Insurance companies have actually been open to this for some time.

If they're open to it, how would they fit into the new single payer model?

GE insurance products have for years been administering some medicare programs. Some others I am not sure of.

I can see this happening this way. You go to the insurance companies. You make the case that the feds are going to control prices. The companies no longer get to negotiate rates and prices. But the feds are going to get control of pricing, so that the insurance companies will have very predictable and affordable costs. There won't be a problem with a mandate because we're not going to mandate that you buy it. Will ensure that you have it. You may have to pay for it. Your employer may have to pay for it. But that will be worked out based upon means testing. And if you fall through the cracks and somehow you weren't covered? We'll fine you once you get healthy and move on.

The whole problem with the ACA to begin with was it did little to actually control health CARE prices. Get control of that, and much of the problem becomes much easier.

Bernie dealt with this issue straightforwardly. He proposed a nine percent payroll tax, roughly divided in half between employer and employee, to fund his single-payer system The proposal was part of his platform. As for the insurance companies. France and Japan both use insurance companies, although premiums and reimbursement rates are determined by their governments. The insurance companies administer the program.

Everyone has to buy basic insurance, but premiums and the cost of medical services and drugs are regulated. Insurance companies cannot make a profit on basic plans, but they can on supplemental insurance. Switzerland spends less than 12% of their GDP on healthcare and generally rate 1 or 2 in the quality of their system. We spend over 17% of GDP and still have millions uninsured.

They all assumed health care prices would go down on their own b/c of fixed demand, however they did nothing to control health prices.

argument.. this is the natural progression of saving the ACA.. the Repubs are determined to destroy the ACA, there is no better political tactic than to flip their argument on it's head with a single payer/ medicare-for-all type of system..

NON profit Medicare.

** people who can afford to pay on a bell curve dependent on income amount.


Of course the "for massive profits" hospitials, drug sellers, insurance corps & their Republican buddies will never let that happen unless they're forced to not rip people off.

payer or a public option. We needed every single vote because not one republican voted for it. It was having something or nothing.

Words are cheap, and 2018 is going to be a tough as it is for Democrats to take back the majority in one house, let alone two.

Perhaps if those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election in 2016 had done so, there would be a fighting chance for a federal single payer.

running for Senate in those critical swing states, lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican, and MOST of those Democrats WERE progressive.

The whole idea behind Howard Dean's successful 50-State strategy was that different regions of the country will not agree on a lot of issues. Democrats in blue states, red states, and purple states are not going to see eye to eye a lot of issues

The Democratic party is NOT a monolithic party. We have many voices, and some of those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016, perhaps should have thought about the implications of the republicans controlling the WH and Congress

are insults. Maybe you should look in the mirror.

Those so-called progressives that didn't vote for Clinton, are worse than the trump voters.

They are beneath contempt, and Noam Chomsky agrees

It was sure a great idea to put people like Cornell West on the DNC rules committee, so he could come back and proudly endorse "Jill Stein"

Let's see those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary see what happens under trump and the republican congress

One can stew in a pool of resentment and anger about those who, in ones opinion, were idiots/extremists/anarchists/communists/left-purists....or whatever other name one drapes them with. The harder question to face is why? And that perhaps there are valid reasons why some see Democrats not having solid principles and hear mixed messages towards health care reform. When Clinton said "its not going to happen"...how that cut like a knife through many on the left. How even universal single payer, the basic norm in every other democracy, was now out of the question for at the very least Hillary's term, which may have been eight years long. And then who knows after that? depressing.

It is never about what is possible at the moment, it is about changing the conversation, and by talking about it in positive, dare I say inevitable, terms, day in and day out. Pushing talking points on how it will make health costs go down, once the initial implementation is paid for. That its better for businesses when competing in international bids where other companies don't have to pay for their own workers basic coverage. Stress that in the 21st century, isn't it time to make healthcare a right and not a privilege?

Wringing ones hands and spending ones time insisting that it can never happen, could be better spent in promoting it as the only way forward. Just like gay marriage, or pot legalization, here is a zeitgeist shift once a critical mass is attained in society. Democrats need to stop begging for a few morsels to be kept into the already corrupted and defanged new health care bill, and leap frog the whole mess and start promoting Medicare for All. Or Americare. Democrats need to start to promote, dare I say get positively excited about, the future instead of hand wringing about the past and present. Because that will be infectious.

alright to criticize her, write negative articles, and books about her, but how dare she or anyone who supported her speak out

The false equivalency that Democrats are "republican lite" is bullshit

and I am going to call it out when I see it

First no one is preventing anyone from speaking out.

Second, speak out about what?....saying she has a great idea about NOT working towards single payer universal health care? What is this great thing she represents that you feel restricted about talking about?

And not every prominent Democrat is a republican lite. Warren is a great example. But this idea of running right wing DINO candidates against Republicans has not only failed, because people will always vote for the real thing if that's what the choice is, but also because then Democrats have the appearance that they offer no real vision or option. Even when it works, it is a short term gain for a long term failure (to ever get any progressive policies passed)

That is, its better to push for something that is good for Americans, something that will positively change the lives of citizens until the message finally sinks in, even if one fails the first few times...than it is to 'win' and then have to sit on your hands and even help derail positive progress in order to out-Republican your opponent and win the next one

Its time for the DNC and leadership to stop riding the merry-go-round reaching for the ring and stretching as far as they can to the right to grab it. And each pass the GOP holding the ring move further back, and the Dems can never quite stretch far enough to get it. Time to just forget the shiny golden ring and just jump off the ride that is just going in circles and build your own ride, that's cheaper, and everyone gets a ring.

It was about pondering the 'why' of those that didn't.
(Although I think this place would be better served to allow a little more diversity of opinion)

And specifically on the left. We all know the reasons from the right. A lot of hate radio/TV brainwashing, Russian trolls, fake news, along with some degree of racism, sexism, etc.

But this kind of resentful ostracization, even though IMO I think they should have held their noses, if that is what it took, and voted Democrat anyways this time, is more harmful than helpful.

This attitude reminds me of the Bush administration refusing to even enter a conversation on the 'why' 9/11 happened. The suppressing of the idea that it wasn't about a smaller group of extremists carrying out that attack because of decades of resentments by even the moderate middle eastern person by the US and the West's past and ongoing colonial like treatment of their countries and resources. That it became only about revenge and not about finding root causes and addressing them.

Or like the vitriol against the Green Party for even daring to run in an election. Hey, if the Greens are taking away votes from Democrats, maybe its up to Democrats to take a look at the Green platform rather than simply calling them names and demonizing them.

Anyways I'm getting off track. But its almost like Trump voters who voted for him because he WAS a racist misogynist, are more respected than those on the left that voted Green, or couldn't vote because no one in either party appealed to them. And those are precisely the voters that we could get back, not the die in the wool brainwashed wingnut Trumpsters.

keep posting on a forum which was created to support Democrats instead of creating a board for the "oh, so pure progressives, too pure to vote for the Democratic candidate"

Let me answer the question. You don't create your own forum because your mumbers would be pathetic...

And thank you for wishing good luck to our party!

may want to look in the damn mirror before you attack others.

I supported a single-payer system way back when Bill Clinton was President. Not because I thought it could pass, but because I believed - and still believe - that it can easily be understood in terms of costs and benefits. And because it's so easily understood, it would have informed the debate going forward. Single payer or the current system, which do you want? Keep in mind, nobody remembers a single word of Bill Clinton's proposal.

and got their Suckers to believe Hillary was worse than trump is a shitload of Crap.

You got that right.

Last edited Tue Jun 27, 2017, 02:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Not even close.

If anyone deserves the apologies, it's the Democrats that worked hard, and took all of the "bluedog" heat to get the imperfect ACA bill passed.. you know.. instead of nothing at all.. that is allowing for the outrage happening now that's putting us on the road to making single payer possible.

If the imperfect bill hadn't passed, there would be no traction being gained now.

So sorry, he should be one of the ones giving the apology.

Mahalo!

Exactly!

This says it all:

“Now it’s time for the next step. And the next step is single payer,” she said, adding that the key to Democratic wins is adopting a more “progressive” approach. “The progressive agenda is America’s agenda. It’s not like we’re trying to sell stuff that people don’t want,”

It doesn't go into effect until 2021 or so. If it gets passed, ride the wave of indignation to electoral wins, throw the bums out and repeal trumpcare. Either way, hang their "shut up and die bill" around their necks like the rotting albatross it is.

Their "shut up and die bill".

YYYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!!!

Now, WE have to frame it. I've heard a few good ones.

This one, "The shut up and die bill."

"The American Hell-Care Act."

"The American DON'T-Care Act."

And I know there are more, what with the explosion of guerrilla creativity that's been ignited by this new era.

WE decide what it's called. Because at least WE are gonna be honest about it.

I've always kinda liked working the acronym IGMFU in there somewhere, regarding anything the republi-CONS do or push for. It kinda sums up their basic philosophy of government. The letters stand for "I Got Mine, F-U."

So maybe, then, the GOP's incredible new "IGMFU Healthcare!"

I think some clever DUer coined it. My personal favorite is still the GOP wealthcare bill...really says it all, no?

We NEED labels like this that dumb it down to its basics - that it's basically gonna screw you.

Medicare for all.

People can say anything they want, but the votes weren't their in 2008. Every blue dog made it very clear they would NOT vote for single payer or a public option. It was a choice of having something or nothing at all. Not one republican voted for it, and we needed every single Democratic vote, or nothing would happen

He never even called Lieberman. He did fly at the end to Kucinich's district and call him out in front of his constituency though. In the end I believed he agreed more with the Blue Dog's than he let on. Which is why single payer was off the table right from the beginning with him declaring that it wouldn't work here.

They knew the votes weren't there for single-payer, and they also knew they had a very short window to have something or get nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/health/policy/14health.html

Yeah, all President Obama had to do is wave his magic wand, and the Democratic Congress would have done what he said. bullshit

Never called, never invited him over to discuss it and make his case. And they wouldn't even let the single payer folks in to make their case either. It was Blue Dog from beginning to end. Which is why I suspect that's who Obama was all along. Goes hand in hand with his work on the "Grand Bargin" and appointing Alan Simpson to his commission.
And their "short window" was at least 11 months. Teddy died and his replacement elected while they worked this. Something tells me there was time for a phone call, not to mention a meeting or two.

have the votes, and had a very small window to get something, otherwise nothing would have happened

He commented upon how no one, including Obama, ever called him or tried to change his mind.

Obama never fought for it. The Dems downplayed or opposed it

So we will never know what would have happened in some hypothetical universe where Obama had fought for a single payer of evena public option.

And that, i think, is why people get upset at the what happened.

Blanche Lincoln said no, LIEberman said no, Bayh said no, Baucus said no, along with others. The fact is there was no public option because of lack of support among moderate Democrats in 2008 and 2009, and republicans were going to vote against anything the Democrats brought up, and were unwilling to provide their own alternative, except in the most vague terms.

However, there is nothing in the ACA to prevent individual states from adopting single payer. California has started the process.

There have been incorrect characterizations that the California Assembly Speaker Rendon killed universal care, and that is blatantly false. He put it on hold, and for good reasons. Until the fate of the ACA is determined, that will need to be figured into how much the federal government will contribute, and how much tax payers will have to pay. You need to how it is going to be financed, the delivery of care, and cost controls. It will be taken off hold as soon as we know how much the federal government will pitch in. You cannot assume that the feds will provide the same funding to the states that the ACA currently provides.

Senate, because they are waiting to see what happens with the ACA, because they would need funding from that, plus additional taxes to make it work.

There were a good number of folks here upset that it was put on hold, but until they know exactly what funding would be available from the feds, they cannot even start to determine how to pay for it.

Our messaging could stand some improvement.

What am I saying? Actually, it's been terrible, not so much in the particular, because poll after poll show that the American public largely agree with us on most major issues if separated from the label "democrat".

The GOP have somehow promoted their lies over our truth. It's weird because most movies and teevee shows have a progressive undertone in the main. Almost all actors and most musicians are personally progressive themselves.

The RW have been allowed to craft our image and it's not a good one. They've made the word "liberal" toxic to the point where I myself rarely use it anymore. They've turned feminists into "fema-nazis".

I've digressed from the OP but in order to win hearts and minds when they're connected to the words "liberal" or "democrat" we need a huge and effective PR campaign and an image make-over crafted by some genius people with tons of money.

Problem is, the GOP is way ahead of us in their efforts.

Jesus.

Thanks for the hearty laugh this morning, Senator.

This is never going to happen until one or more states manages to implement a successful, statewide single-payer system of their own. Two states have failed so far (Vermont and Colorado). California is making plans, but it may be a real uphill battle because of costs ($400 billion per year--which is twice as much as the entire state government budget proposed by Gov. Brown for next year). I hope they succeed. Because we need a demonstration program before anything can ever hope to be passed at the federal level.

That's how major legislation or Supreme Court rulings generally go. Massachusetts had to have a successful state health insurance program before the federal government went ahead to consider one based largely on that model. Individual states had to start implementing marriage equality before a federal decision on the issue was ruled.

Another thing that has to be considered is the political climate. Right now we are in a battle to the death just to fend off ACA repeal and replacement with a devastating Republican "plan" that really just amounts to a tax cut for the wealthy. If you think that anything like a single-payer health system could be passed in such a climate, you're probably like the six-year old who when told to eat their spinach says "I want ice cream" instead.

I'm not knocking the idea of a single-payer system being an ultimate goal. But I am knocking politicians feeding you rainbows and unicorns just to get your oohs and aahs. It's playing on naivete and dreams.

The real question is whether it will be a republican run state, or a democratic one. Single payer, with federal government cooperation/support, may be best trotted out first in some "small" state with a relatively homogeneous population. Iowa comes to mind. But it will take the feds agreeing that medicare/caid funding can be used as part of it. Not to mention all the other stuff like Schip and the like. Maybe even VA funds/facilities.

If the ACHA goes down, I can even see the GOP "threatening" their version of single payer, which might not be what the democrats want, but could put them in a bit of a bind.

Tommy Douglas launched it in Saskatchewan. One by one, the other provinces said "We want that too," and the rest is history.

Additionally, one needs to consider that they were pretty much starting from scratch (as most European countries did). There was no vast, established system of private employer insurance to get rid of, such as we have had since the 1940s. I truly don't think most people realize how complex such a change would be for the US. It's like Trump's realization that, gee, health care is hard. We can't just snap our fingers and make it happen overnight. And EW should know that.

There were three major medical acts passed: in 1966 (where the government paid 50% of costs, in a cost-sharing plan with provinces), 1977 (which switched around taxation stuff and dispensed with a set fee to per-capita spending), and the final act in 1984.

strange things have happened in this country. America passed a constitutional amendment for prohibition, and then repealed it. Gay marriage is legal everywhere. America has done some wild and crazy things before.

I was so hoping Vermont or Colorado would get it since they are small states. California would be great since they are so large but their size has it's own challenges. Nevada had a bill to allow people to buy in to Medicaid. And there are some other states that have tried public options that people can buy into.

PS: And as I mentioned, gay marriage began in the states, and many states had implemented marriage equality before the Supreme Court took it up. It happened fast (though still a full decade after Massachusetts became the first state to offer marriage equality), but if a number of states hadn't successfully implemented it over the years since 2003, it would never have come to the Court and would not be legal today.

will get behind single payer and end this crap ONCE AND FOR ALL.

I'm tired of this crap!!!! And hey, guys...I'm over 60, non-confrontational, not a protestor...but I'm ready to FIGHT for single payer!!! Let's stop this crap once and for all!

They wanna fight? Let's give 'em one! They know not what they do. They pushed single payer up on the time calendar.

It is something that simply has to be done in this country.

The House Democrats have a Medicaid for all bill. Talking about it and writing the legislation are two different things.

Let's give the American people what they really want and what every other decent country in this world already has!

Make it a clear choice, republican deathcare and huge tax cut for billionaires or Democratic party actual healthcare for all!!

Thank you Senator Warren!

by the time we can try for "single payer affordable insurance" or even ACA quality 'consumer protections'/regulations from the Insurance/drug/healthcare Corporations.

We can't even get a single blue state to pass it. How do we expect to get it passed nationally?

Which is why I'm glad they're not rushing it. In the meantime, I'm not against congress people pushing it on their own, planning ahead, and trying to get "influencers" to talk it up. We tend to be too reactionary and give up on things too easy.