person saves his behind, The Con does three NEW things that negate all the efforts of the people trying to salvage something out of his campaign.

Here is Pence claiming that Hillary Clinton wants to turn Obamacare into single-payer.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/10/pence-exaggerates-clinton-and-kaines-obamacare-position-229133

“Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine want to build on Obamacare. They want to expand it into a single-payer program.” -- Mike Pence

I've had occassion over the past few years to have a lot of interaction with medical professionals and other families in the same boat as me. Not one person I've spoken with likes our private insurance-based healthcare system. It's gotten worse as the insurance companies are squeezing doctors, hospitals and other care providers to maintain profits. The paperwork apparently is a nightmare what with having to figure out the right medical codes and justifying the treatment/care plan. It's just a mess.

IMHO, if a publically financed (i.e. medicare) single payer healthcare were a national ballot question in November, it would win by a landslide.

The effects of putting into reality would derail the health care system in the US if done in less than 10 years.

We can't put something like that as a national ballot initiative, because it is too complicated and has too many moving parts.

See also Brexit.

If Americans had a chance to have a direct say, they'd choose a single payer system overwhelmingly. But, obviously we'll never have a national ballot question about it.

50-55 . Along the way, if things go smoother than expected, the program could be accelerated. I think the most difficult part would be setting the rules for coverage. Even in Countries with single payer, not EVERY treatment and surgery is free!

That work for existing health care providers out of work. Switching to single payer is a giant, enormous structural problem. You're going to have to answer all kinds of questions before you even get to square 1.

The ones who skim so much off the top?

all the other tasks that go on to make the current system work. The only ones who would lose their jobs are the execs of the current insurance cos and I for one don't much care. They've been riding the gravy train for a long time so they can just go off and have their martinis on the beach somewhere.

so they're familiar with these rules and stuff gets filed / claimed properly.

One of the benefits of single payer, is that some guy in Washington will be processing your claim, instead of a bunch of people in all different states doing the same thing for their customers in those states. That's why there's a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia, and New York, and Illinois, and California, etc..

you'd still be taking 10 jobs, and turning them into 1 job (that's purely an example). And something like 1/3 of the US economy is health care related. This is a BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG problem.

I do think Single payer / medicare style healthcare is the way to go, but whoever proposes that had better have their ducks in a row, or that political party is going to be out of office for a generation.

one person can do the job of 10. There would be some shrinking the # of people employed in claims processing but I think those job losses will have to be absorbed into the general economy, similar to companies closing, moving overseas, or just going away like mining.

Those that do say it would be a mistake.

would be having Putin come out in an ad to talk about the horrors of socialized medicine. How living in a communist country that gives all it's people socialized access to medical care is like living in hell.

A few 90 sec adds, strategically placed in the right swing states and timeslots, and tRump is back on track.

Vlad Putin speaking from the heart to red area far righties and brain-dead undecideds.

we need them. They get a seat but not the table.

To me there's nothing here. I see it as good.

is that she's leaning to the right.
Go to hell ASSange the asskisser. You've made it quite obvious now who you're fighting for: yourself, and the rightwing.

So it's a major FAIL.

she's right where most Americans are.

At least what is in this article. She very smartly sidestepped blindly supporting them and being antagonistic. The right will pounce on the "open borders" NEW WORLD ORDER you know but she can always say it was related to trade (which I think it was).

The email in question lists all of her most controversial statements made in her speeches, in order to counter the language coming out in a leak or whatever.

Most what she was concerned about? Her more private left leaning positions.

more progressive and liberal parts of the Democratic party and the electorate at large.

Sooo.....

Thanks Assange?

relationship w/ wall street - ie critical but not openly antagonistic, accepting contributions, not as aggressive as might be warranted etc.

Besides it could even be argued that centrists/moderates are a good thing to have in political process because they can play "good cop" to the more aggressive progressive activist's "bad cop" (figuratively speaking). Thats exactly how progressive changes have come about throughout much of american history - labor movement, 60s anti war movement etc.

These emails might have made a difference in primaries but right now - sorry Trumpskies - we've kinda moved on from there. Try to keep up.
.

Keep the left in the tent.

Blaming Russia for these leaks does nothing to detract from the content.

...she does have the public option in her plan, but if she starts promising single payer, then there is no way she is even going to get a public option, because everyone will say that it is just a step to single payer, which is just too big a heavy lift politically with a divided Congress.

Also, look at free trade. Hillary is not committed to opposing TPP, but I doubt that she wants to re-open all other trade agreements. Even Trump has walked back from ripping up trade agreements to a more vague renegotiation of trade agreements.

Put another way, I understand that in non-public settings, a policy maker needs to be able to think out loud and consider and respond to options that they do not want to formally adopt into a campaign promise. Single payer is a prime example, since here she is telling a group that probably is not friendly to it that she sort of likes it, but she does not want to commit to it publicly even though this would score points with the left, because it is not tough politically, but it also impairs her ability to achieve goals like a public option.

If you have a policy option that is popular, wouldn't it make sense to start for something even more popular, then settle for what you actually want?

Also, there is one way to get Wall Street behind single payer: the big short.

Tell them those companies are going down, and this is their chance to score BIG shorting their DEMISE.

...was introduced in May 2009, which did not have the votes to pass, which delayed progress on the ACA bill with a public option. Of course, Edward Kennedy died in August 2009, which reduced President Obama's available votes.

While some folks might argue that the introduction of the single payer bill helped make the ACA stronger, you could also argue that it divided support on the left and made the fight harder, which resulted in a weaker bill without a public option.

Put another way, right or wrong, Hillary seems to like single payer given that she is talking about it in a group that is not disposed to like it, but she does not want to try to push for it in her first term. She wants to push for a public option. Now, if we had a strong public option that worked, does it smooth the path for single payer, since all the infrastructure is in place?

incompetent ass-hat Jeff Weaver spun those speeches that way.

Now you see there's no there there. Jeff was lying. he proved he would say ANYTHING to smear HRC, attack her character.

Now you see a plan from HRC for moving to single payer that actually lays out a doable political roadmap to get from here to there

Since you didn't get your "HRC is Wallstreet's evil Whore Fix"' your knee-jerk response is to still smear her, even though she wants single payer and wants to do exactly what we want.

Furthermore you attempt to pretend Russia had nothing to do with this, when the US government/intellegence experts say Putin's fingerprints are all over these hacks.

Listen I've read your posts a long time. I know you are a good person.

But it is time for you to stop shitting on HRC. Stop lying about her. Your Weavers and your "Turks" and your Goodman's were all too happy to lie, smear, promote right wing memes.

Provided a good payday for them, and I say all this as a Bernie primary supporter.

They were full of shit. You are better than this.

tensions with them and China, nor do I support our involvement in Syria.

If our government was serious about defeating ISIS, we and our Gulf allies would stop funding and arming them and groups like that, and we would stop our allies like Turkey from doing business with them.

...progressives who voted for Bernie, and she looks more conservative to the libertarians. She seems to affirm that she is smart, that she is looking at all sides of the issue (this is what's good about this, this is what is not good...we value you but we're not going to let you get away with murder...). That she isn't going to quick, one-size-fits-all fix-it schemes like the GOP; that she's willing to alter, change and adjust ideas to fit America, not just import them without examining what will and will not succeed. She sounds...rational!

And Pence is going to have to twist himself into a pretzel if he thinks he can make the health care comment into some kind of bombshell that shocks and scares. The GOP haven't been able to repeal Obamacare, not after umpteen number of votes, and yes, it was stepping stone. A taste of what voters can have, and now they've had it, like it and want more. So the GOP really can't scream "universal health care!" at their voters and expect the voters to panic. It's not like "Emails!" or "Bengazi!" This is "free health care!"

And their voters go, "Hmmmmm. That doesn't sound so bad."

Never as WikiLeaks come across as so...irrelevant. No October surprise and this is the best they can offer? She "hopes" for affordable healthcare in the future? Financial markets play a vital role but need oversight? This we're suppose to shake up voter faith in her after we've learned that a presidential candidate lost nearly a billion dollars in failed business ventures, has paid taxes in 18 years, likely has very compromising ties to Russia, and forces himself on women? A man being sued for fraud and likely to be up on charges of rape?

Like I said, never has WikiLeaks been so irrelevant.

Same sort of reptiles that being us Cryptowall and other malware.

meant to support Clinton. At least with the mainstream. I wanted Sanders, but I cannot imagine a leak that would change my belief that she is 1000 times better than Trump and that my vote must go to her.