Establishment Dems worried they'll get primaried if they don't back single-payer healthcare


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/08/08/step-one-of-several.html


#2

Does the though ever go through their mind as representative of the people If their funding comes from an industry that the people hate may be find some other way to fund your re-election.? If they don’t back what the people want then maybe they shouldn’t be reelected by the people in the first place.


#3

Once everyone accepts that the democrat party is NOT a progressive party but a bunch of center right status-quo cowards, the sooner things can really start to change for that party. If we had a real political process here, the past 8 years should have split both parties into two and give constituents on both side a real choice.


#4

They kind of both did.


#5

If they don’t back what the people want then maybe they shouldn’t be reelected by the people in the first place.

Pretty much what I came here to say. Nominal Dem Joe Manchin was quoted as saying he didn’t care what people wanted and if they wanted someone who did, that they should vote him out. He’s 100% right on the second part of that…

It’s time to get back to the 50 state strategy with a candidate in every race. When your electeds are more concerned about holding their seats than doing the jobs those seats represent, it’s time for them to go.


#7

This shouldn’t be a litmus test, it should be a basic plank of the Dem Party platform. It’s a disgrace to the entire country that we don’t already have single-payer healthcare.


#8


#9

Bernie does not seem to be on-board with this idea, at least when it relates to women having bodily autonomy:

Even Bernie Sanders, one of the most progressive elected Democrats in the country and usually no coward when it comes to ideological stances, has been guilty of ambiguity on abortion. When he and Perez drew fire for campaigning for Heath Mello, an Omaha mayoral candidate with a spotty record on choice, he had the chance to explain Mello’s stance had evolved and to draw the distinction between “personal views” and the desire to codify said views into law. Instead, he muddied the waters, saying that Democrats must support candidates like Mello in red states “if we’re going to become a 50-state party”.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/01/anti-choice-democrats-abortion-us-politics-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton


#10

Okay they’re worried they might be out of jobs.

I’m worried I’m going to die before any of them can get elected, so …


#11

Travelling in one of western Europe’s poorer countries right now, I’ve noticed how many elderly folks here are in good shape for their ages compared to the U.S. I’m sure that there are many factors involved in having so many spry and active olds wandering about, but I suspect that a lifetime of single-payer universal health insurance is a big one.

It’s truly pathetic that the duopoly party that aspires to represent left-leaning American has to give its position on this issue a moment’s thought.


#12

They should be scared. The Dems are already loosing when they play the game their way. Its not going to get any better for them if they don’t heel.


#14

Adopting it will be hard, yes – lots of details. But getting support might be easier than they think, given the public backlash their GOP opponents received from many of their own voters when they attempted to kill Obamacare.

In the end, the Dems have to write off any hope of winning the votes of the Know-Nothing 25% of the electorate. Doing so would to a large extent* free them from the ridiculous situation of having to agonize over an issue (amongst several) that should be a no-brainer for a liberal party: supporting some form of single-payer universal.

[* there’s still their corporate patrons to contend with here]


#15

wow, that’s one heck of a reach.


#16

I’m glad that Bernie and progressives like this are talking about real change, but I don’t think that working in the confines of the existing system are going to allow for any more significant changes.

Our system of First Past The Post voting means that third (or fourth, fifth, etc) parties will just cause splits among mostly like-minded people and allow the opposition to win. Then you’ll see continuous repeal efforts like the one we just witnessed against Obamacare. Some of these efforts in the future will no doubt succeed. In those situations we’ll have failed to effect any significant changes (healthcare) or maintain any long-term strategies (global efforts to fight climate change, maintaining faith in NATO). For that reason I support ranked choice voting.

There are other serious institutional problems, of course. The two most influential that come to mind are gerrymandering and campaign finance. Oh and let’s not forget that this congress broke their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution by refusing to hold confirmation hearings on a sitting president’s choice of Supreme Court justice.

I’m well aware that traditionally Republicans are the ones to hold the party line, but with the recent failure of repeal (so far), the divisions inside the party couldn’t be clearer. I’m just saying it would be nice if more people put a bug in the R’s ears about how ranked choice might actually help them avoid being primaried (because there are no primaries in [most, all?] alternative voting).


#17

First, having a single-payer health plan funded by a sovereign currency issuer is very different from a single-payer health plan paid for by a single state out of collected taxes.

Second, California passed a constitutional amendment in the late '80s which requires a fixed percentage of our funds must go towards education. So, if you pass another bill to collect enough taxes to cover a single-payer fund, guess what? That money won’t immediately go towards health care since it will need to first go through the mandated calculations so that education gets its portion first. So, it’s not as simple as collecting the money to fund a single-payer plan. We either need to get enough legislators to agree to change the funding calculations (and possibly another public election on the issue) so that the extra taxes don’t get diverted, or we’d need to collect an even higher amount of taxes so that single-payer would get enough money after the education funding was included.


#18

It’s a lot easier than most people think. The model already exists in the form of Medicare. Really all that needs to be done is to continually lower the age/income requirements to the point where it becomes universal. This can be phased in over time as the shift from employer-based to single-payer gains adoption.

With careful messaging - especially to the business sector who would be quite interested in the cost-savings for employee benefits - and deploying counter-measures against insurance companies who want to keep the status quo in place, this could be one of the easiest implementations of a major policy initiative imaginable.


#19

The time is ripe for this in particular. The old system suited a corporate sector that wanted to use it to chain employees to jobs and companies they hated. Now that sector is more interested in converting as msny FT staff as possible into casual “gig economy” employees.


#20

What is a reach? that his comments in that context and who knows what other contexts are 100% opposite of “lets have litmus tests” that Cory mentioned?

he is clearly saying in red states different standards apply, are we not talking about NOT doing that?


#21

I’m a small biz and want this off my plate. A small raise will cover the extra taxes and cost me less than health insurance.


#22

The NYT had an interesting opinion that suggested we should focus on providing Universal Coverage and not require the coverage to be single-payer. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/opinion/healthcare-single-payer-children.html?ref=opinion

It feels like the Dems should have some leverage to improve Obamacare. I am not sure they could pull off Single Payer right now.