Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sorry, but I don't buy the "But we couldn't have gotten single-payer" defense [View all]OilemFirchen
(7,271 posts)137. Yes.
Starting with the Tillman Act of 1907 which stated:
All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders' money for such purposes; and, moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts. Not only should both the National and the several State Legislatures forbid any officer of a corporation from using the money of the corporation in or about any election, but they should also forbid such use of money in connection with any legislation save by the employment of counsel in public manner for distinctly legal services.
... and the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925. (And, subsequently, the Hatch Act of 1939 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.)
However,
The campaign finance provisions of all of these laws were largely ignored, however, because none provided an institutional framework to administer their provisions effectively. The laws had other flaws as well. For example, spending limits applied only to committees active in two or more States. Further, candidates could avoid the spending limit and disclosure requirements altogether because a candidate who claimed to have no knowledge of spending on his behalf was not liable under the 1925 Act.
http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
160 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Sorry, but I don't buy the "But we couldn't have gotten single-payer" defense [View all]
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2014
OP
Maybe but I do believe they could have got a Medicare buy in if they had tried, they didn't
ebbie15644
Mar 2014
#91
Too many conservative Dems remain in the party to push for any meaningful progressive reform. nt
NorthCarolina
Mar 2014
#134
At least three of the people I love most in this world have "pre-existing" conditions, so ...
dawg
Mar 2014
#3
Is it just a sad coincidence that insurance has jacked-up the cost of healthcare to the point
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2014
#9
Sadly, I have resigned myself to the fact that the corporatists are in power and aren't letting go.
dawg
Mar 2014
#17
I think the President was well intentioned, but I also think he has bought into much of the ...
dawg
Mar 2014
#22
How can we have Single Payer, when they throw people in jail for advocating for the Public Option?
RC
Mar 2014
#6
It was not advocating for single payer, but repeatedly disrupting a Senate hearing
karynnj
Mar 2014
#57
There was NO entitlement for them to have speaking time at a committee hearing
karynnj
Mar 2014
#150
Medicare and Medicaid are in fact single payer. The VA is pure Socialized Medicine.
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2014
#27
It's pretty simple. Conservative Dems wouldn't have voted for single payer. End of argument.
DanTex
Mar 2014
#16
Let's test your argument more directly. I'll spot you every bluedog Senator ...
JoePhilly
Mar 2014
#19
Well ... but we did have total control of the House and Senate for 2 years ... damn it!!
JoePhilly
Mar 2014
#74
Rahm's argument was not that we should strive for something worth the backlash but that
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2014
#31
How does that relate to my point that the OP is not making the same argument as Rahm?
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2014
#37
Okay, I'm wrong. This is the besest healthcare policy EVAH! and only a fool would argue against it!
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2014
#58
What's something more progressive that would have kept enough D votes to pass?
Recursion
Mar 2014
#52
My point is about the feasbility of Single Payer. How do you get from Point A to Point Z?
CJCRANE
Mar 2014
#50
21 States have refused to consider Medicaid expansion. 27 have expanded it.
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2014
#49
I too would have liked to see the single payer option, it did not happen, they passed the GOP option
Thinkingabout
Mar 2014
#42
Single Payer was not possible as many Democratic Senators were philosophically against it
karynnj
Mar 2014
#47
Strange that with a Dem WH, House, Senate, we got a Republican health insurance plan
Doctor_J
Mar 2014
#65
You might try reading instead of a knee-jerk defense of president Reagan/Obama
Doctor_J
Mar 2014
#121
"abomination of a law that has pissed off more people than it has helped" - Bullshit.
NYC Liberal
Mar 2014
#93
If the Dems had really wanted some progress on HC, at the very least Medicare would have begun at 60
Doctor_J
Mar 2014
#123
There was one thing standing in our way, which maybe you've failed to account for:
kenny blankenship
Mar 2014
#127
No way this Congress would have taken on the risk of single payer, I'm not even sure Public Option
Hoyt
Mar 2014
#135
According to your profile, you were not on this site back in the Summer of 2009
truedelphi
Mar 2014
#152