Support NeoGAF

[Valhelm]

Also, not repealing Obamacare at this point would still probably lead to single payer.

Hope so. An evolutionary approach is so much safer than this kind of a gamble.

This sentiment from Vox reminds me of the German communists and social democrats who naively thought that the Nazi victory in 1932 would just send more voters to the left. By 1942 these politicians were rotting in mass graves, not running Germany. Accelerationism doesn't always work out how you want it to.

 

[Culex]

What was Britains NHS before it is what it is now?

 

[cdyhybrid]

I thought you were talking about waiting to see what the political fallout would be re: the GOP ramming this through.

Well they're related. If the GOP rams this through and their base doesn't revolt and vote them out despite getting fucked, how do we know the base won't force them to stonewall single payer?

Plus it's not just about getting single payer passed, it's about keeping it in place through multiple political cycles until people refuse to part with it.

 

[TestOfTide]

Incrementalism is for cowards.

Way to call every major leader of the Civil Rights Movements in the US a coward.

Like, I that's not even me pulling the "MLK Jr. Card" (If anything it's me pulling the A Philip Randolph card). That's me pointing out that some of the most important policy changes in our nation's history happened incrementally.

The DNC and Democrats in the U.S. are far too greedy and cowardly to actually give a real push for single payer like a first world country.

I'd love to be proven wrong but I just got off a decade of "liberals" acting like single payer is turning the U.S. into nazi Germany.

With democrat shitbags like booker? No chance.

Then why the hell are NY and California pushing for single payer state-wide if they secretly don't want it.

 

[Chumly]

How can they pass single payer with 51 senate votes? Wouldn't that require 60 votes?

 

[B-Dubs]

Also, not repealing Obamacare at this point would still probably lead to single payer.

Exactly. The whole point was to get their foot in the door, it's why the GOP fought so hard against it.

How can they pass single payer with 51 senate votes? Wouldn't that require 60 votes?

Whose to say the filibuster survives Trump? If it takes 60 votes to give everyone healthcare and only 50+1 to take it away, what kind of system is that?

 

[The Technomancer]

oh god are we back on "accelerationism is good actually"?

With that said, I expect Dems to push for something like "medicare for all" once they take power again. But y'all better brace for the backlash

 

[Makonero]

How can they pass single payer with 51 senate votes? Wouldn't that require 60 votes?

if republicans pass ahca with 51 votes it's fair game to repeal and replace that with 51 votes

 

[tearsintherain]

The 51 senate votes thing is weird. Thats just taking fact of an arcane rule where bills done through reconciliation cannot be filibustered and only require 50 votes to pass, but every provision in the bill has to have a federal budget line item impact which is unlikely in a single payer bill. I assume the article also realizes the dems would have to take a majority position in the house to even get a bill up to be reconciled.

It also ignores the fact that the healthcare lobby does NOT want single payer, it would essentially wipe out huge chunks of the industry and their leeching of government funds from the system, and so they will spend BILLIONS lobbying Congress to kill it. When one of the rising stars of the democrats, Senator Cory Booker, is against importing medicine from Canada because "is it safe?" you know healthcare has a lot of hidden influence.

Still, its a great idea and I do hope sometime in the next 20 years we get single payer passed. I think the impetus will come from business, its still viewed as a competitive advantage by some but more and more I think businesses realize that getting the fuck out of dealing with healthcare and just assuming every citizen is taken care of is far better than the mess we have now.

 

[Chumly]

The 51 senate votes thing is weird. Thats just taking fact of an arcane rule where bills done through reconciliation cannot be filibustered and only require 50 votes to pass, but every provision in the bill has to have a federal budget line item impact which is unlikely in a single payer bill. I assume the article also realizes the dems would have to take a majority position in the house to even get a bill up to be reconciled.

It also ignores the fact that the healthcare lobby does NOT want single payer, it would essentially wipe out huge chunks of the industry and their leeching of government funds from the system, and so they will spend BILLIONS lobbying Congress to kill it. When one of the rising stars of the democrats, Senator Cory Booker, is against importing medicine from Canada because "is it safe?" you know healthcare has a lot of hidden influence.

Still, its a great idea and I do hope sometime in the next 20 years we get single payer passed. I think the impetus will come from business, its still viewed as a competitive advantage by some but more and more I think businesses realize that getting the fuck out of dealing with healthcare and just assuming every citizen is taken care of is far better than the mess we have now.

Yea I am not buying the argument. Unless republicans 100% get rid of the filibuster then it's not happening

 

[old]

Medicare for all, should be the platform.

Make old people who vote republican have to answer for why they think they deserve government funded healthcare but not anyone else.

 

[makingmusic476]

I don't think either author is encouraging accelerationism, and I'm certainly not. They're just theorizing on how the aftermath of the AHCA's passage would play out, should the Republicans be successfully in getting it passed.

 

[Bleepey]

You don't hear many Republicans talking about death panels. They know their lies don't hold water, their repeal and replace promise with something better has been proven to be horse shit. Fuck em

 

[pigeon]

Hope so. An evolutionary approach is so much safer than this kind of a gamble.

This sentiment from Vox reminds me of the German communists and social democrats who naively thought that the Nazi victory in 1932 would just send more voters to the left. By 1942 these politicians were rotting in mass graves, not running Germany. Accelerationism doesn't always work out how you want it to.

In fairness, Vox is not suggesting we support repealing Obamacare. Just saying that passing a super unpopular bill that fucks up health care has the potential to give the other party an opening if they take power as a result. Given that the Dems can't stop the Republicans from passing something if they really want to, cold comfort is basically what they're left with.

 

[makingmusic476]

In fairness, Vox is not suggesting we support repealing Obamacare. Just saying that passing a super unpopular bill that fucks up health care has the potential to give the other party an opening if they take power as a result. Given that the Dems can't stop the Republicans from passing something if they really want to, cold comfort is basically what they're left with.

Exactly. I'm not sure why some people assumed this thread was advocating accelerationism.

 

[SolarPowered]

Time for Bernie 2.0 to get this shit done.