports the idea in theory but that not enough of the caucus (and the voting populace) is ready

That's fine. Why doesn't she do what Sanders is doing and creating a bill that's more of symbolism? I mean, her support or aversion to it doesn't actually matter here: Sanders plan ain't going anywhere so long as the GOP stays as the tumor to decency. I assume some of the people for it are for it on the grounds of a universal plan and not that they specifically like this approach most of all.

Sanders' plan's more as an act of conversation and vision on healthcare than an actual bill to become law. And I see that type of activity as something to smoothen the idea into acceptance. Conservative David Frum alluded that the GOPs dogshit attacks on the ACA also help normalize this direction, because it keeps the topic of health care in America as a larger social meme to consider.

It's fine to say you want something, but one should be putting that message out in big, bold letters. Hate Sanders' Bernie or Busters, but he's actually done a tremendous job about health care awareness as something not simply talked about in intellectual circles or cable news. Pelosi can say she's for a public option, and I've no reason to not believe her, but then she should be trying to do what Sanders is doing and creating the image of this not only as symbolic to the party, but as a very clear focal point for the political party she represents. Right now, that party is mostly oppose the GOP and any idea they have, and as I've said earlier, there is perfect reason to be this. But pendulums eventually swing, and I would hope they start planting seeds so that they take advantage of that momentum.

I worry they'll fuck it up, though. The same party that has its head in the sand about looming issues might not be able to get itself straight for issues it is aware of.

 

[pigeon]

That's fine. Why doesn't she do what Sanders is doing and creating a bill that's more of symbolism? I mean, her support or aversion to it doesn't actually matter here: Sanders plan ain't going anywhere so long as the GOP stays as the tumor to decency. I assume some of the people for it are for it on the grounds of a universal plan and not that they specifically like this approach most of all.

Sanders' plan's more as an act of conversation and vision on healthcare than an actual bill to become law. And I see that type of activity as something to smoothen the idea into acceptance. Conservative David Frum alluded that the GOPs dogshit attacks on the ACA also help normalize this direction, because it keeps the topic of health care in America as a larger social meme to consider.

It's fine to say you want something, but one should be putting that message out in big, bold letters. Hate Sanders' Bernie or Busters, but he's actually done a tremendous job about health care awareness as something not simply talked about in intellectual circles or cable news. Pelosi can say she's for a public option, and I've no reason to not believe her, but then she should be trying to do what Sanders is doing and creating the image of this not only as symbolic to the party, but as a very clear focal point for the political party she represents. Right now, that party is mostly oppose the GOP and any idea they have, and as I've said earlier, there is perfect reason to be this. But pendulums eventually swing, and I would hope they start planting seeds so that they take advantage of that momentum.

I worry they'll fuck it up, though. The same party that has its head in the sand about looming issues might not be able to get itself straight for issues it is aware of.

Why do you think Pelosi should be doing this when Bernie's part of the same party and already doing it?

I would caution you against assuming that Bernie and Pelosi are not coordinating. They're part of the same leadership team.

 

[Shauni]

So why is the solution for party unity for everybody to fall in line behind Bernie Sanders?

Bernie or Bust!

 

[Mr.Mike]

Medicare for all is a deliberately vague phrase that could refer to a wide variety of plans.

Also Medicare is old people insurance that doesn't cover stuff like birth control, so you'd want to do a bit more than just giver everyone Medicare.

 

[VendettaRed07]

So why is the solution for party unity for everybody to fall in line behind Bernie Sanders?

It isn't

Others are just as capable of proposing bills that they think would be better or the democratic base would want more

Anytime anyone wants to do that they can go right ahead