There's basic dishonesty in comparing single payer on paper to ACA in reality.

[DanTex]

ACA on paper is different from ACA in reality. ACA on paper was a plan for universal coverage, similar to mandate-based plans that exist in some other countries like Holland. For starters, ACA on paper had a public option, and expansion of Medicare in all 50 states. The GOP, with help from Lieberman and some other conservative Dems, killed the public option, and the SC killed the Medicare expansion. And, of course, there were a bunch of other smaller compromises made along the way.

If Single Payer somehow made it through congress, it would be equally watered down, and could easily end up being worse than the ACA is now. If you want to draw a comparison between healthcare plans, the honest way to do it is to compare, not what someone proposes on paper, but what would actually come out of congress. And in that light, ACA compares pretty favorably to single payer, in part because what would come out of congress if SP is attempted would most likely be nothing.

Failing that, at least critics of ACA should exhibit the minimal level of honesty, and compare SP on paper to ACA on paper. Compare SP to a plan with a full public option, medicare expansion in all states, more generous subsidies, none of the birth control nonsense, and so on. ACA on paper is a plan that covers everyone. ACA in reality isn't, at least not yet, but SP in reality won't be either.

[enid602]

1. governors

I really don't know how much longer the Republican Governors can hold out. Of 19 states without Medicare expansion, I would think that either Texas or Florida expanding Medicare would cause a domino effect.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. There is an overwhelming dishonesty in implying people will lose their health care.

Hillary is using exactly the same argument that the pukes used, "Be afraid of losing what you have".

It is beyond disgusting.

[DanTex]

3. A lot of people will end up with inferior coverage if Bernie's plan passes.

It's a simple fact: there will be winners and losers. Any change of that magnitude will produce that. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. 29 million now have no coverage at all.

Your willingness to allow people to die for corporate profits is not something reflective of the majority of our party.

A clear majority of (D)s support a single payer system. Depending on what poll you use, it is somewhere in the 70% - 80% range.

[DanTex]

6. That's true, which is why we need to protect and expand ACA.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. How will you get the homeless coverage?

Without an address or an ID, people can't prove Medicaid covers them.

You are deliberately leaving the most vulnerable among us without help.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. You know, if we as a Party were actually willing to fight for what we really believe in

If Single Payer was always "on the table" and advocated for strongly, maybe we would come out of Round One with something a lot better than the current ACA - inclusion of a ROBUST Public Option for example that could pave the way toward Single Payer.

[DanTex]

8. That's possible. There's also the possibility that if we came with single payer out of the gate,

we'd have nothing right now. Political maneuvering is tricky.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Understood. But a lot of data is now in about the trend line

This is part of a much longer OP I posted in the Bernie Group:

"Time is not our friend, we fast are running out of it. Democrats have long pursued incremental changes and those results are already in. It's led to a slow motion catastrophic erosion of the foundation that the Democratic Party once proudly stood on. For most of the last 30 years the Democratic Party has been playing a prevent defense, like a boxer bending over backwards to to avoid being tagged by a powerful right hook – in this case the socialist label. Ever since Ronald Reagan won elections by declaring government the problem Democrats have countered with an asterisk, quietly demurring that actually sometimes it isn't. Republicans so thoroughly succeeded in moving our political landscape to the right that it no longer took an accusation of harboring communist sympathies to make a Democratic politician quiver, simply being called a liberal was enough to make them sweat..."

I went on to give examples and then wrote this:

"By now the pattern should be clear to Democrats. After ceding the Republicans a permanent home field advantage, whenever contemporary (previously called “new”) Democrats get to reoccupy the White House they work for incremental advances over the preceding Republican benchmark. Whenever Republicans retake the presidency we suffer massive setbacks. Even putting aside the Tea Party for a moment, one can simply compare official Republican and Democratic party agendas for America and that dynamic becomes obvious. Republicans representing the billionaire class are seldom timid about going for the throat. One step forward, five steps back is not a winning formula for positive social change, but that is the dance that the band keeps playing. Incrementalisn won't deliver us from this crisis, it's just a slow set up for an inevitable crash."

[DanTex]

18. That's a plausible argument, but I strongly disagree that Obama's presidency can be characterized

as incremental improvement. ACA, for one, was a huge non-incremental step forward. What he's done recently on climate change, in spite of the GOP, is also a big deal.

I disagree with people claiming Obama is a Third Wayer, and the same goes for Hillary. If you look at her platform, it's to the left of Obama, who in turn was well to the left of Bill Clinton. People want to go back to the pre-Clinton Democratic party basically, well, Obama is it. With the possible exception of free trade, but even there, all indications are that TPP is, at worst, not as bad as feared, and at best, could be a good thing.

Moreover, I don't see how taking Bernie's positions on issues is actually going to change GOP opposition. The GOP will still block everything, and whatever gets through congress will still be watered down. That's not the Dem's fault, it's the GOP's fault, and I don't see what can be done about that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Look, I honestly like Obama

Thank God he was elected instead of McCain. But to be frank I like him a little more in his second term than I did in is first. Here is another piece though from my longer OP (in which I forgot to mention both party's free trade agendas):

"In the face of the greatest economic crisis the world has faced since the Great Depression Obama exhibited far greater common sense than his opposition. He fought for bailing out the Auto Industry along with bailing out Wall Street. He fought for extending unemployment benefits along with extending Bush tax cuts. But there was no sweeping “New Deal” agenda in response to the Great Recession. Clearly our economy needed an economic infusion and President Obama responded with a large stimulus package. Seeking bi-partisan support, the one he ultimately backed included roughly equal parts new spending and tax cuts, though most leading economists agreed that money directly spent on job creation gave a far more potent stimulus effect on the overall economy than broad tax breaks.

In response to a long festering crisis, to his credit Obama tackled the health care issue during his first term, passing landmark legislation in the Affordable Care Act . It was openly modeled on the pro private insurance approach pioneered in Massachusetts by then Republican Governor Mitt Romney, which itself was built on concepts backed by Republican Senate leader Bob Dole in opposition to a plan being advocated for by then First Lady Hillary Clinton. Millions of Americans gained new coverage under Obamacare, millions more remain uncovered. After paying for premiums, high deductibles and co-pays, further millions can't afford to use the coverage that they have."

So maybe with Obama it was two steps forward, rather than one. Even if it was three the Republicans still are ready to move us back 5 or 6. That's what happens when you go on and stay on the defensive in politics. You scale back striving for the big plays - you side line your offense.

[DanTex]

22. I agree with those paragraphs. I don't know which term of Obama's was better.

He got more done in the first, but then again he had congress for the first two years. Since then, I think he's done all that is humanly possible given the GOP.

I think he should have proposed a larger stimulus with more spending in it, yes. On the bailout, he should have done more for underwater homeowners rather than just banks. And other things.

Still, overall, a big step forward, or however many.

I don't agree with the football analogy. The next presidency, if we win, is going to be trench warfare for at least four years. Putting single payer on the table won't change anything. It'll either be a waste of time and political capital, or else something will pass that is totally watered down and could be even worse than ACA.

One thing I do think is good, is having single payer and things like that be part of the conversation. But that's a longer term play. Yes, talk about it, free college etc. (also reparations, btw), just to get the ideas out there, so that the spectrum of ideas isn't just center-left to far-right. But in practice, it's not really going to go anywhere.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. ACA had a public option only as campaign rhetoric, Obama said "Any bill I sign must contain a strong

public option to help control costs." Then once elected he said he'd never run on the public option, it was never suggested, never fought for. "Any bill I sign MUST' became 'I never said that at all'.

In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.
While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.”

"I didn't campaign on the public option," Obama said in the interview. 12-23-09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122202101.html?hpid=topnews


Bait and switch: How the “public option” was sold
The people who brought us the “public option” began their campaign promising one thing but now promote something entirely different. To make matters worse, they have not told the public they have backpedalled. The campaign for the “public option” resembles the classic bait-and-switch scam: tell your customers you’ve got one thing for sale when in fact you’re selling something very different.
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%9Cpublic-option%E2%80%9D-was-sold/

[DanTex]

9. Public option was part of the initial plan. It was killed by the GOP and conservative Dems.

I don't know how much of what Bernie is proposing is just "campaign rhetoric." In my opinion pretty much all of it. Still, let's compare apples to apples. Either ACA on paper versus SP on paper or ACA in reality to SP after the GOP gets done with it.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Obama did not do what he said he would do as candidate, that's the whole of it.

I note you were unable to respond to what I said, that's what I figured. You can keep talking about apples on paper and oranges in reality but the fact is I brought up facts that you refused to so much as acknowledge. Bluster and bullshit will never persuade anyone of anything and frankly the desire to bluster your way through discussions is inherently insulting to those you claim to seek discussion with. Oranges on paper vs apples on film. Discuss. 'Any bill must have a public option' vs 'I never said that at all'.

[DanTex]

20. Nobody does everything they say they will do, it's impossible. Congress doesn't vanish.

He could have refused to sign the bill without the public option, and in that case we would have no ACA, and we'd be much worse off. I'm glad he didn't do that.

[joshcryer]

14. Edwards spearheaded the public option.

Clinton and Obama copied it and used it in the debates and whatnot.

But I don't think Obama had the votes for it anyway.

[Nanjeanne]

11. The public option was in the house bill

Passed by Nancy Pelosi. The Senate removed it. And Pres Obama didn't fight for it. When he gave up, I dropped out of Organizing for America which I had been very active in. For a brief moment there was talk of opening up Medicare 4 all - slowly lowering the age of those able to get coverage but then Senator LIEberman squashed that idea when he said he would vote with the Republicans against the Dems on it.

[DanTex]

12. That's right, on paper ACA included a public option. Obama was for it.

It died in the senate. If you don't think a big chunk of single payer would die in congress, you are dreaming.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. The thing is, once you grab votes by bellowing that you will not sign a bill without a public option

then you do in fact sign such a bill without putting any effort into getting that public option people remember that you have done this.
Candidate Obama and Candidate Clinton were very similar. He claimed to hold very different views on health care, he was calling for a robust public option to control costs and he rejected the very idea of mandates as absurd. He sent mailers to my house saying that mandate was her trying to pick my pocket.

On paper, his promises were apparently written in disappearing ink. You say 'on paper' to mean things Obama said but never meant, had no intention of delivering, basically shit he made up to make himself seem different from Hillary, which he really was not as we saw once he had the job. Mandates, no public option and claims he'd never ran on a public option.
He could have owned all of that and said 'I tried and failed to get that option' but what he said was that he'd never run on the public option. He had. Strongly. Don't lie to me.

[DanTex]

19. Now we're arguing about strategies for political wrangling.

Personally, I think Obama is pretty good at that, as evidenced by his historical accomplishments in office. He tried for the public option, but in his way was Joe Lieberman and the GOP. If you think that Bernie could have swayed Lieberman, I think you are dreaming.

Regardless, even if I were to concede that Obama misplayed his hand -- and I don't -- still that has nothing to do with the merits of the plans. Maybe Bernie is a better political wrangler than Obama, but I seriously doubt that. Look what he's done with coal and climate, for example, totally bypassing congress. But even in that case, comparing the ACA that came out of congress to a Single Payer plan that's on paper is simply dishonest. Then the argument should be, it's not really about the plan, but Bernie's just a more skilled political mover.

[Nanjeanne]

23. So?

Because years ago something died in the Senate, we stop trying? Not me. I'm not a defeatist. I say try single payer and maybe we get a public option or a Medicare for All. I think it's so sad that some Democrats are so willing to shrug their shoulders and give up on what once were core values of the Democratic Party. I prefer to Think Big than to Aim Low.

[Fumesucker]

17. I love the smell of flop sweat in the morning