There's no conflict in working for single-payer in the future and defending the ACA right now.

[Ken Burch]

In the next four years, single-payer won't happen nationally. We all know that, I think.

Democrats and other progressives are united in fighting to defend the ACA from attack and to take any chance of strengthening it in the present situation.

Supporting the implementation of single-payer or Medicare-for-all once we beat the right does nothing to undermine those objectives.

So there's no reason to demand that people working to defend the ACA from Republican attack renounce their support for single-payer.

[Wounded Bear]

1. They are not mutually exclusive...

We fight for what we have now....the ACA. Then, we work on getting more...some kind of single payer/public option....later.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. Who is saying we should renounce single payer?

[Ken Burch]

10. It's against forum rules to mention particular posters by name.

But it's been expressed here quite a lot that single-payer advocates should just shut up. Not even "let's put the priority on defending the ACA just right now"...which is a sentiment that I'm pretty sure has 100% agreement among everyone who posts on this board...but "you're working against the ACA by still supporting single-payer".

[Eliot Rosewater]

18. Some are very touchy about what 3rd party voters did to the human race in November

so I can understand that sentiment but we never stop talking about single payer.

[Ken Burch]

22. You don't have to be a third-party to back single-payer.

But I take your point about those who didn't vote HRC in the fall.

[Eliot Rosewater]

23. I am also going to say every person who bad mouthed Hillary, whether they voted

for her or not, contributed to the madness the world now must face.

It wasnt bad enough there was a 25 year long conspiracy on the right to destroy her credibility, but when alleged progressives chimed in, that was enough to bring us to what we have now.

[metroins]

28. I agree with you

I was a Hillary supporter but not very vocal in person.

I learned my lesson.

[Ken Burch]

30. So long as you don't count simply supporting Bernie in the primaries as "bad-mouthing".

I agree with you that people should have stopped actively speaking out against her after Bernie endorsed her and asked his supporters to do the same, but it wasn't wrong for the Sanders campaign to even happen.

It had to happen. Without it, there was no hope of economic justice issues ever being addressed(and there was no way to predict, at the time Bernie entered the race, that the Trump phenomenon would occur. No way at all).

HRC and her advisors should have studied what Occupy was about, and publicly acknowledged the validity of what that movement was saying about reining in corporate power and reducing excessive income inequality.

Had her campaign done that, rather than nurturing an artificial divide between "social justice" and "economic justice" advocates-in truth, activists from both justice causes agree with each other on everything about 95% of the time, and nobody ever actually argued that economic justice, by itself, was all that was needed), the political vacuum that made many people feel that something like Bernie's candidacy HAD to happen would not have existed.

And most Sanders people DID back Hillary in November.

[Adrahil]

3. I do have a question for single-payer advocates....

How would feel about now if single payer were the only system available to you That is, that your only choice for health care coverage was under the absolute control of the Republicans?

[Ken Burch]

7. By that logic, the postwar Labour government in the UK should never have created the NHS

(National Health Service)because somebody the Tories might be back in power.

Besides, the question is moot: The GOP has the exact same power to repeal the ACA that it would have to repeal single-payer. There's nothing in the ACA that is better-protected from partisan attack than single-payer would be.

TO answer it anyway:

It goes without saying that single-payer advocates would obviously be fighting hard to defend single-payer, and might have a better chance of succeeding, given that many of the problems that exist under the ACA would not exist under single-payer.

[Adrahil]

20. And I do have issues with the NHS.

The NHS, for example, gained a reputation as being pretty fat-phobic. At one point the Tories threatened to withhold diabetes patients who were obese and refused to get bariatric surgery. Fortunately, that failed, but it highlights the risk I think a SP system presents.

[Ken Burch]

24. Those things can also happen in private coverage.

(as a person who has had weight issues myself, I can empathize).

The NHS is far from fallible...but it was put in place there because no other model could have met the objectives the NHS was created to meet.

Single-payer is NOT the same as the NHS. In the single-payer model, the hospitals aren't actually run by the state.

[JCanete]

14. If your health care is in the hands of big businesses, it IS in the hands of republicans. nt

[Adrahil]

21. I think there are other options...

For example, forbidding for-profit health insurance companies.

We could also fund a single high-risk pool that could supplement the non-profits based on the number and type of high-risk clients they take on.

At the least, I do like the idea of a more customizable plans.

[JCanete]

29. I don't know enough about the system to see any problem with that. I will say, that whether it's

single payer or otherwise, the people in charge will always have a lot of power to fuck it up.

[Warpy]

4. Of course not, we know the ACA is a stopgap plan at best

because it's expensive and cumbersome and leaves private insurers sucking profits for being middlemen of the worst sort. It also fails to cover everybody.

The least it needs is major tinkering. The most it needs is to be redone with a strong public option that would eventually take over, phasing out for profit insurance for anything but concierge care for billionaires. Sadly, that will never go away.

[NurseJackie]

5. There would be no "conflict", but it's certainly a distraction. Also...

... it's not a very realistic thing to do at the moment. Of course, it causes no harm ... but in the real world, it seems to be more prudent to defend against the most pressing current threats.

Do people want to help stack sandbags to fight the rising flood waters? Or do they want to let everyone else do the hard work while they doodle on napkins and the backs of envelopes what the perfect levy might look like, (sometime in the future, maybe, if we're lucky, and everything goes right.)

Supporting the implementation of single-payer or Medicare-for-all once we beat the right does nothing to undermine those objectives.

It certainly doesn't help the here and now. I think we can all agree on that.

So there's no reason to demand that people working to defend the ACA from Republican attack renounce their support for single-payer.

Are people really doing that? Well, shame on them!

Democrats and progressives are united in fighting to defend the ACA...

HUH? "Democrats and progressives"?

What does this even mean? Are progressives different from Democrats? Are Democrats not progressive? Can you elaborate on this? Why make that kind of distinction?

That would be like saying "Humans and people are living longer lives."

[Ken Burch]

6. Democrats and other progressives. Whatever. I've now edited.

I simply meant to convey the entire range of people with progressive views.

Everybody is already stacking the sandbags. Nobody is dodging the hard work.

We all know what the priority is.

Supporting single-payer for the future WHILE defending the ACA from attack does nothing to harm the here-and-now.

And as I said in the OP, nobody THINKS single-payer is a realistic immediate objective. We all know it's not going to happen under Trump and any Congress anywhere close in composition to this one.

[NurseJackie]

8. What "other" progressives? I'm progressive, but am I part of the "other" progressives ...

... you refer to, or part of the Democratic progressives? Are these "other" progressives not Democrats?

It's still unclear what distinction you're trying to make (or why you think it's even necessary.)

Is one different from the other? Is one better (or worse) than the other?

6. Democrats and other progressives. Whatever.

Okay. "People and other humans." Yeah, that's much clearer. Whatever.

[Ken Burch]

9. Mainly progressive independents. A group the Obama campaigns targeted in 2008 AND 2012.

And...point of information...are you going to do a line-by-line dissection of every post I ever make here on any possible topic?

[NurseJackie]

11. I'm seeking clarification ...

... on something that seems to draw an unnecessary distinction. Why are you attacking me? I have a right to ask a question as much as anyone here. You don't have the right to try and silence me.

And...point of information...are you going to do a line-by-line dissection of every post I ever make on any possible topic?

"Every" post? Probably not. It will be just the topics that interest me. And only if you happen to say something that interests me... and even then, it will be only if I have something to ask, or comments to make.

Is that okay with you? Do you object to my replying to you and asking questions or seeking clarification?

There's really no reason for you to be so critical of my posting style. You may refer to it as a "dissection" but that's a bit melodramatic don't you think? It's actually a very efficient way to respond and to make points/counterpoints or to ask questions.

I think we can ALL agree that it's important to be clear when explaining our ideas and positions, or when asking questions, or when making points and counterpoints. I'm not really sure why you'd object (or why you'd take a "point of information" snippy tone with me.)

[Ken Burch]

16. I'm not attacking you...it was a truly meant as a civil question.

You tend to do that "line by line" thing quite a lot with my posts(I haven't read all of your posts so I don't if you do it with everyone you disagree with), and it reads as though I'm on the witness stand and you're cross-examining me, looking for either inaccuracies and lies.

Of course you have the right to reply to anyone who posts anything on this board.

I agree that it's important to be clear.

And I'm fine with anybody seeking clarification, which is why I clarified.

The things I have problems with(and I have problems with these being done to anyone-for the record I don't think I've done any of them to you, at least not intentionally and I apologize for anytime I inadvertently did those things to you) are when a person on this board is belittled and mocked and treated as though it's silly for that person to even post here-AND when it's implied that people have some sort of secret or treacherous agenda that has to be exposed.

I don't think anybody here deserves to be belittled OR treated as though they have a hidden agenda.

Responses to any post should be on the points raised in the posts-they simply shouldn't ever be in the realm of personal derision, because we are all basically allies and we should all be treating each other with respect.




(I did a slight revision in that...just because I revise for better wording sometimes).

[NurseJackie]

12. Also... doing a "line-by-line" reply is necessary because...

... some people have a habit of editing and re-editing and deleting entire sections and re-titling their original replies AFTER THE FACT.

When I do a line-by-line of the original post, it lets other readers know what I'm responding to, even if the original version is now entirely different.

I think that's fair and helpful, don't you?

[Ken Burch]

15. You do realize that you can go through everybody's post and SEE all the edits, right?

And I'm fine with doing that.

When I revise, I'm simply clarifying and sharpening the word use. There's no devious intent involved.

And if there was something dishonorable about revising published posts, the site owners wouldn't let us do that.

If I've deleted a section-I try not to do that-it's simply because I realized that the section didn't work...I'm not hiding anything.

[NurseJackie]

17. Of course people can...

15. You do realize that you can go through everybody's post and SEE all the edits, right?

Of course people can do that. Of course I realize that. But I also realize that most people won't be bothered, especially on long threads. The "view all versions" link isn't always in a handy location, and depending on the view mode, it may not be displayed at all for specific messages.

And I'm fine with doing that.

Okay... others may not be.

When I revise, I'm simply clarifying and sharpening the word use. There's no devious intent involved.

So you want me to believe that your "9. Mainly progressive independents. A group the Obama campaigns targeted in 2008 AND 2012." is a (so-called) clarification and sharpening of your original snippy "9. Is there a reason you're belaboring this?"

Really, Ken? Is that how you want to play this? Okay.

But I should point out that it looks to me like you started off by being snippy, setting a tone... then later decided to edit your snippy response after the fact and after I'd replied.

Sure, whatever, I'll take you at your word. No, nothing "devious" about that. Not at all.

But how it looks and how others perceive it cannot be denied (whatever the motivation may have been, however benign, however innocent or well-intentioned.)

And if there was something dishonorable about revising published posts, the site owners wouldn't let us do that.

That argument makes absolutely no sense. The mere act of revising a post isn't itself "dishonorable." Nobody has suggested otherwise. But it can be used in "dishonorable" ways if someone was inclined so to do.

If I've deleted a section-I try not to do that-it's simply because I realized that the section didn't work...I'm not hiding anything.

Well, yes you are, actually. You're hiding that section. Think about it.

[Ken Burch]

25. I changed that because I realized I didn't want to lead with that phrase

And I didn't hide that line, I moved it to the body of the post.

If I'd wanted to hide it, I wouldn't have made it the entire body of the post, where you can still see it.

I did not mean to say that THAT change was a revision. That was a substitution of a line I decided I didn't want to introduce the post with another line that was more directly responsive to your question.

The line-by-line thing has been something you've done to a lot of my posts, starting long before that, and whether you meant it or not, it reads as very prosecutorial when you do that to posts(I assume mine aren't the only ones you've applied that approach to).

[NurseJackie]

33. Here is your reply.

And I didn't hide that line, I moved it to the body of the post.
If I'd wanted to hide it, I wouldn't have made it the entire body of the post, where you can still see it.

Oh, stop it, Ken. I didn't accuse you of hiding anything. I was responding directly to something you said. You are the one who mentioned the concept of "hiding" something.

Allow me to quote from your previous message:

If I've deleted a section-I try not to do that-it's simply because I realized that the section didn't work...I'm not hiding anything.

To which I offered my response that technically, yes, when you delete something, you're "hiding" a previous version. Now you're responding as if I'd directly accused you of something wrong, which I haven't.

Also, if you'll care to look back, it's plain to see that YOU are the one who introduces loaded words with negative connotations like "devious" and "dishonorable". Not me. You.

In my original reply, I quoted those words back to you (to illustrate how absurd they were in this context) but I wasn't the one who first used "devious" and "dishonorable" to describe after-the-fact editing. That's all on you. You're inferring things that I did not say.

Instead, what I have done is stated a fact of how after-the-fact editing can be confusing. It can be unfair to someone who's posted a reply based on the original version, and it can be confusing to the casual reader (who's not likely to be inclined to dig deeper to explore for any possible edits depending on their view-mode.) I also make note that quoting the original version is a very useful and effective way to eliminate that type of disconnect and add clarity.

Go back and check, you'll see that I'm right. (None of the things you infer have any basis in reality or fact.)

I did not mean to say that THAT change was a revision.

Well, you may not have meant to say it, but your words lacked the clarity and specificity that you're now making. Whose fault is that? (Hint: It's not my fault.)

That was a substitution of a line I decided I didn't want to introduce the post with another line that was more directly responsive to your question.

Well, what you mean to say, and what you actually say appear to vary greatly. So, you're faulting me for trusting you and taking you at your word. Is that fair?

You may call it a "substitution" if you like. Sure, whatever. That doesn't change the reality that it's still "after-the-fact" editing, right? Both things are the same, so I'm not sure why you're making this distinction. (Kinda like saying "people and humans need food and water to survive"... both words are synonymous, so why bother making the distinction? Right?)

Regardless of which word you prefer to use, you cannot deny that the "substitution" still changes the tone and meaning of the message, right?

I'm not a mind reader, Ken. Do you expect me to automatically KNOW that you meant something OTHER than what you wrote? I think it's irrational for you to get upset with me because I'm not able to read your mind.

On the other hand, it is I who have every justification for being frustrated. I find it to be exceedingly challenging trying to communicate with individuals (online and in person) who say one thing, when they actually mean another thing entirely.

So, how should I proceed with you, Ken? I need your advice. Should I take you at your word? WHEN is it safe for me to trust you and for me to assume you meant what you wrote? Under what circumstances should I write my responses (questions, counter-points, etc) based on what you actually wrote?

Of all the people here, you know yourself better than anyone else does, right? So please give me some insight on this. Should I wait for an hour, or two (or perhaps overnight) before responding to ANYTHING you write? (You know... to give you an opportunity to proof-read and edit to your heart's desire. You know, to make "substitutions" and to "delete (not hide)" and to "clarify" and "sharpen the word use" (as needed).

The line-by-line thing has been something you've done to a lot of my posts, starting long before that, and whether you meant it or not, it reads as very prosecutorial when you do that to posts(I assume mine aren't the only ones you've applied that approach to).

Well, Ken... this is the second time you've mentioned this. Rather than divide my response across two separate messages, you can read what I have to say about that in a response to the first time you mentioned it.

Stand by. Maybe I'll get to it later on when I have a spare moment to spend on you. I have other things to do that are much more important than this.

[Ken Burch]

34. Yes, you should take me at my word.

You have every right to disagree with what I say, but I do mean it when I say it, and what I mean on the surface in what I post here is ALL I mean.

My intent is always clarity. As a fallible human, I may not always achieve it, but it is my objective.

I changed the title of the post because I thought that, after quick reflection, that putting my question there sounded too aggressive. I still wanted to ask the question, though I now wish I'd ask it in a different way, so I made the question the body of the post. I honestly didn't realize that was what you were referring to when.

I didn't mean to hide anything. I simply moved what I'd originally written an inch lower.

[Rex]

13. Good call!

Some of us can do both, others seem stuck on permanent whine. I bet they don't lift a finger to help this country.

[msongs]

19. now is a perfect time to advocate medicare for all - better than ACA or republican care nt

[guillaumeb]

26. Recommended. Well said. eom

[PatrickforO]

27. I agree. As long as single payer remains on the agenda, and we

do more than pay lip service to it once Dems get back in power. Do that crap, and I'm gone.

[Bettie]

31. No there isn't any conflict

ACA was a first step.

But, we need to push hard for single payer.