-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bernie Sanders To Announce Single-Payer Healthcare Medicare For All Legislation
- Thread starter flkraven
- Start date
- Status
Angelus Errare
Banned
Pretty much, and it's why I feel no sympathy for them.
Henchmen21
Banned
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
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Good, the GOP's latest embarrassment is the perfect time to demonstrate what should be happening in the US.
There is no chance in hell of that happening so not even worth entertaining it
gutter_trash
Banned
Dems should all vote for it, those that don't should be subjected to primarying
the age of Blue Dogs must end
the age of Blue Dogs must end
It wouldn't be the end of the Democratic Party, but it would give the GOP an excellent campaign point for 2018 and 2020, provided the UHC system actually works and people like it.
And yeah, there's no way it will happen anyway. If freedom caucus wouldn't go for Ryan's plan there's no way in hell they go for UHC.
neurosisxeno
Member
If it passed it would be with unanimous Democratic support and just enough Republican support. It would be indicative of how the Democrats are just that much better at Governing than the Republicans. It would require an insane scenario in which 12 Republicans in the Senate and ~30 in the House went completely against their party's platform, and if they somehow managed that I think people would be wondering why the hell the Republicans were even there.
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?
NobleXenon
Member
As someone who went to Bernie's rallies; this will ultimately be futile due to the fact America has a disease, and that's racism. I can see the West coast adopting this, but the incredibly racist Middle America / South? Nope, nope, nope.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
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.
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
Yep, this too. Any GOP attempts to take complete credit is pretty easily shot down by saying it was Bernie's bill and hardly and repubs voted for it.
Abinash117
Member
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.
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.
To be perfectly clear though, I don't believe in the 4D chess answer. Trump is an imbecile.
It would also lower costs across the board, having the entire population participating in the same market.
I mean, something in the realm of possibility in this or another dimension is probably a good starting point.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
After everything that the Republicans have done, I'm convinced that you can't shame the shameless.
shinra-bansho
Member
*conditional
Also, I don't know why people keep talking about Democrats or lol Republicans voting this way or that way. Mitch McConnell isn't doing anything with this.
Also at the idea of some sort of 4D chess magic secret play to get the GOP on record opposing this. The GOP and their voters don't care. And go nowhere bills are introduced all the time.
Evil Monkey DTT
Banned
I don't expect it to pass.... I love that he's pushing. Push early and push often.
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)
That's just counting the senate, there's more in the house who were reluctant to support the public option. The president himself was for the public option clear up until around 2010, and the only reason why he abandoned it was because he couldn't get enough support within his own party.
Just_myles
Member
I know, right? This is the one thing that we need and it's doa.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
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.
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
gutter_trash
Banned
I will never understand what Al Gore ever saw in this scum bag
Just another kneejerk overreaction to the Lewinsky scandal.
If only Lieberman had run with McCain so he could have been consigned to history as the fucking loser that he is.
Autoignition
Member
Waste of time. Can we please focus on the GOP's failures instead of adding to our own, Bernard?
StopMakingSense
Member
I think it's fine. While I am fairly cool on Bernie himself, I think his best ability is to normalize the conversation of socialist policies.
Of course Medicare for All won't pass now, but putting something like this adds to the conversation of being a possible option, that people do like.
Of course Medicare for All won't pass now, but putting something like this adds to the conversation of being a possible option, that people do like.
shinra-bansho
Member
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.
boiled goose
good with gravy
You can do both. This puts this in Americans mind and puts pressure to do something.
It also widens options. You dont have to negotiate obamacare or less. You debate this or less.
You dont begin the debate granting half already. That's a loser strategy.
Every few years is not spamming. Come on now. Our representatives shouldn't do this at all when It is in their constituents best interest?
Also, Sanders now has an audience. Doubt we had a thread in 08.
It's so sad how half of the people on the thread get it. The rest seem prone to hating anything Sanders does without really thinking things through. We have gotten used to weak Democrats that don't represent the people anymore. We should demand more. It shouldn't just be Bernie. The entire party should be pushing for this.
Prodigal Son
Member
Excellent. No shit it won't pass. That's not the point. Republicans tried to repeal Obamacare even when it literally wasn't possible. It's the message. Normalize this kind of legislation.
shinra-bansho
Member
I didn't call it spamming.
I don't think John Conyers Jr is spamming either when he puts something to the house every year since forever really.
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.
People keep talking about it "not passing".
The reality is it will die in committee, and beyond a press release nobody will hear about it again.
I don't think John Conyers Jr is spamming either when he puts something to the house every year since forever really.
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.
People keep talking about it "not passing".
The reality is it will die in committee, and beyond a press release nobody will hear about it again.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Your post implies spamming, just not this Congress. No?
Politics involves more than passing bills. Bills get passed when there is pressure. This shifts the healthcare debate and builds pressure. Anyone voting against this now has to face their constituents and explain why.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
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.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Yup. Bernie has an audience. This is EXACTLY what he should be doing. P
shinra-bansho
Member
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.
Edit: this was the point I was implying in saying this has been introduced several times and died in committee. Something that seems to continue to elude the wide eyed optimists.
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.
Edit: this was the point I was implying in saying this has been introduced several times and died in committee. Something that seems to continue to elude the wide eyed optimists.
metalslimer
Member
Vote against it? It won't be brought anywhere near the floor. I mean maybe you expect I guess McConnell's constituents could be angry about it, but it's likely even they wouldn't know.
Edit: Damn it shinra
Edit: Damn it shinra
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Hence the bold.
boiled goose
good with gravy
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.
Support for or against is more than just floor votes. The fact that we have a thread and news report on this means some people know and care. Being cynical is not the same thing as being pragmatic.
Plenty of McConnell constituents confronted him on healthcare. Some people know. If we had functional journalism in the country more people would know.
shinra-bansho
Member
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
Lieberman did it because he's from connecticut - traditional Hartford, CT is known as the Insurance City.
boiled goose
good with gravy
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.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
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.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Did he represent the interests of his constituents or his donors? That's to me what makes the biggest difference. (Not hard to guess)
He also has some responsibility to broadly consider the country as a whole.
shinra-bansho
Member
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.
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.
Autoignition
Member
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.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I already explained that doing nothing with it is something you can hold politicians accountable for. Plus other benefits of shifting debate, changing public perception of options, etc
Constituents can think about costs of this versus unjustified military budget increases. Sanders is not saying do both...
Also "tax increase" is dishonest Republican framing. Democrats can try to communicate this without using Republican framing.
So we shouldn't talk about healthcare because Trump is talking about military increases? Sorry but I think that is a horrible loser strategy. You can to contrast unnecessary expenses (walls, bloated wasted military, rich tax cuts) with useful ones (science, healthcare, infrastructure, education)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked