Support NeoGAF

[Lord_Byron28]

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.

Yes, I'm aware that it gets referred to a committee which is where this bill has died along with many of Bernie's other proposed bills that are too radical for this Congress. I meant local representatives just as a more general term for either senator or house member but a senator is state level so my bad. Thanks for the info about the latter part; I couldn't remember whether the bill was decided to go on the floor by the Senate or House of Representatives.

With all of that said, this bill will go as far as the amount of effort Sanders has put in. His bills like this and $15/hour minimum wage are extreme and he doesn't even try to work with others in drumming up support for it. While Congressional Republicans are in disarray, it'd be nice to see the Democrats play the same game they did in 08-16. They already are to some extent but, they could go further. They could organize and get behind their own healthcare improvement plan. Have Republicans distracted dealing with Democrat's bills. Republicans may have the majority but, they are strongly divided on some issues. Democrats should take advantage of this and propose bills on issues that divide them.


Moving on, I'm curious what states will most likely first transition to single payer. I have a feeling it will likely be a lot of the same states that are loosening restrictions on Marijuana such as Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, etc.

 

[Autoignition]

He been featured in several 1-hour televised town halls and debated Ted Cruz on CNN since the election. Plus, the OurRevolution list continues to put out statements, action items, and occasionally video statements from Sanders.

So he's got a bit of a pulpit, I'd say.

You have no idea what a bully pulpit actually is, do you?

 

[jack_package_200]

You have no idea what a bully pulpit actually is, do you?

He was the one person who attempted to invoke Hillary Clinton in a thread that had fuck all to do with her.

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

 

[Autoignition]

He was the one person who attempted to invoke Hillary Clinton in a thread that had fuck all to do with her.

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Sigh. Figures.

Why's it always gotta be this way, man?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Going to need elaboration on it being the end goal. And the timeframe. Like, I get that no one likes details and nuance.

Plausible end goal for the United States, in the foreseeable future. No, I don't see it being a worthwhile pursuit as opposed to improving coverage under the existing system. Sherrod Brown has a bill with bipartisan cosponsorship aimed at a comparatively tiny increase in affordability. It is still a more worrhwhile endeavour right now.

The bill if as written as past versions, which I don't really think is a stretch assumption is not happening even with Democratic control of all branches. States would probably have it struck down via the courts.

 

[Kenstar]

This will surely pass.

You will surely get the healthcare

 

[Wall]

We should bring back Teddy R. to settle this debate .....

Personally, I wouldn't say Sanders has a full bully pulpit, but more a mildly intimidating tough kid pulpit - like that dude from the breakfast club.

Or, if I had to rank Sander's pulpit in terms of bullies, I'd put him at the level of Nelson Munz. But then again, maybe I'm being a bit unfair to Sanders because I don't have a good idea for his to rate movie bullies in relation to each other ....

 

[Imperfected]

Why's it always gotta be this way, man?

It's basically going to continue until "but Hillary, tho" is greeted with open derision and complete ostracizing from the conversation.

Which should be effective immediately, as the statute of limitations on giving a shit about a failed political campaign ends with inauguration at the latest. Otherwise, we might as well just settle in and copy-paste the same rotation of "but Hillary, tho" vs. "but McCain, tho" cyclical arguments in perpetuity.

 

[Autoignition]

We should bring back Teddy R. to settle this debate .....

Personally, I wouldn't say Sanders has a full bully pulpit, but more a mildly intimidating tough kid pulpit - like that dude from the breakfast club.

Or, if I had to rank Sander's pulpit in terms of bullies, I'd put him at the level of Nelson Munz. But then again, maybe I'm being a bit unfair to Sanders because I don't have a good idea for his to rate movie bullies in relation to each other ....

So, confirmed that you have no idea what a bully pulpit is.

Having a bully pulpit doesn't mean you actually literally bully people. Roosevelt coined the term at a time when "bully" meant "excellent."

Having a bully pulpit in today's political arena means holding an office that's influential enough to help push or enact an agenda. A handful of town halls on CNN does not give Sanders that office. He might be especially persuasive to any Dem Senators who are thinking of running in 2020, but he doesn't actually hold the proper office to exert influence over congress as a whole.

The president has a bully pulpit. Paul Ryan has one and doesn't know how to use it. Orrin Hatch has one. To a lesser extent, Mitch McConnell has one. Any one rando standing Senator, such as Sanders, does not.

 

[Wall]

So, confirmed that you have no idea what a bully pulpit is.

Having a bully pulpit doesn't mean you actually literally bully people. Roosevelt coined the term at a time when "bully" meant "excellent."

Having a bully pulpit in today's political arena means holding an office that's influential enough to help push or enact an agenda. A handful of town halls on CNN does not give Sanders that office. He might be especially persuasive to any Dem Senators who are thinking of running in 2020, but he doesn't actually hold the proper office to exert influence over congress as a whole.

The president has a bully pulpit. Paul Ryan has one and doesn't know how to use it. Orrin Hatch has one. Any one rando standing Senator does not.

I know humor doesn't convey well over the internet but geez dude....

 

[Autoignition]

I know humor doesn't convey well over the internet but geez dude....

I guess we both have that in common in this thread, then. Whoops.

 

[Mutant]

He is.

There's zero expectation this will pass. The thing that's happening right now is that Republicans are breaking ranks with Trump on the ACA repeal, and that's going to be a nice little feather in their cap come re-election time, right?

Sanders is putting this bill up to force them to vote against it (because of course they will) so that he can point and say, "Yeah, they may have voted against repealing the ACA because Trump's a moron, but they're still jerks and don't want to give you health care."

It's just a reminder to Americans that just because Trump stepped over the line in terms of how dumb some members of the GOP are willing to go, it doesn't mean they aren't still pretty fucking dumb.

Wow, I didn't think of it like that. Good move!

 

[adamsappel]

I could never find the reference, since Googling "Bernie+healthcare" became a fool's errand, but I remember back when Hillary's health care reform imploded in the '90s, Bernie said he blamed himself for its failure. He said he never should have praised it, that as the Socialist in the Senate he should have railed against it as not going far enough, as not being Socialist at all; instead his approval had let Republicans use him as proof that it was. So, maybe he's sacrificing himself by proposing an actual Socialist program, so Democrats can have something to counter-propose that could actually get passed?

 

[diablos991]

I sure hope this makes it to the floor and passes.
This country needs it.

Not sure how the government single handed lay wiping an industry off the map will go though.

 

[Ac30]

I sure hope this makes it to the floor and passes.
This country needs it.

Not sure how the government single handed lay wiping an industry off the map will go though.

Can't the speaker just refuse to let the bill be brought to the floor though?

 

[MartyStu]

This is great. Not because it is going to be passed. It will NOT, but because it keeps the conversation going and hopefully continues to give Ls to the Republicans.

The best approach after this is if Democrats came up with a 'Moderate Compromise Bill' that effectively just fixes Obamacare.

I am not sure if Bernie is playing 3D chess here, but if the Democrats are smart, they can exploit the situation all the same.

 

[shinra-bansho]

There is no Speaker.
There will be no vote.
And a bill that dies in committee isn't going to keep any conversation going.

 

[Powdered Toastman]

The US' military spend allows enormous influence worldwide, more than simple economics can. It's been quite helpful for US interests as well.

And doesn't quite a bit of that money go back into the US economy anyway (salaries for military personel, military industry)?

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

Of course nothing like this will pass, but the more this kind of idea gets talked about the better.

 

[davepoobond]

At least it will be written for when democrats retake the government if it still exists lol

 

[Aaron Strife]

All this talk about "how will Republicans vote on this" is senseless because 1) the Senate won't vote on this until likely 2021 at the earliest and 2) they will vote No, party-line because single payer healthcare is completely at odds with the Republican platform. Like. Come on.

Killing a shitty far-right corporate handout doesn't mean they're going to immediately tack to the furthest left alternative.

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.

Those Senators would have supported the public option if Lieberman hadn't given them the cover to come out against it, knowing that it wouldn't pass anyway and their support/opposition was meaningless. Ingenuous? Sure, but that's politics.

As for the House, you do realize that the original version of PPACA that passed the House included the public option, correct? There were members who opposed the bill but not in strong enough numbers to kill it. Even when it was stripped out many of them still voted No. Pelosi had the votes she needed and allowed blue dog congressmen to vote against it so they wouldn't get murdered in red districts (this didn't quite work, but once again, that's politics and something Ryan and especially Trump have no grasp of).

 

[KRod-57]

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

Well, here are 5 who voted against the public option, and that's just in the senate finance committee
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/29/the-five-democrats-who-vo_n_303700.html

Other Democrats who did not support the public option include Mary Landrieu who said there were few circumstances in which she would support a public option. Whether or not there were Democrats who were against the public option is not in question. There were, and on average the ones who voted against it collected $163,876 from the insurance companies

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/09/committee-members-opposed-to-p/

Those Senators would have supported the public option if Lieberman hadn't given them the cover to come out against it, knowing that it wouldn't pass anyway and their support/opposition was meaningless. Ingenuous? Sure, but that's politics.

As for the House, you do realize that the original version of PPACA that passed the House included the public option, correct? There were members who opposed the bill but not in strong enough numbers to kill it. Even when it was stripped out many of them still voted No. Pelosi had the votes she needed and allowed blue dog congressmen to vote against it so they wouldn't get murdered in red districts (this didn't quite work, but once again, that's politics and something Ryan and especially Trump have no grasp of).

How does any of this contradict what I posted prior?

 

[Baron Aloha]

It won't pass, but it needs to. It's time to end this madness. The ACA is better than what we had before but it is still deeply flawed. A public option would help but I don't think it will be enough.

Funny how Bernie seems to be the only "democrat" putting forth policy proposals. I wish more dems would come out with stuff like this. They are going to need more than "Trump bad" to win the upcoming elections.

 

[Sulik2]

This is exactly what the dems need to do to motivate their base. Show how different you are actually are then the GOP and provide actually sane liberal legislation that all the young people who view them as GOP lites will actually get off their butts and vote for.

 

[kirblar]

Those Dems that torpedoed the public option? Theyre gone now.

Bernie is the only one pulling these stunts because proposing unworkable bills that will never pass is his permanent opposition party mindset in action.

The GOP did that for 6 years,and you just saw the results when that wing got power.

 

[Gallbaro]

We also pay a shit ton more taxes than our American neighbours. If you guys had to pay our income tax rates you'd probably run the other way.

Not really true. Add state, local, and Cody of healthcare the equivalent expense is likely higher and the states get a much worse return for a tax dollar.

 

[Lifeline]

Got any data that's not a 20 year old poll?

You really think in 20 years the number went from a negligible percentage to something that justifies the many Canadians come to the U.S. for healthcare hyperbole?

 

[Boney]

It's basically going to continue until "but Hillary, tho" is greeted with open derision and complete ostracizing from the conversation.

Which should be effective immediately, as the statute of limitations on giving a shit about a failed political campaign ends with inauguration at the latest. Otherwise, we might as well just settle in and copy-paste the same rotation of "but Hillary, tho" vs. "but McCain, tho" cyclical arguments in perpetuity.

You say this when third parties and figures like Nader (one of the greatest consumer advocates of our time) are still vilified for supposedely losing the elections?

 

[Somnid]

Those Dems that torpedoed the public option? Theyre gone now.

Bernie is the only one pulling these stunts because proposing unworkable bills that will never pass is his permanent opposition party mindset in action.

The GOP did that for 6 years,and you just saw the results when that wing got power.

There's actually something here though, not just blind contrarianism. It will happen eventually, sooner depending on how many people lose jobs.

 

[TurnipFritters]

You say this when third parties and figures like Nader (one of the greatest consumer advocates of our time) are still vilified for supposedely losing the elections?

It's actually good and important to mock third parties who run on the platform of "both sides are just as equally as bad"

 

[andycapps]

This really needs to pass, but it won't for years. Found out today my mother in law has to get some kind of surgery on her jar and with insurance, she will have to pay $16k out of pocket. She's very high risk due to type 2 diabetes so her coverage isn't great, but just imagining the difference of the cost of the surgery if she were on medicare vs this is boggling the mind.

Ironic thing is they're conservative and completely against this even though it would massively benefit them.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

I struggle with the "OMG my taxes" thing when it comes to UHC. Could someone tell me where my math is wrong based on some very rough napkin numbers:

Current
Salary $50000
My share of Premium $6500
Employer Share $11500
Sal - My Share (take home) $43500

UHC
Salary + Employer share in cash $61500
10% UHC Tax $6150
Sal - Tax (take home) $55350

What am I missing here?

edited: removed employer share under UHC...stupid copy/past

 

[andycapps]

I struggle with the "OMG my taxes" thing when it comes to UHC. Could someone tell me where my math is wrong based on some very rough napkin numbers:

Current
Salary $50000
My share of Premium $6500
Employer Share $11500
Sal - My Share (take home) $43500

UHC
Salary + Employer share in cash $61500
10% UHC Tax $6150
Employer Share $11500
Sal - Tax (take home) $55350

What am I missing here?

I think what you're missing is the "but it's socialism!" and "US has the best medical care in the world" bits.

I don't know enough about the specifics to know if your estimations are correct.

 

[ZOONAMI]

I think what you're missing is the "but it's socialism!" and "US has the best medical care in the world" bits.

I don't know enough about the specifics to know if your estimations are correct.

Yep. Republicans and even some Dems will throw out the socialism card and half the country will hate it even though it's good for everyone.

It's what they painted the ACA as as well.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

I struggle with the "OMG my taxes" thing when it comes to UHC. Could someone tell me where my math is wrong based on some very rough napkin numbers:

Current
Salary $50000
My share of Premium $6500
Employer Share $11500
Sal - My Share (take home) $43500

UHC
Salary + Employer share in cash $61500
10% UHC Tax $6150
Employer Share $11500
Sal - Tax (take home) $55350

What am I missing here?

What you're missing it pretending that there is any logical argument happening against your rationale. The debate has always been entirely irrational from the right's perspective as was noted by their silver bullet against the idea - and ACA - being their constant use of 'death panels.' They knew they didn't have a decent argument from day one.

 

[KernelPanic]

Living in Canada I've always wanted to work out what my take home pay would be in the US taking insurance premiums into account given that I was moving there until Trump got elected.

 

[MrGerbils]

The real enemy of progressive policies is not the republicans but moderate democrats.

It is never a bad time to fight for something you believe in. This is why the democrats are so fucked again and again and have lost control of the country. You make progress by getting the people behind you. You get the people behind you by proposing policy that's really on their side. You don't get people behind you by having a policy wonk debate about strategy talking about "when is the right time" to fight for the average American.

Fight now, fight all the time, fight forever, and people will literally rally in the streets behind you.

 

[fredrancour]

I struggle with the "OMG my taxes" thing when it comes to UHC. Could someone tell me where my math is wrong based on some very rough napkin numbers:

Current
Salary $50000
My share of Premium $6500
Employer Share $11500
Sal - My Share (take home) $43500

UHC
Salary + Employer share in cash $61500
10% UHC Tax $6150
Employer Share $11500
Sal - Tax (take home) $55350

What am I missing here?

a political party dedicated to letting the free market do whatever in the name of making a buck even if it leads to widespread suffering.

a multi-billion dollar industry lobbying to save itself.

millions of average people persuaded to act against their own best interests by marketing that appeals emotionally to concepts of hard work and rugged individualism and fear of the other exploiting the system while sweeping numbers and results under the rug.



also i guess a lot of employers would attempt to not forward the full cost of the savings to their employees.

 

[mnannola]

I struggle with the "OMG my taxes" thing when it comes to UHC. Could someone tell me where my math is wrong based on some very rough napkin numbers:

Current
Salary $50000
My share of Premium $6500
Employer Share $11500
Sal - My Share (take home) $43500

UHC
Salary + Employer share in cash $61500
10% UHC Tax $6150
Employer Share $11500
Sal - Tax (take home) $55350

What am I missing here?

For one, what if employers decide to pocket that money instead of giving it back to employees?

 

[NandoGip]

For one, what if employers decide to pocket that money instead of giving it back to employees?

Some will, some won't. Simple as that. The argument actually assists us that want to move towards single payer because then businesses will get behind it for the sake of saving money.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

For one, what if employers decide to pocket that money instead of giving it back to employees?

Then the free market would sort this out by employees leaving said employers for greener pastures.

 

[andycapps]

Then the free market would sort this out by employees leaving said employers for greener pastures.

True.

But even if the employee doesn't get that money, a comparison could be made for out of pocket costs for treatment with an existing insurance policy and under medicare. We know which side that would favor.

 

[zelas]

The real enemy of progressive policies is not the republicans but moderate democrats.

It is never a bad time to fight for something you believe in. This is why the democrats are so fucked again and again and have lost control of the country. You make progress by getting the people behind you. You get the people behind you by proposing policy that's really on their side. You don't get people behind you by having a policy wonk debate about strategy talking about "when is the right time" to fight for the average American.

Fight now, fight all the time, fight forever, and people will literally rally in the streets behind you.

Nobody fought and objected harder than extremist republicans these past 8 years when it came to Obamacare. I dont recall any real democrats getting behind the republican's repeal efforts. Voters or politicians.

Some things will never fly with the opposition and thus are always a waste of time in circumstances like the ones Dems are in now. There are far better ways to educate the public.

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

If it was a Democrat controlled House and Senate, would this basically get approved?

 

[Davey Cakes]

Some will, some won't. Simple as that. The argument actually assists us that want to move towards single payer because then businesses will get behind it for the sake of saving money.

Good point. It sounds positive regardless of how it's framed. Either businesses save money, or people do.

Demonizing "higher taxes" is so silly when there's actually a net benefit for the majority of those involved. People just have to look at it like a balance scale, taking a little bit of the expense off one side and putting it on the other.

 

[wandering]

If it was a Democrat controlled House and Senate, would this basically get approved?

Doubt it. Plenty of moderate Democrats don't want single payer

 

[Quixzlizx]

If it was a Democrat controlled House and Senate, would this basically get approved?

It would need 60 votes in the Senate.

Actually, it would need 67 votes to override a presidential veto.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

For one, what if employers decide to pocket that money instead of giving it back to employees?

Of course any part of a UHC law could either tax the employer a comparable amount to lessen the burden of the employees tax, or just add something that requires any savings to go back to the employees for X amount of years until it's phased out. Hopefully during that time, the free market would adjust and it would give us some time to drive healthcare costs down through negotiation and/or reduction of waste and redundancies.

 

[MrGerbils]

Nobody fought and objected harder than extremist republicans these past 8 years when it came to Obamacare. I dont recall any real democrats getting behind the republican's repeal efforts. Voters or politicians.

Some things will never fly with the opposition and thus are always a waste of time in circumstances like the ones Dems are in now. There are far better ways to educate the public.

A coal miner deep in Trump country sat and told Sanders that he wants health care for all and the crowd cheered.

The country already is aready ready for single payer.

The democrats are stunned (and some angry) that Bernie has such a huge following and they want his email list to get in on it. That's not what they need. They need to show the American people that they're fighting for them.

Propping up HRC, an establishment dynasty politician with horrible favorability ratings and no message at a time when the country was rallying behind a populist movement because she was "more electable" than Bernie is the same type of failed strategy as saying "no no, don't fight for the American people to have heath insurance right now, let's just sit and wait and lose some more elections first."

With the failure of the Republicans health bill being major national news, and many in Trump counties realizing they got tricked and might lose their coverage, now is absolutely the perfect time to get the country to rally behind single payer while health care (and the fact that the GOP has no worthwhile solution) is on everyones mind.

 

[Tallshortman]

Getting single payer anytime soon would require Trump to get his crazies onboard since they'll follow him off a cliff. In this case, they may be able to pressure enough moderate Republicans, who knows.