Too many Republicans envision masses of Black and Brown people getting "free shit" from the "gubment" and it'll always taint their viewpoint of national health care.
This is another example of White supremacy hurting White people.
You realize the Democrats would be the ones passing it, right
You didn't read the post I was quoting right
If the GOP dominated government could get it passed and the (supposed) progressive Democrats couldn't, that would be the killing blow to them
You didn't read the post I was quoting right
If the GOP dominated government could get it passed and the (supposed) progressive Democrats couldn't, that would be the killing blow to them
You didn't read the post I was quoting right
If the GOP dominated government could get it passed and the (supposed) progressive Democrats couldn't, that would be the killing blow to them
There is no chance in hell of that happening so not even worth entertaining it
You didn't read the post I was quoting right
If the GOP dominated government could get it passed and the (supposed) progressive Democrats couldn't, that would be the killing blow to them
Yeah and if the moon unicorns came down and passed it it would be bad for both major parties
The post you were quoting says "Trump listens to Bernie"
That implies Dems are passing the legislation
Bernie is planting a trap. If they shut it down it gives the public more ammunition against them if/when a lot of people get hurt from the lack of health care. You sow the seeds that make your opponent look bad while making yourself looking good. That is a pretty standard political move.
The 4D chess answer is that Trump is willing to sacrifice something like conservative healthcare ideology if it makes him look good. Cuz face it, he doesn't look very good right now. Trump clearly hates looking like such a buffoon, and he's already tried to pass the buck on to Ryan. He'd probably love giving the GOP congress the finger for failing him.Yeah and if the moon unicorns came down and passed it it would be bad for both major parties
The post you were quoting says "Trump listens to Bernie"
That implies Dems are passing the legislation
It would also lower costs across the board, having the entire population participating in the same market.The backlash is from the voters, not the businesses. Eventually getting health insurance set up like Car Insurance is a mass net gain for businesses, but people freak the F out at change. (see: 2010.)
If I may - and I'm not saying anything about the validity of your assumption, but for the sake of honest discussion:
What *is* worth bringing up to debate, then? And who is allowed to decide what is entertained vs. dismissed?
Everybody or an incredibly amount of people already know that Republicans aren't going to vote for this. If showing that the other side is evil works( in Dems favour), than 2016 wouldn't have happened. It also assumes a lot of things like if the media covers the vote, if the vote even happens, if Democrats in Congress even care this plan that Bernie is doing, and if public is going to punish the Republicans for opposing the bill if the votes happen. The GOP knows a lot about their base and their base a few times listens to them. It won't be hard to rally against the bill, especially if it involves tax increases. Putting it out there like Bernie is doing is mostly for grandstanding and possibly making the GOP look bad.
*conditionalby and large the support* for a system like Medicare For All is in fact there. Just needs to be pushed the right way.
Okay, I'll bite. Who?
Ok
Go
This will surely pass.
Maybe to you. Or maybe Bernie actually gives a shit about the people in this country
Honestly, the cynicism in this thread. The fact that Bernie has been trying for UHC for years might mean he actually wants it and is not trying to score "political points" like so many of the corrupt POS we've had running this country.
Democrats who prevented the original public option plan from passing include Tom Carper, Max Baucus, Jon Tester, Mark Warner, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Evan Bayh, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Mark Begich, Kent Conrad, Mary Landrieu, and Joe Lieberman (although he switched to being an independent at that point)
Prove it.
My understanding is that Lieberman killed the public option on his own.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/health/policy/15lieberman.html
I will never understand what Al Gore ever saw in this scum bag
If it's the same American Health Security Act that he introduced in 2009, 2011 and 2013, then it will probably be reintroduced again in 2019. And die in committee again.And unlike those who tried to earn cheap points pretending to oppose Obamacare, Bernie won't spam this Congress with the same bill if/when it fails the first time.
He's not doing it to win votes.
Would it not make more sense to team up with moderate Republicans to make some adjustments / fixes to the ACA first?
If it's the same American Health Security Act that he introduced in 2009, 2011 and 2013, then it will probably be reintroduced again in 2019. And die in committee again.
I didn't call it spamming.
I don't think John Conyers Jr is spamming either.
I'm just pointing out the harsh reality that this is going nowhere.
Just like those went nowhere.
But it might get more than the zero cosponsors those got.
I mean obviously this isn't going anywhere, but the difference is that in 2013 approximately ten people outside Vermont knew who he was but now he has a big national platform to try and make a big deal out of this from. Making Medicare for All something Democrats talk about and propose as an alternative is an important change that he can make with his new power.I didn't call it spamming.
I don't think John Conyers Jr is spamming either.
I'm just pointing out the harsh reality that this is going nowhere.
Just like those went nowhere.
But it might get more than the zero cosponsors those got.
I mean obviously this isn't going anywhere, but the difference is that in 2013 approximately ten people outside Vermont knew who he was but now he has a big national platform to try and make a big deal out of this from. Making Medicare for All something Democrats talk about and propose as an alternative is an important change that he can make with his new power.
If it's the same American Health Security Act that he introduced in 2009, 2011 and 2013, then it will probably be reintroduced again in 2019. And die in committee again.
Again talk about voting against this.
I'm not sure if people are naive enough to think this gets through the process, or are just completely unaware of the legislative process.
There will be no vote for or against this.
And no one needs to explain a bill dying in the, presumably, finance committee. Because nobody will even know or care. Something like 80%, 90% of bills die in committee.
Democrats in finance committee can explain why it didn't get through. Blame Republicans if that's who blocked it. Blame committee chairs for not recommending it.
I will never understand what Al Gore ever saw in this scum bag
It doesn't need to be blocked. A Senate committee doesn't need to do anything with a draft piece of legislation.
I wouldn't even mind how ridiculous these posts are except that the next thing that happens is that you attack the Democrats on the Finance Committee for being corporate sellouts because they're not talking enough about Bernie's bill not getting out of committee
This doesn't really change it from being a scummy move. Racist legislation is still bad even if your constituents are racists and anti-poor legislation is still bad even if some of your constituents profit from it. Murphy and Blumenthal are both pro-public option and it hasn't really affected their electoral chances.Lieberman did it because he's from connecticut - traditional Hartford, CT is known as the Insurance City.
Lieberman did it because he's from connecticut - traditional Hartford, CT is known as the Insurance City.
Yes. So the committee can be confronted about why nothing was done. Why is this so hard to understand?
As someone how has lobbied for legislation at the state level I'm aware of the process and how pressure is needed at every single step. Public hearings on a bill, committee vote scheduling, positive vote, support for floor votes,etc.
I would love to hear Democrats come out and explain why they don't support such a bill. Sure, tell your constituents.
Why are you listing a bunch of things that will not happen with this bill?
The committee its referred to will do nothing with it, because the GOP control it and don't want to. Just like thousands of other pieces of legislation.
Then I would assume that you're also aware that Vermont tried to enact single-payer but abandoned it when they saw the dollar bills to fund it, right? Dems in swing states/districts especially won't have any problems explaining to their constituents how they opposed the bill when they saw the tax increase.
This is why I say this is a waste of time. We can have a better debate about health care once we have a president who isn't trying to push the national budget entirely towards military spending. Without the funds or the willingness to procure them, all voters will hear is that their taxes will skyrocket.