shinra-bansho
Member
Wake me up when Orrin Hatch gives a crap about you trying to hold him accountable for this dying 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.
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.
Remember that time John Conyers put forward Medicare for All legislation in the House of Representatives in January of this year and nobody made posts on GAF about it because John Conyers isn't the messiah
Timing matters. Turns out that when everyone is already very intensely talking about health care, that might be the highest-visibility time to propose health care bills.
Who could have known.
Yup the problem is just that Bernie is smarter and stronger than Conyers
Thank god Bernie is around to show that amateur neoliberal sellout John Conyers how legislation is really done
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)
You can't have any sort of discussion about any policy without considering the Republican spin on it. Legislation doesn't exist in a vacuum. Without a Dem president willing to use the bully pulpit to push this thing, it's either dead in committee, thus wasting time, or the GOP will nuke it into orbit with spin if it does somehow make it to the floor.
Using his (smaller) bully pulpit is exactly what Sanders is doing here...
People can listen to his framing and consider what the government should be spending our tax dollars on.
Sanders doesn't have a bully pulpit.
He doesn't? He gets press now. Him doing this now is more useful than all of his previous attempts when noone knew who he was
He has a considerable audience and pretty high nation wide approval ratings. This is exactly what he should be doing.
No, he doesn't. Him getting press gives him absolutely zero sway over GOP members of congress. And being a Senator, he has no pull with Democratic House members.
Now we are arguing semantics about how much sway qualifies as bully pulpit. Sure a President has more. What High profile Senators say matters too.
A lot? Dont know. Do I want my reps doing this. Hell Yes. You think this is completely useless. I think it's not. That's that I guess.
Not really. The House notoriously hates the Senate. It's not semantics; it's facts of the Capitol. Even if Sanders somehow got every single Dem in the House to push for this (which he won't), McConnell would let it die anyway.
Hell, God Himself could come down from Heaven and proclaim Sanders to be the second coming of Christ and McConnell would still let it die out of spite.
To be clear, I'm still glad Bernie did this! The reason I'm glad about it is because he is playing his part effectively as a valuable member of the Democratic Party establishment.
I dont get your argument. So now not even god has a bully pulpit?
Right. I think it's worth it to blow a lot of capital when the tone comes to save lives but the idea that the pearly gates will open and God will descend to lavish this bill with his blessing is our of touch.
You're really going to discount everything I've been saying over an obvious joke?
Not really. The House notoriously hates the Senate. It's not semantics; it's facts of the Capitol. Even if Sanders somehow got every single Dem in the House to push for this (which he won't), McConnell would let it die anyway.
Hell, God Himself could come down from Heaven and proclaim Sanders to be the second coming of Christ and McConnell would still let it die out of spite.
Like what are you even arguing here???
Another lovely beautiful strawman. Has anyone said anything remotely close to that?
Come on now.
It's been.
Glad he did this. Good to shift debate. Etc.
Vs
This is useless.
Who cares? Sanders himself acknowledged that the bill doesn't have the support to pass. He said the Democrats should push for a public option and lowering the Medicare reitirement age. He's putting this proposal out as an end goal. He's also putting it out as something he personally believes would be best for the country, even if others don't. He's willing to comprise while working towards a long term vision that he believes is beneficial but others don't. I think other Democrats could learn from that.
Whynotbothgirl.
It's nice he did this. Also useless.
Claire McCaskill isn't campaigning on this. Tammy Baldwin isn't. Tester isn't. None of the vulnerable seats are. And none of the GOP targets like Heller will be fought on this.
Who cares? Sanders himself acknowledged that the bill doesn't have the support to pass. He said the Democrats should push for a public option and lowering the Medicare reitirement age. He's putting this proposal out as an end goal. He's also putting it out as something he personally believes would be best for the country, even if others don't. He's willing to comprise while working towards a long term vision that he believes is beneficial but others don't. I think other Democrats could learn from that.
Your "joke" undercut your own argument. Had to point it out.
Summary
Democrat president could use bully pulpit, but Senator is useless.
Actually, I think high profile Senator can do a bit too.
No, high profile Senator can't. Because actually not even god could?
What?
That there are a lot of posters who pay attention to almost nothing in politics except what Bernie Sanders says and does because they believe he's the Socialist Messiah and every other politician is a neoliberal sellout, which wouldn't even be so bad (that is to some degree Bernie's purpose in life) except that they also seem to think that they know way more about politics than anybody else on GAF, to the degree that people who actually agree with their side on a given issue feel like arguing with their terrible posts anyway.
Sorry that wasn't clear!
It's not really the issue at all. There's a lot of things the country can do but doesn't to lower drug prices, like regulating how much companies can spend, writing price controls, forcing companies to give up their patents to allow other companies to make cheap generics, or using the bargaining power of the enormous pool of people insured by the government. Tort reform is an issue brought up by conservatives so they can point at something without really addressing the real issues.My republican dad explained to me that the reason we pay so much for prescription drugs is due to hospitals and doctors having to pay off legal fees because people try to sue doctors left and right for anything that goes wrong. I'm democratic and haven't done much research on that issue, but if that argument is true, wouldn't Bernie's argument about comparing the cost of prescription drugs in America to the price in Canada be due to less legal fees that drug companies, hospitals, doctors, etc. are still paying off?
Not really sure what to think on this issue, as much as I like Bernie.
Edit: Yes, royalan. You are missing the fact that in order to compromise you have to have a stated position to begin with.
So again, I feel like it needs to be pointed out that the next step in the legislative process is a bill once introduced is referred to an appropriate committee. Where they may choose to hold hearings towards issuing a report. And calling your local representatives, assuming you mean House members would be entirely fruitless because this is the Senate.Regardless of the likelihood of this going anywhere. The majority here seem to agree that it would be a major step in the right direction for healthcare. I hope everyone here is calling their local representatives to vote for the bill.
Regardless of the likelihood of this going anywhere. The majority here seem to agree that it would be a major step in the right direction for healthcare. I hope everyone here is calling their local representatives to vote for the bill.
Like is or not Sanders is a high profile Democrat who is also massively popular, even if people don't agree with everything he proposes. So, yeah, him doing something does have outsize impact. I'm sorry that fact vexes some people.
Edit: Yes, royalan. You are missing the fact that in order to compromise you have to have a stated position to begin with.
My republican dad explained to me that the reason we pay so much for prescription drugs is due to hospitals and doctors having to pay off legal fees because people try to sue doctors left and right for anything that goes wrong. I'm democratic and haven't done much research on that issue, but if that argument is true, wouldn't Bernie's argument about comparing the cost of prescription drugs in America to the price in Canada be due to less legal fees that drug companies, hospitals, doctors, etc. are still paying off?
Not really sure what to think on this issue, as much as I like Bernie.
People already heard about it because it was widely reported today. He is going to get much more exposure now because he is (a) more well known after the primary and (b) proposing it at a time when healthcare is in the news.
Further, he's already gone to great lengths to defend the ACA since January. He's done a hell of a lot more to defend the bill than many actual Democrats.
Kinda hard to have a stated position when you're an entire political party vs one man who's been pushing the same thing for decades. It's almost like this is a complex issue or something.
fwiw I'm going to be working with an org advocating Oregon pass single payer this summer so I got youPelosi actually talked extensively about the Democratic position on healthcare in her town hall yesterday, including the note that if we want single-payer to pass a critical first step would be getting a single-payer program up and running in a state for the federal government to reference, the way that Obamacare referred to the Massachusetts system.
Unfortunately Bernie Sanders wasn't at Nancy Pelosi's town hall, so I'm guessing some people missed it.
It wasn't clear and based on thread posts I don't think that is an accurate characterization at all. Sorry, don't see it at all.
Which democrats haven't fought to protect the 3 ACA
Not too surprising, really!
Pelosi actually talked extensively about the Democratic position on healthcare in her town hall yesterday, including the note that if we want single-payer to pass a critical first step would be getting a single-payer program up and running in a state for the federal government to reference, the way that Obamacare referred to the Massachusetts system.
Unfortunately Bernie Sanders wasn't at Nancy Pelosi's town hall, so I'm guessing some people missed it.
Then there shouldn't be a problem with Bernie proposing this since everyone agrees this is the end goal!
Then there shouldn't be a problem with Bernie proposing this since everyone agrees this is the end goal!
Not sure everyone agrees. See thread and Democrats a year ago.
Sanders doesn't have a bully pulpit.
fwiw I'm going to be working with an org advocating Oregon pass single payer this summer so I got you
Then there shouldn't be a problem with Bernie proposing this since everyone agrees this is the end goal!
CNN said:House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi maintains she isn't taking sides in the Democratic primary for president, but pushed back against Bernie Sanders' pledge that he would raise taxes to pay for his health care plan, saying flatly on Wednesday, "We're not running on any platform of raising taxes."