to implement it?

I was being tongue in cheek, so I expected a similar response

The next thing we'll hear :

"Oh so "establishment democrats" are "Finally waking up" to the need to expand health care"

As if it's not something they've been working on for decades.

And Obama's support was as broad as anyone else's. Including mine.

"OBAMACARE"!

But Romneycare was expanded and became the framework for the ACA.

We both know that if President Obama had proposed single payer it would have never been passed.

But at this point, with polls showing strong support for a variant of single payer, Obama's public support and reminder is excellent.

"romneycare".

President Obama got a good foundation of healthcare with what he could get votes on at the time. It helped a lot of people who would otherwise not have healthcare. From what I hear saved lives, too.

Romneycare was a Heritage Foundation proposal that by design allowed the for profit insurance companies to keep profiting at the expense of patients.

No matter that the ACA contained certain aspects that favored patients, it was and is designed to allow insurance companies to profit from health care.

Link to tweet

♪♫♬ He's got me under his skin.
He's got me deep in the heart of him.
So deep in his brain that I'm really a part of him.
He's got me under his skin. ♪♫♬

And if we agree that a single payer plan is better, we already have Medicare. That is a specific, currently existing plan.

Single Payer that is.

It's not the only avenue available. I prefer the French system, where there are some parallels with Obamacare. I'd rather us build on what we have.

In any case the first order of business is gaining control of Congress. And we'll have to keep control of it for a sustained period. Conservatives will continue to use the courts to undermine current healthcare programs. So this is going to be a long journey, there are no quick easy fixes and it should not be sold as such.

But when even some Dems wouldn't go for it, the plan got compromised down to the bill that finally passed.

Maybe I'm remembering the events wrong, but we shouldn't be surprised Obama might bé OK with MFA.

....wasn't an epiphany.

“Medicare for All” using the exact phrase “Medicare for All”. It is a big deal.

....and then his son John Jr. and then Jr.'s wife Debbie, because they never used the term "Medicare for All" even though they have collectively been pushing for universal healthcare since the 1940s?

As the saying goes, "what's in a name?"

Barack Obama's opinion on the subject hasn't changed in more than a decades, but now he's "come around" just because yesterday he used the nom-du-jour?

foam at the mouth at the mention of any other name for expanding health care access, including Universal Health Care.

His goal is to get out the vote for Democrats, not to endorse specific legislation - he includes it in a list of things that are "good ideas."

He was also calling out Republican leaders to stop enabling the destruction of our democracy.

See what I did there?

....and that's all some got out of the entire thing.

(He is mistaken when he says that "single payer is the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world" - I think that he was simplifying it for people, and didn't want to get into the various systems that countries use to get to universal health care.)

It's a very nuanced take with an emphasis on improving what already exists as best as possible.

Obama famously was bashed because he didn't let single payer wonks at the table during the negotiations. The ACA barely passed on its own merits. Single payer didn't have the votes then. And it won't have the votes until we have Congress and the Presidency back, if then.

But Congress would not support it. And Baucus would not even consider testimony about it.

I think she was a receptionist in a doctors office. IIRC

I do believe basic life saving medical care is a right, but not ALL medical care.

All the rest falls under the heading of what is the most frugal, practical way to deliver medical care to all of our people. We should be treating it the same way we treat police, fire, basic food production, the basics of the transportation system, the power grid, education etc. Medicare for all works in this regard. The system is already there.

The mantra it would be too expensive is deliberate bullshit. If someone really wants to prove Medicare for all is too expensive then they would include every single solitary dime we (as an entire society) currently spend on medical care vs every single solitary dime we will spend once we have Medicare for all. Look at the totals. The end.

including dental, vision, rx....

I agree that like public school, it doesn't need all the bells and whistles, but it needs to provide the foundational skills to go on to post secondary education/training.

But there are millions of Americans that are locked out of it. When they do require care, it is a catastrophic event that struck them. There are millions of seriously sick people that do not use the medical system at all, so their costs are not part of the current expense of the system. When healthcare for all is implemented, those people come into the system for what will most likely be expensive medical care. So the problem becomes the startup costs, Vermont, Colorado and California failed to implement Single Payer for this reason. Once the large startup costs, which can last 10-15 years are past, then the system begins to save a ton of money and continue to do so. Canada implemented Single Payer piecemeal, Europe implemented it after being leveled by wars, when societal systems lay in ruins. The USA would have to implement a system that is 10 times larger than Canada's in a developed economy, that dramatically adds to the difficulty, as Vermont, Colorado and California found out.

That was when the rest of the industrialized world was starting - from scratch.

We now have to do a retrofit, at a time when technology and advances have made all medicine more comprehensive and expensive, which is far more difficult than expanding with medical advances and containing costs.

Anything else is prone to failure and it will be another 6-7 decades before another effort is made.

The infrastructure is already there. No one will need a stand alone single payer system. The people who process claims now for insurance companies could just as easily process claims for medicare. The civil servant tests are pretty easy.

The only fighting words is where the money comes from and how we move it around for the people currently on sold for profit health insurance.

If a system is built upon what already exists, then maybe it can work. But Bernie and people that back him are not proposing that.

Even if a system is built upon what exists, people will need to be let in gradually to control costs. For example, people 55 or older can be brought into the Medicare for all system while younger people stay on the ACA or private insurance. Ten years after the first expansion and after initial issues have been ironed out, people 44-54 can be brought in, a decade later, 30-43 brought in, a decade later everyone is brought in. The method front loads the system with typically the people prone to sickness and it takes into account that we are starting 6 decades after smaller nations started their systems.

You would have saved them time and a headache.

And, if we can agree that once the dust settles, what is called ”Medicare for all” will have morphed into something different than Medicare as it is.

2008 Presidential campaign, probably even years before.

Just because he mentioned it again yesterday (not with that specific name) I'm amazed that some are inferring that he FINALLY has come around (i.e., "Now that President Obama supports Medicare for All" and "...even President Obama now....." )!

Ones who Ignore everything else, all the work others have done, all the contributions made—especially by women, specifically, Hillary Clinton who was trying in back 1993,and people of color, especially President Obama who literally changed the healthcare landscape. All because of a catch phrase.

To do that, they simply ignore any and all inconvenient facts, or they fight you with meaningless historical pictures and notes that don't remotely tell the whole story.

I’m pretty tired of it.

SMH

We can change the conversation, change and challenge the framing, and change the course.

And, we can vote in November, and we can do our best to convince others to vote also.

..."Medicare for All". Did I miss it?

In fact, in the second quoted paragraph he actually does say he is favor of it.

1 a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

In the context of his statement, I don't understand your critique of it.

If he had said Medicare for everybody it would not count. Must be the exact words or he never wanted health care for everybody, never occurred to him. He said Medicare-for-All and MAGIC. Open Sesame! NOW he wants health care. Like if someone wants to raise the minimum wage to $14.50. Does this mean they want the raise the minimum wage? No, it does not. If must be FIFTEEN DOLLARS. This is the magic number.

but did you miss the REST of his speech?

EVERY kind of national healthcare program is on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Including Medicare itself. Not just ACA, VA, CHIPS, etc.

Get it?

Abortion is on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Social Security is on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Emissions control regulations are on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Most labor laws are on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society, civil rights acts, net neutrality, EPA, etc., etc., etc., are ALL on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

PROGRESSIVISM in government is on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

GOVERNMENT OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE is in grave danger.

Please get it: The anti-tax, anti-regulation, big money classes are one more congressional term and Supreme Court justice away from being able to put an end to ANY government organized healthcare system for probably another generation. And far more. Every personal right and freedom we have is in grave danger.

We must stop them. There's no one else. The Democratic Party is the one.

Call it what you will, Medicare for All, Single Payer, Universal Heathcare Coverage, it all boils down to the same system.

Obama explicitly set out to try to craft a bipartisan universal healthcare bill, and it was never a comprehensive universal single payer government run health insurance system.

They never had the votes. Period.

MAGIC.

not even with 60 dem senators and controlling the house

<rolls eyes>

He was the 60th vote.

the 60 vote threshold was always artificial

we just weren't smart enough to get rid of it when we had control

ya notice the repubs no longer need 60 votes to confirm a sc judge right?

I don't blame Obama really, I think he thought it was the best we could get at the time but while he MIGHT of personally supported some kind of single payer he NEVER campaigned on it and I get tired of the peops here trying to re write history

Single payer, or Medicare for All are end states, we won't get there in a single leap because of politics. Unless you are willing to kill every single republican, some right leaning independents and any voters that replace them, then politics is a reality and President Obama seemed to have touched on that reality. Start the process in November by going out to vote for democrats and encourage family and friends to vote for democrats in November ALWAYS do the same every future election.

....MEDICARE FOR ALL before yesterday, like he had a wondrous epiphany. He hasn't changed his position from what it was a decade or more ago, but now he's supporting "Medicare for All"!

As George Gershwin wrote:

"You like tomato /təˈmeɪtə/ / And I like tomahto /təˈmɑːtə/"

Enough of the games, please. We have more problems in this country to waste time parsing words and worrying about terminology.

....for many many years.

As they say, "I see what you're doing!"

The idea that there's some great divide within our party over this issue is a fabrication.

When it comes to universal health care coverage, it's always been a question of how we get there and what form it takes. Through the years, we've taken steps in the direction of universal coverage, but there are numerous obstacles in the way and progress has always been a lengthy, hard struggle.

Republicans and the far left. They come at the issue from different angles, but the results are the same, they obstruct or delay progress.

with the public option Obama campaigned on. it was Lincoln,lieberman and some other conserva dem that held it up in the senate not the far left or repubs

"far left" obstructed or delayed progress on universal health care. I'll wait.

2010 by acting like children in the midterms, a time when we could have solidified the gains from the ACA by protecting democratic seats and keeping statehouses and legislatures.

Do tell. Who?

Because they felt that a long list of historic accomplishments was not enough. Foolish people.

proposals in 1992. What do the children of the far left in 2010 have to do with that?

He is no longer President. As you may have noticed, we now have Republicans in charge of all three branches of government. Medicare for All is not even under consideration.

The focus should not be on what President Obama supports, but on how we can get anything at all that resembles Medicare for All. Yammering about it here will accomplish nothing in that regard.

Until we can move the nation in a more progressive direction by electing people who at least will consider such a proposal, any time spent on promoting it is a waste of energy, frankly.

We need to win some elections. That's the first step. Let's do that, shall we?

I didn’t know that.

office in the government. He has an opinion that is the same as my opinion, but has zero authority in making that opinion the law of the land. That's exactly the same amount of authority I have.

I can't think of anyone who is a progressive Democrat who does not want universal healthcare. I do. President Obama does. My House representative does. My senators do. I imagine you do, too.

None of them or us can move an inch in that direction, however, at this time. Not an inch. Until Democrats regain control of the Congress and White House, we will not be able to seriously consider that option as a real possibility.

Come on, you’re better than this. Of course it is a huge deal that Obama just endorsed Medicare for All. In a way you all should be relieved, as his mainstreaming of this issue removes the taint of Voldemort from it. Now we can all agree with Obama that this is an issue we can win with.

Beyond that, Obama is powerless, actually. If he can help Democrats win offices, then more power to him.

Until we accomplish that simple step, it's all just rhetoric. Democrats. Elect them. Period!

We need to electorally crush republicans and do that for the next two to three decades before we see a fully developed progressive society. Some people get that, others get sidetracked chasing shiny object bullshit. We need to take back the country's leadership and HOLD IT, that process starts on November 6, 2018. Republicans understand the importance of the election in less than two months, some on our side are doing their usual divisive diversionary bullshit. President Obama has LONG supported universal access to Heathcare, call it what you want, the fact is that he was for it since watching his mom die from cancer and often not getting proper treatment because she could not afford it.

He says "It's a good idea," because for him to say anything other than that would be to invite the wrath of the "single payer or I won't vote" crowd.

I'm sorry, but saying "single payer or no vote" is just plain stupid. This is all a process. The process goes on whether a person votes or not. Our vote plays a role in influencing that process.

If someone says that to me, I say they're an idiot who doesn't understand anything out how things happen in this country.

I'm sick of it.

Most developed countries use a mixture of public and private payers to get to UHC.

Especially the ones that do it at the federal level.

And I think that Obama is doing the right thing by following non-controversial talking points. The midterms are coming up, and all need to be saying what it takes to get everyone to the polls.

The GOP has similar success with talking up overturning Roe, and getting rid of Planned Parenthood as the plan to reduce abortion, even when they know that neither will do that at all. Telling the base what it wants to hear to get out the vote works.

And France is considered to have the best healthcare system in the world ( last I checked).

He always has

So they must ignore history, they must ignore that a man wanted full coverage for everyone because he watched his poor mom die as a child. Honestly, them and their purity bullshit sickens me.

....the Holy Grail of Universal Healthcare.

And Medicare for All doesn't mean Bernie's plan, because Bernie's plan, contrary to the name, is not Medicare as people understand it.

And it can be changed in ways that will make it a single payer plan. Medicare as a brand is familiar. People like Medicare. It needs reforms, it needs to have the Bush Administration changes eliminated and the age restriction eliminated as well.

and is NOT Medicare in its current form.

I highly suggest you read the plan because this is going to be a huge campaign issue in 2020.

I also read Bernie''s proposed funding for his plan. If he wants a single payer plan that pays for every single medical expense, then he damn well better be clear about how he will fund it. His funding proposals only cover half the cost. He has completely avoided mentioning where the rest of the money will come from. If it truly will cost less than people currently pay now for healthcare, then why won't he include any mention of it? It is because his plan will becomea lot less popular once you start telling peolle that their taxes will also have to increase a lot to pay for it.

Why are you so concerned about how it will be funded?
We can offord a shit ton of $ for the MIC while people are literally dying from not having health insurance or even able to afford their meds.

Peoples lives are more important than the conservative argument of "how are we going to pay for it!"

The time has come to end people's suffering in this country over what every other first world country considers a basic human right.

No ins. co. Deductibles, but the govt pays?

You buy Part B from an insurance company (in my case, it's Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois) and pay a monthly premium. There are also co-pays. Part D prescription coverage is extra and also purchased from an insurer.

and MIRT moved so fast, I couldn't finish the jury duty! It gave me an error-mid process.

was it calling Obama a name for now being for single payer?

I got an error when I tried to complete the action. And then found out that MIRT got it before I was done.

What's MIRT?

My vote went through. I don't see that the other one is listed there as "removed," if there were two. So maybe one was auto removed but the first one wasn't, or something like that.

Good.