Fenderputty
Banned
We're going for the double whammy after being left out all these years.
-
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.
Kamala Harris to Co-Sponsor Single Payer Healthcare
- Thread starter Joe T.
- Start date
We're going for the double whammy after being left out all these years.
I doubt it will happen.
I think It's more likely we see major hand-wringing about this.
I'm actually somewhat surprised, I had the impression that Kampala was actually more center-right as far as the Democratic Party spectrum goes. But I only really know about her from the various hearings.
legacyzero
Banned
No, I've literally seen responses like that in election threads. It's true. It wasn't a common thing, but there were a lot of people standing against it with "It'll never pass!" or "It'll never work!"
One response I've seen lately was "Our country just isn't built for it. It would take decades to transition to this type of system" (paraphrasing of course)
Health care is already so expensive that you could raise taxes pretty substantially across the board and still save money for most people. Even if deductibles stayed exactly on par with today's private market.
Boogie9IGN
Member
Lovin my new senator. Really wish I could've skipped class and gone to the town hall yesterday, would have loved to be there.
That's probably at least partially true due to so much of our health care system being dependent on private practices rather than larger managed systems like Kaiser. It definitely wouldn't be an easy transition to account for everything, just needs good long term planning.
legacyzero
Banned
Here is receipts from that Town Hall if anybody wanted to see it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCD1cYnZwIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCD1cYnZwIc
Father_Brain
Banned
hey, it's almost like the people who constantly deride the left for "purity tests" don't actually know what they're talking about. Imagine that.
Fenderputty
Banned
It could depending on the system? Why do you think this isn't a valid point?
Purity tests are utter tripe. Harris wouldn't pass muster even co sighing this idea.
well, we're approaching the end of the first decade of that transition, so we're on that track for that to still be true?
legacyzero
Banned
They point was made in opposition to Single Payer. Not just because "It'd be difficult".
Are you saying the ACA is on the path to Single Payer? I dont see it.
Father_Brain
Banned
damn the BernieBro purity left, putting pressure on Harris to embrace a good, progressive idea and then praising her for it when she does. you just can't win with them
Karsticles
Member
So much of this thread is sarcastic sniping.
yes? ACA is the first major health care reform in decades, and was always stated by Obama and others from the outset that it was the first step in a larger process. It was never the end goal and Obama never claimed that the ACA was an end goal, but the beginning of a new conversation.
The reason Medicare for All, single-payer, a public option, et al. are gaining more traction now than they did 25 years when Hillary tried is because ACA is changing the consensus in this country from healthcare being a privilege to healthcare being a right.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
What is free grades 13-16? Like, for school?
legacyzero
Banned
Free Community College, essentially. I heard somebody jokingly call it that the other day and I ran with it lol
excelsiorlef
Member
ACA passed the House with a public option. A public option would be the next logical step towards single payer.
Lieberman prevented it from becoming a part of it at first but the ACA absolutely still is compatible with public option
Raylan Targaryen
Member
Ziltoidia 9
Member
Ah, well I support that too, so I agree with your list. Was just confused about that one piece. It means school year and not age. I thought it ment when you are 13 - 16 years old, you get free grades.
i don't usually support neoliberal political plays(ie chris cuomo free tuition bill that came with a ton of self defeating asterisks after everything), but is harris is serious about co sponsoring and fighting for this legislation, it may almost half make up for her mixed civil rights record.
everyone understands this isn't going to pass the GOP congress, but its still important to push what you intend to fight for to the voters and deliver on your promise eventually, even if you can't get everything. anything else is self defeating, like your not even trying to stand for anything.
everyone understands this isn't going to pass the GOP congress, but its still important to push what you intend to fight for to the voters and deliver on your promise eventually, even if you can't get everything. anything else is self defeating, like your not even trying to stand for anything.
Zoe
Member
Are those differences posted anywhere?
legacyzero
Banned
I was leaving room for the fact that I dont feel like I know enough about her to say "perfect", honestly. I'm worried about her being propped up by the establishment, and hearing about her not prosecuting Steve Mnuchin is a little worrisome and frustrating.
The same thing could happen for me that happened in 2015. I put my entire weight behind Hillary before I knew too much about what and who she was, her past, principles, etc. Bernie was a better candidate for me in that regard because he was just better for those things.
That makes total sense then. ACA aint perfect, but it's better than the wild west that existed before it.
Exactly. Get people on healthcare and their eyes open, especially amidst a massive multi-billion dollar counter-marketing campaign telling them otherwise by Republicans for decades. Most were completely unaware how affordable it could be under different circumstances.
I mean, did you vote for Barack Obama in 2012? Because he and Holder didn't prosecute a single CEO responsible for the financial crisis.
I'm not trying to downplay your point, because I agree it's a frustrating thing especially since the reason in this case is so obvious, but the fact is just about everyone in power failed to take Wall Street to task for cratering the economy. In any case, Kamala can hang her hat on the foreclosure settlement she won for CA homeowners after the federal government wanted to settle for far less.
Brandon F said:
Joe Manchin summed it up really well, when he was talking the effects of gutting the Medicaid expansion on West Virginians: these people may not know who gave them their healthcare, but they will know who took it away.
People generally love entitlements, even conservative white-working class, hell even Big Business. It's near impossible to take them away once they have a taste of that sweet government nectar. Republicans realized this, which is why they sacrificed their firstborns to try to derail ACA. Republicans will take a shit in their own hands to provide "proof" that the government is garbage.
When it comes to who gets to have entitlements, that's a different story. White working-class love their welfare, but when 'free-loaders' (coded language for minorities) get them, Republicans have a boogieman, and then they'll willingly kamikaze themselves to fight it.
When it comes to who gets to have entitlements, that's a different story. White working-class love their welfare, but when 'free-loaders' (coded language for minorities) get them, Republicans have a boogieman, and then they'll willingly kamikaze themselves to fight it.
eBay Huckster
Member
do you know for a fact that she had prosecutorial power to take out Mnuchin prior to the passage of the CA Homeowner Bill of Rights?
if i had to hazard a guess free CC (and at least 3 of the other 5 things mentioned) is flat-out gonna be in the 2020 platform, it basically was in 2016 already
Fenderputty
Banned
Single payer isn't the only way to UHC and our country has decades upon decades of private medical infrastructure and a ton of people working int he industry. There's reason a public option and things like Sweeden's system are brought up.
Even if you did so a UK style of single payer, it would be easier to transition into after having that public option and slowly moving towards it instead just jumping right in.
This is a valid point and worthy of discussion. Sweeden itself proves that for profit insurance can coexist with a socialized system. It's rated highly too.
Angelus Errare
Banned
We did see how they were going to pay for it, by raising taxes. Bernie even released a tax calculator website to show how much your taxes would increase.
Problem is vast majority of America to include a large portion of liberals saw their taxes increase and said "oh fuck no" without ever realizing that they would no longer have a medical bill, copay, deductible which would more than even out the tax increase.
Hey, go for it. This platform will probably garner a lot of public support...
There's still no fucking way it gets passed anytime in the near future. Forgetting the fact that not a single Republican would be on board, I doubt every Democrat would be.
So you'll need more than 60 in the Senate. When's that going to happen?
It's a pipe dream. The sooner the base learns this the better.
TheClimaxan
Member
Bernie is gonna be too old. I think he's better served working with up and coming candidates and giving them a Bernie rub. Harris could be ready by 2020 on her own if she plays her cards right.
legacyzero
Banned
Obama was my "baby's first election". So I wasn't as versed in stuff like that back then. I saw Obama as the charismatic, positive wave of change in this country. And out of two terms, I can fairly say that I like the guy. Just dont love him. Too many non-combatants killed with drone strikes, and ACA was essentially born from a right-wing think tank and Romney. That said, if we still had limitless terms like back in the FDR era, I've vote him in again.
I think the "too old" line of thinking is just random. For an old guy, he's certainly holding his own more than most in his line of work. Hell, he's even doing town halls in republican states belonging to the likes of Mitch McConnell. Will 4 years make a difference? Possibly. But until then, There isn't a candidate that carries the same level of popularity that Bernie has at the moment. So somebody has to step up, and earn that. If Kamala wasn't to try to carry that torch, more power to her. Right now the only one close is Liz Warren at the moment.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Public option and Medicare expansion would only need 50 in the Senate if passed via reconciliation.
Father_Brain
Banned
The filibuster is not part of the Constitution and does not have to continue existing.
Fenderputty
Banned
That would pass reconciliation rules? A Public option seems like a lot more than just a budgetary matter.
I thought that something could be passed via reconciliation only if it lowers spending?
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
It's not about being too old in 4 years, it's about being too old in 8 years. Anyone running should be running with the goal of 2 terms.
Serious question- Do you want your middle class taxes to go up by 20% to get free healthcare? For sicker people, I'm guessing the answer is yes. For healthier people, I'm guessing the answer is no.
If you are worried about poor people having health care, then just expand Medicaid more (like maybe 3 times as much as Obamacare does.) I think that many of you are not thinking about the true cost of a medicare for all system. Do you remember that one Vox article about Bernie's healthcare plan in 2016? It is just too expensive. Why don't California or Vermont do it first? Massachusetts did Obamacare before the rest of the country adopted that.
How about we try it in a state first and see how it goes. California would be a perfect testing ground for this. Try it and see if it works. I am open to new ideas.
If you are worried about poor people having health care, then just expand Medicaid more (like maybe 3 times as much as Obamacare does.) I think that many of you are not thinking about the true cost of a medicare for all system. Do you remember that one Vox article about Bernie's healthcare plan in 2016? It is just too expensive. Why don't California or Vermont do it first? Massachusetts did Obamacare before the rest of the country adopted that.
How about we try it in a state first and see how it goes. California would be a perfect testing ground for this. Try it and see if it works. I am open to new ideas.
For me, it wasn't about the message, it was about the messenger.
Zoe
Member
That article totally misrepresented his plan.
His Medicare For All plan was supposed to be paid for with an increase in employer taxes with the added cost being offset by employers no longer having to directly provide insurance.
How could a public option pass in reconciliation? The reason it dropped from ACA in the first place is because they needed 60 votes for it.
The ACA passed with 60 votes.
The Medicaid expansion was passed under reconciliation. You can raise taxes and avoid a deficit to meet reconciliation requirements.
ResidentWeevil13
Member
She's running for president
Fenderputty
Banned
Medicaid is an existing system. So expansion is a simple budgetary matter. How can you pass a full on public option through reconciliation?
legacyzero
Banned
I mean, cant you just have a young VP to take over if you kick the bucket and/or resign for health reasons?
Zoe
Member
Medicare is also an existing system, and that's what they're calling this. Is that different?
Because I was curious:
While reconciliation has traditionally been thought of as mostly a means of enacting deficit-reduction legislation, Congress has used it on occasion to expedite passage of tax cuts that increase deficits. The most notable examples were reconciliation bills in 2001 and 2003 that enacted tax cuts based on proposals by President George W. Bush.[5]
In 2007, when Democrats took control of the House and Senate, both chambers adopted rules designed to prohibit use of reconciliation for measures that increase deficits. When Republicans took the House in 2011, they replaced the House rule with one that placed no restrictions on revenue provisions that increase deficits but prohibited reconciliation instructions that would produce a net increase in mandatory spending, regardless of the reconciliation bill's overall impact on deficits.
The Senate rule against deficit-increasing reconciliation bills was repealed in 2015, as part of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2016.
Sauce:
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/introduction-to-budget-reconciliation
So... Maybe? Seems murky at best.