They could not raise enough money.

And the CA single payer supposedly on hold. We will fight hard for single payer in CA!

But you won't trying to talk to Bernie about it.

We're having trouble with the funding mechanism. There's a difference between talking about it and actually getting it done.

And the US continues to rely on middlemen insurance thieves...

If it's so easy. Many countries were fortunate to develop their systems from Square Obe without having to untangle the mess we're already in.

As you wrote 'it it's so easy'....and already been done!

A lot of California's Single Payer bill was dependent on leveraging federal monies for Medicare/Medicaid and other federal grant programs to get it off the ground.
Covered California is a Medicaid expansion program. That means that over half of California's insured population is already enrolled in one form or another federal health care systems, which will need to be considered when setting up a state-wide system.
You don't want to double-tax people who are currently paying FICA and SS taxes on the federal level if you're going to be taking people off that federal program and putting them all on a state program separate from Medicare/Medicaid, VA, Tricare, Tribal Health, SCHIP, etc, etc, etc...
...you're going to need to incorporate that funding into your program to pay for those people who are going to now be covered by the state.
And after you know what you're going to be able to get, be it a percentage or a block grant, you're going to have to figure out how you're going to spread the remaining health care costs out amongst the public. VAT? Income Tax? Employer Taxes? Fees?
What about people who will need subsidies, because either they have no income or all their income goes to food and housing, and they can't afford premiums on top of that?

The U.S. Congress - both House and Senate - has made it pretty clear they want to get rid of Medicare/Medicaid over the next ten years, because in a "Free Market", income taxes and social Safety Nets are apparently evil because they destroy economic "equality and freedom". After all, in a "Free Society", everyone is free to make good choices as well as bad, and equal justice means that if you can't afford it, it's theft.

Haele

I think most Democrats agree that single payer is the ideal end state. The problem is that getting there, even if there were broad national consensus on going there, wouldn't be easy to architect for all the reasons Haele wrote and more.

All these plans fail key areas.

level will be unacceptable for most people...in Europe and other places...their taxes are high, but they get services for those taxes. That will not be the case when only single payer is available....people can't count on a safety net so they must save...different way of doing things...insurers and pharmaceutical companies don't want single payer and will make sure it fails. We can't have a failure as an example of single payer...bad enough it happened in Vermont.

Because even Medicare isn't single payer, and most developed countries get universal coverage via multi-payers.

Proceed.

Hard to know how much money they get from Medicaid going forward.

should know that since he couldn't get it implemented in his own state because it was too "burdensome'. How hypocritical to criticize California Democrats for something he couldn't do himself. And he's not even being honest as to why the bill was tabled here. He's throwing his usual campaign rhetoric out there, which is just grandstanding. Liberal California doesn't need to be scapegoated like this.

By all accounts, it's a tax increase, but it does have some offsetting mechanisms in it -- but it does increase taxes. It gets high support, but that goes down when people are told about the higher taxes as opposed to being funded through the offsets. When you look at the comments sections of the literature about this, you see a lot of concern about people losing jobs in the medical industry because of this. Most people who work for corporations are just everyday people who don't need to be demonized because of where they work.

You are right, he should read what is actually happening here instead of empty and wrong criticisms. It really diminishes the discourse, which is a shame.

....it's not 100% dead yet.

Automatically deducted from payroll like SS/FICA, etc. Also charge employers a percentage/premium as well, most will be saving money anyway not having to give large chunks to the insurance companies.

Somehow every other modernized country in the world can pull it off, rich or poor, but in California it's impossible without federal help?

The only reason it hasn't happened in our country is because lobbyists and big donors representing insurance and pharma companies don't want it to happen.

Good luck getting seniors to get behind that after the tiny population of Vermont going broke trying to implement what was WAY more than "medicare for all."

California will figure it out.

Then went country-wide.

....about 800,000 residents. And it took 37 years to go "country-wide".

California has more than 40 times that population.

And Canada has 1/10th the population of the US.

I don't hear Bernie talking about 14 years to single payer, do you? Please let me know if he has, and I haven't heard about it.

And with the failure of Vermont single payer, the voting down of Coloradocare last November, and California going back to the drawing board, it doesn't look like 20 years is going to be enough.

by his influence, which is far too small to get something done in a huge state like California.

He is just one Independent Senator from a state with a very small population. He has very little pull with regard to California legislation.

If you did live in CA you would have known Senator Sanders is highly respected and
influential here.

and I moved to Minnesota to care for her parents. I was a resident of that state from 1945 to 2004, so yes, I'm a Californian. While Senator Sanders has the respect of many Californians, that state has its own economy and a slate of legislators who are elected by people in that state. California also voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I'm sure Senator Sander's opinion was listened to by legislators in that state, but they made their own decision on that plan.

There is no single payer system in Vermont, either, despite it being Senator Sanders home state. Installing a single payer system is a much more difficult task than most people think it is. It's coming, but even California is not quite ready for it, yet.

As much as I admire Bernie Sanders, his influence is not as large as many seem to think. Individual states do as they choose, not as Sanders wishes them to do.

Must not as difficult as people hope for...

in "all those other countries?" I doubt it very much. Changing something as extensive as healthcare is not just difficult. It's an enormous challenge. The system we have now has been in place for many, many decades. In terms of economics, alone, it involves a network of healthcare providers, hospitals, insurance companies and much more. There isn't going to be some instantaneous replacement of it with a single-payer system. The closest thing is Medicare. Even a Medicare for All system would mean enormous economic changes, which is why it is so difficult to establish.

It all sounds simple enough, unless you actually look at the scope of the thing and the impact it will have on a deeply entrenched existing system. It is definitely what we need, but it's going to come only after a great deal of pain for a lot of people. And, as healthcare consumers, we have precious little clout unless we stand together as a vast majority. We do not have that majority, however, or we would have a different President than we do and a different party in control of Congress.

If you want that change, you're going to have to begin by replacing the current Republican majorities, both nationally and in individual states.

It is not a simple process.

Rather rude of you to say what you wrote.

You see, progressives liberal democrats don't see it as difficult. It's a matter
of will.

I didn't tell you that you didn't know. I said that I doubted that you did, based on your statements. So, you did not answer my question.

It is more than a matter of will on the part of "progressive liberal democrats." A detailed plan is required that will convince enough legislators to vote for it. A minority will not make this happen. In reality, it will take a large majority to do so, and that majority will have to be reflected in legislative bodies. At this time, that is not the case. I hope you will help to make that happen.

And it's a matter of reality. Do you think that Vermont didn't have the will?

Was Bernie not inspiration enough to create that will?

And what about actual, unbiased experts? It's not like they're not out there talking about this.

http://khn.org/news/democrats-unite-but-what-happened-to-medicare-for-all/

I think you are the one who may not have a clue about what people here know and don't know about this issue.

It's like hearing tea partiers who are absolutely sure that the only way to prevent abortions is to close Planned Parenthood. After all, it's simple, right? You just need to have the will. Once the biggest provider of abortions is closed, women will just keep their legs shut, or give their babies up for adoption. Simple, right?

Until reality is introduced.

"Single payer" and "universal healthcare" are not interchangeable, any more than "poodle" and "canine."

Facts are sort of important, and refusing to acknowledge them detracts from one's credibility.

https://www.amsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SinglePayer101.pdf

Even Medicare isn't single payer, and any plan that included prescriptions, dental, hearing or glasses/contacts isn't "medicare for all"

That's one reason why Vermont single payer went broke - it was closer to a platinum plan than medicare.

Way up north here in the pacific northwest. He won BIG here, bigger than anywhere else in the whole of the State in fact!

Because he won't talk about what happened to single payer there.

Bernie Sanders name on ballot propositions has lead to their failure.

In recent weeks Sanders endorsement of an incumbent LA school board member led to his defeat. I tried to tell Democratic operatives who called me frequently (asI always vote) that starting out with "Zimmer is endorsed by Bernie Sanders" was going to cost more votes than it generated,

Zimmer lost. I vote for him despite the Sanders endorsement.

I think you underestimate the anger of Democrats towards Bernie Sanders and his movement in California.

Wow....

Sorry, had to go there.

Even when the "endorsement" is simply listing their name on a website that is affiliated with him.

Sanders knows little of how sausage is made here.

As one of the world's great economies we have the Byzantine politics to match.

Personally, I think Jerry Brown is a more powerful political figure than Sanders, even though both are considerably right of my own political perspective.

in practice unless CA is able to redirect Medicare/caid payments from the Feds into the system. Unless that is allowed, we won't be able to afford it. It would be stupid to move forward and pass this legislation at this time, only to have the vengeful anti-every-good-idea Rs in DC blow it up by fucking with the funding.

That would doom single payer across the country for at least another 10 years.

after Vermont.

Seniors aren't going to risk what they have for something that has failed in a much smaller state that would be much less expensive.

It has to be bullet proof.

There's a reason so many of us voted for Clinton in CA, around 56% vs 43% for Sanders in the primary. But beyond that many have since lost all respect for him when he said it's okay for Dems to be anti-abortion & anti LGBT equality. Among other things he has said and done since November. I've even heard him referred to as the "Head Bernie Bro" which equates him to some pretty unlikable people. So I'd say his influence here has dwindled.

Even though I don't live in California....

and he has no experience with the inner workings.

Which is why I know why single payer failed in his home state, despite his refusal to talk about it, even to indicate that he learned something from it.

And I understand that California chose someone else for the Democratic presidential candidate, when given a choice.

And before this gets taken to the jury, Bernie said he is NOT a Democrat.

And, you should read the TOS - you might be surprised...

this question. You must have missed it, because you didn't reply.

So, again. Which one of his legislative accomplishments are you the most proud of?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029173142#post17

I or anyone else posts.

And yes, it is relevant. So if you have plenty to say, just say it.

effective one man has been at getting things we need, even as he has at least advocated and campaigned for them. Its shooting the messenger for not succeeding while our own party has historically dragged its feet on these matters and stood in the way, rather than agreeing with the overall goal.

To what purpose?

ask me a question.

Please answer the question I asked first, and then I'll respond to your question

telling others what to do, while he has little to show. Now he is lecturing California, a huge state with almost 40 million people, on an issue he could not implement himself in his tiny state of Vermont.

His supporters think that this is perfectly fine, because he is "influential" and "most popular". Supposedly this makes him an authority on whatever issue he is talking about, gives him the right to point fingers and pontificate, and we're supposed to follow.

I'd like to see a real specific reason on what qualifies him for this. Something like what his legislative accomplishments are, and which one are his followers most proud of. This seems to be a really tough and complicated question to ask, because it keeps going unanswered.

So, now will you say which of his legislative accomplishments are you most proud of?

Anything that is a fact is legit here. So tell me about all the accomplishments of Senator Sanders.

From what I can see he has continually won office in a very small, homogenous state.

And after 30 years in office has no major accomplishments that he can claim. If I am wrong please correct me.

Have a nice evening

since he.....well....isn't a Democrat by his own admission.

even when it doesn't suit his individual political needs, he'll be covered by that rule.

I love his progressive ideas as much as anyone, but he can't just do drive by politics without repercussions.

Been here for years, with nary a single ban or hide. I guess I know how to operate. But then, I tend to not read the rules with an ear of how to get around them.

Bernie has openly admitted he is not a Dem. He is very selective in the Dems and policies he supports. Your support of him is admirable on its face. It remains to be seen how valuable it is to the Democratic Party.

thread.

I don't really see that.

I see either constructive criticism, suggestions that Sanders doesn't understand California politics, or scepticism about how single payer will be paid for.

Those things don't violate the TOS.

I am a Sanders supporter. He's a human being just like you and me. That means he's fallible. Because humans are. I agree with a lot of what he says but sometimes I believe he's wrong headed on some things and some tactics.

TOS is not about pretending our politicians are perfect, nor is it about shutting down discussion.

Big difference.

You may be very emotional about any critique of a particular career politician, but that doesn't make it bashing.

Is that clearer?

I had to read it to join and then when I started seeing all the endless attacks on Sanders here I read it again. Maybe you should too. Here:

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

and egregious statements he makes about us and our Democratic Party.

are called hatred by those who seem to think that anyone who dissents from his statements is ethically suspect.

And the outrage towards even the most simple statements about Bernie's factual errors, or comments about his view that anyone who who diverges, yea even on a single symbolic amendment to a bill that has been blessed by Bernie, is matched only by the sheer bile directed at Hillary by those who think that Bernie is the beacon of ethics in a sea of corrupt "corporatist" Democrats.

Go figure that there are those who dare to contradict him.... on Democratic Underground, no less.

You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”

“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”

“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’ Bernie Sanders, 2015, prior to suddenly registering as one of those idealogically bankrupt Democrats, in order to run for president.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181

Yeah, there's nothing there that could possibly be an issue on Democratic Underground. And Sierra Blanca is a total non-starter....

And while you're at it, maybe take some time to think about why you think prominent liberals shouldn't be speaking out in favor of progressive causes.

Second. This subthread is about Sanders not speaking out in Vermont when he had the opportunity to do something. That is not attacking but having a conversation about when having the opportunity to do something, he chose not to.

It leaves absolutely no room for interpretation. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the admins.

As for what does or not count as an attack, that's between you and the jury that inevitably ends up ruling on the relevant posts. Because all that these kind of passive aggressive smears ever achieve is to piss off other Democrats and cause in-fighting, and people end up reporting posts and trying to get each others posts hidden.

Because yay, its not like we have anything important to oppose as a group right now, we should totally waste our time on this petty, schoolyard crap instead.

Democrats, but we are not allowed to respond to his attack because his supporters might walk away.

Why do you give a damn if Bernie says something critical about the party? Why is it so vital to you to come here and post about how much you hate him? We've had this same shit now for coming up on 2 years. Give it a fucking break.

And is front and center attacking Repukes every chance he gets believes that 'both parties are the same'.

This right here is why this crap pisses people off. You tell barefaced lies trying to smear one of the progressives with the most integrity in politics and you do it regardless of how many other Democrats you piss off in the process.

That matters.

Just use words in whatever way you please to push a false narrative.

I have issues with that. You can justify, validate, excuse, or dismiss it. I think it harms us. Differing of opinion. That is all. Surely that is allowed?

When you peddle dishonest smears against a good progressive though you'll get called out on it.