But somehow, we have no money to help people and our social safety net still remains one of the worst among first-world nations.

if we really want it to pass, it needs to be detailed and pre-answer the inevitable objections that we know will be thrown at it. And we DO know those questions will be thrown at any plan - and can easily sink it- because that has happened umpteen times before.

Oh, and we would probably do best not to be listening to those who put up photos of Nancy Pelosi as an example of a troll.

Nobody ever questions defense spending. Nobody ever questions occupations of aggression.

Nobody EVER questions corporate pork spending.

Nobody EVER questions financier bailouts.

It all boils down to doomsday threats or future character assassination ("WHY DO YOU HATE THE TROOPS? WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST PROFIT?? DO YOU WANT AL QAEDA TO NUKE AMERICA?? DO YOU WANT THE ECONOMY TO COLLAPSE??) And they pass without a problem, because there's zero political will to help people most in need of it.

Let's just forever give the Strict-Father Authoritarians AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANY damned thing they want without question, because they've done SO much good for society and America's economy in 45 years.

I stopped appeasing concern trolls, Republicans and conservaDems once Senate Blue Dogs kiboshed the Public Option. To me, if you cannot support at LEAST a multi-payer system, then damn it, you shouldn't even BE in this party.

Am I wrong? Because, not sorry, I'M NOT.

want to PROPOSE single payer?

I doubt there is a single person on this site who "cannot support at least a multi payer system." But it takes more than PROPOSING big idea plans over and over through the years that have no chance of passing.

So you can go ahead and castigate the people on YOUR side because they haven't managed to end all the governmental ills that YOU haven't managed to end either, as you are doing in your non-sequitur response to my post.

I'd rather see our elected Democrats come up with a real plan that would actually GET us the universal healthcare that we want. Calling people trolls who want to see a plan with details that include how to pay for the program may get you where you want to be, but it does nothing for me.

They will only care about universal coverage when failing it to provider is scarier than being voted out of office.

As a social problem, it's not going to get Republican attention just because of facts. Blank checks are available if their donors want something done, but this ain't that something.

... and it suggests to me that the writer is struggling with rational responses to the "concerns" and questions and objections.

It's just a personal attack. Ad hominem, right? How does the writer know that these groups want to "undermine" universal health care (which is a term that's entirely different from "single-payer", btw.)

"Some of the naysayers are conservatives who simply abhor “big government.”
Some have perfectly valid reasons to question the merits of single payer in general or Sanders’ methods in particular".

Maybe it's wishful thinking but I see more of the latter on DU.

details and a way to fund single payer + Nancy Pelosi are BAAAAAAAAAD!

The article says the following are NOT 'concern trolls':
1) Conservatives who hate 'big government' because they openly do not want it to pass.
2) Those who have valid reasons to question the "merits of single payer in general or Sanders’ methods in particular".

The article DID NOT say conservatives were good.
The article DID NOT say " Democrats who want details and a way to fund single payer + Nancy Pelosi are BAAAAAAAAAD!"

who ask how a plan is to be paid for are trolls. And the article included a photo of Nancy Pelosi as an example of such trolls.

So I'd say that the article was saying that those people are bad.

But they do give the benefit of the doubt to those conservatives who hate big government. Unlike Pelosi and those Dems who want details, those conservatives are not trolls, according to the article.

So I'll stand by my statement.

The same action that caused congress to forbid Medicare from negotiating good drug prices will raise its head.

Insurance lobbyists, medical lobbyists, and pharma lobbyists will heap tons of money and job offers on Congress members and their staff until enough deals are struck to kill single-payer, or to change single-payer into something unrecognizable.

Congressional corruption during the Medicare Part D vote was a disgrace.

this bill and stop worrying about a medicare for all bill that won't pass anytime soon. Too many get their healthcare from work to pass something like that at the moment (think Hillarycare). But we can add a public option and lower the medicare age to 55 building on the ACA if we keep it. I think it is very telling that some think those who have a different opinion about how we provide universal coverage and what is possible now in the real world are attacked and called trolls.

a concern troll.

Oh, and look! They imply that Nancy Pelosi is just such a troll. I would have thought that this would violate the TOS because of that, but whatever.

I can't even. You guys are just too much.

They are highlighting the serious flaws of an incomplete piece of legislation and promoting it as if they are concerned about the left, from the left. A concern troll calling others concern trolls. It's impressive to say the least. Most people who read it will get it. Those who don't are the authors intended audience. Doesn't speak well about them.

It's why I highlighted the author.

In fact, it would be demanded here on DU.

Anyone can write anything and they will find an audience somewhere. It's gotten really bad.

infinite loop detected
program terminated
C:/

Health insurance does not equal health care.

Over the last decade or two the terms have been (deliberately) conflated.

unless they can pay for it and most can't

It still doesn't make the terms interchangeable.

Even having insurance doesn't guarantee care. Health insurance before the ACA often denied treatment or canceled at the first opportunity for a major illness.

There is much to be done.

I lean towards a Medicare for all solution, with subsidies as needed for supplemental and RX insurance.

I'm sure there are other good options.

The article is saying that if a person asks that a single payer plan have details of implementation including how it is to be paid for, that person is a troll.

is obnoxious, implying that I would not acknowledge that healthcare is a human right. Your assumptions about me are ridiculous and personally insulting.

The post is calling people trolls who are not trolls.

to bolster arguments?

I don't even recognize DU anymore...

And before the usual suspects jump on me with some faux-innocent "What's wrong with Adam Johnson?" or some bullshit, save your energy and please take a good, long perusal at his previous hot takes and his twitter account (https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC), especially in 2015-16... I'd happily post some of his greatest hits, but like 90% of the Intercept-Wikileaks-TYT leftbro axis, he has me blocked and muted.

The nuance troll, the deficit troll, and the feasibility troll.

(In contrast to the OP, I personally have not seen folks advocating these positions at DU, and would not call them trolls even if I had.)

In order: "We need more details", "How do you pay for it", and "What about the GOP", i.e. it will never pass, it's too impractical, etc.

Last graf:

President Eisenhower — an early practitioner of concern trolling — told the New York Times in 1957 that he supported integration “in principle” but said activists in the South risked going “too far, too fast.” Give it more time. We need more details. Who will pay for it?

All meaningful changes to society have been met with these types of objections. But the game of politics isn’t won by waiting for the ideal. Its most successful actors establish a moral goal and fight for it until reality catches up to them.

and pushed right wing talking points concerning the DNC leaks during the 2016 GE campaign.

http://fair.org/home/stoking-russia-panic-for-partisan-gain-will-have-a-long-term-price-for-peace/

http://fair.org/home/nothing-to-see-here-is-pundit-takeaway-on-dnc-leaks/

obviously like the GOP more than Dems.

And how they aren't serous able about the actual issue and getting it passed. That their goal is to attack democrats over it.

I think that it's fair at least to say that there are still some kinks that need to be ironed out first. And I think that the ultimate goal is the same (a more affordable, universal accessible system) with everybody (but Republicans), but some people have completely legitimate differences in strategy about how we get there. Sanders seems to prefer the hammer and nail approach and getting a SP system in place in one fell swoop. Others prefer a more gradual strategy (i.e. adding a Public Option to ACA), which I happen to believe is a more practical and realistic approach to moving in the direction of a SP system. I don't think it's fair to automatically assume that just because some of us might think we should go about things a different way, it doesn't make us "concern trolls".

For example Republicans claim their plan will cover more people for less. Without details you can't verify that they are lying.

Those who want to rehash the Democratic presidential primary.

Positions associated with a Democratic candidate not supported must be invalid, to ensue the unsupported candidate loses credibility

How can you have a lively discussion and move toward answers if you don't have questions? Too much of this troll talk and we end up a left version of a demagogic site like Breitbart.

and cause me to lose my job. I will fight against it tooth and nail.