Makes sense. DUH

We are fighting a government corrupted by big money. Let's vote for change.

over the past several decades. That is what that money buys! And we actually have people supposedly on our side who are either ignoring that or defending it.

voting to keep their defense contracts going. He says he wants to cut defense spending but continues to support the F-35 program, he will continue his voting for Lockheed Martin.

Plus, this OP is about Health Care/Single-Payer and Big Pharma, not Military spending.

Never the less, I'll share with you what Team Bernie says about this:

will continue to support defense spending, we can't pay for health care because of the ridiculous F-35 program.

kind of makes sense, as a desperation move ... when you are supporting a candidate who
really IS 'on the take' from the military industrial complex, big time.

Bernie has not taken a nickel from MIC, by contrast .

Defense Industry Embraces Democrats, Hillary By Far Their Favorite
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html

So have at it. Harp on this ONE vote, where Bernie's less than perfect. I don't blame you,
given who you ARE supporting.

over. I do not harp on one point. Maybe less harping on the talking points would be better. As pointed out giving facts is just giving facts.

"Among recent secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co.

At the same time, those companies were among the many that gave to the Clinton family’s global foundation set up by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002

Defense Contractors Donated To The Clinton Foundation
The Clinton Foundation accepted donations from six companies benefiting
from U.S. State Department arms export approvals.

Defense Contractor Donation Min. ($)
Boeing 5,000,000
General Electric 1,000,000
Goldman Sachs
(Hawker Beechcraft) 500,000
Honeywell 50,000
Lockheed Martin 250,000
United Technologies 50,000

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

An $18,000 donation to defeat Sanders opponent from the NRA, who did this donation help, did it get a Clinton elected, no, it got Sanders elected, who voted five times against the Brady Bill, Sanders did, BTW Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

not me.

ALL you have to say is "Bernie/F-35!!!! Bernie/F-35!!!! Bernie/F-35!!!! Bernie/F-35!!!! Bernie/F-35!!!! "

I respond with "Hillary/Boeing!!! General Electric!!!! Hawker Beechcraft!!! Honeywell!!! Lockheed Martin!!! United Technologies!!!!"


99th Monkey: 6
Thinkabout: 1

They know she won't regulate the corporate industries that are funding her campaign, so they do this.

from whom Bernie has never taken a nickel.

Quite a leap.

She leaves out the fact people are spending 14% of their income on healthcare costs today, and single payer would be waaaaay cheaper.

So they change the subject.

Makes me wonder just why they support her? Definitely not because of her policy positions. She refuses, or is unable to take a stance on basic morality issues. Can't seem to rely on her own instincts/morals/convictions to make these decisions. What would she do in an emergency? Turn to polls and focus groups?

So they change the subject.

that HRC is corrupted by money. She's says she's against big pharma but takes huge amounts of money from them, same thing with wall st, big banks, MIC, oil, insurance, the list is long. She will happily talk the talk, but she doesn't walk the walk.

and Bill enjoy being in the 1%. How naive to think that she would support legislation or regulations that would do anything other than help her 1% friends and billionaire backers.

We need change, we need the change that Obama promised.

she wouldn't want Trump's kids to get affordable healthcare! Geez!

Hillary morphed into "9-11" Rudy Giuliani right in front of the Nation and the World.
Hillary defended taking MILLIONS from Wall Street because...[font size=3]9-11...9-11[/font]
Hillary "helped" them by taking MILLIONS in donations...but didn't actually DO anything to rebuild Wall Street or New York or keep Americans any safer.

The Patriot Act, and the Two or more Wars Hillary supported has done NOTHING to keep anybody safer. In fact, MORE Americans were killed by sending them to Iraq than died in the WTC, and NOW with all the "failed" Middle East countries we have helped create through systematic mass murder has made the World a far more dangerous place.

Logical?...NO....but many cheer because she appears "tough on TERROR".
They do NOT realize she is just perpetuating another REPUBLICAN meme.

I believe she was a liberal at some point. 3 decades in politics and 2 in DC, plus this feeling she has that it's her destiny to be the First Female President, have corroded her soul.

... we gots new and glorious wars to put on the credit cards.

Don't you little people have any grip on the important things?

Either that, or say, "it's good - she needs money, and our healthcare is great!"

As she said at the debate, she tried to get single payer. She has the scars to prove it. And as she noted, "the Revolution never came."

So a single payer system in Canada covering a larger area from the eskimo settlements from Alert, Nunavut to the fourth largest city in North America, Toronto, Ontario - known for it's cultural diversity, from fishing coves around St, John's Newfoundland to the beaches in Victoria BC isn't diverse enough for Hillary?

BS

Hillary has been against single payer for 22 years

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/hillary_clinton_on_s.php
2008: MRS. CLINTON: You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system.

How do you expect it to pass in a state like AZ or AL?

It failed due to politics - coming up with the money in a recession, etc
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-single-payer-health-care-failed-in-progressive-paradise-1438382832

VT single payer failed because politicians lost their nerve. Including Bernie. They feared the political backlash over hitting the middle class with a 9.5% tax increase to pay for single payer, even if it meant actually saving money overall on healthcare. Bernie completely clammed up when that tax was discussed, not giving it a word of support. He knew it would be anathema to the presidential campaign he was planning.

But at least Vermont was willing to pass the single payer law, unlike other states. Of course, just passing the law that allowed it was very different from actually implementing it via taxes. Bernie was talking up the law all over the place, calling it the "model" for the nation. And it passed handily, in this very blue state, even in a recession. What basis do you have for suggesting single payer support in places like AL or AZ is the same as in Vermont?

if you were to take away Medicaid and Medicare and tell folks that had it to just go buy their own insurance and get tax credits, I bet you'd hear a lot more howling than cheers that Medicare and Medicaid are gone. Folks would be livid. There are tens of thousands or more in every single state on Medicare and Medicaid. So you already have a health care system that works in every single state (kinda knocks the wind out of the notion of "we can't handle the diversity" problem). I'm sure they could stand a little improvement here and there but most people seem to really like the general idea of Medicare and Medicaid.

The United States can do whatever it wants. I don't think political diversity is very good excuse for not doing it or "we can't". Eventually, the United States has to do it in order to compete with the rest of the planet - to get their health care cost under control. Otherwise,m it won't be long before they're 30% of GDP and the economy grinds to a halt. And they have top do it to stop the folks from dying because they don't have health care. The only question is when.

Medicare is seen as an insurance program that everyone has paid into and thus "deserves" when they hit 65. Medicaid is for poor people. America is rather stingy with its poor compared to other advanced countries. Poor people are humiliated in this country, forced to pee in a cup for food stamps, etc. Republicans think being poor is a moral failing. They want to punish the poor. Many red states refused the ACA Medicaid expansion money.

I agree that our current health care system is hurting our global competitiveness. But how are you going to convince red state Governors to implement single payer when they won't even take free money to expand Medicaid in their states?

Arizona citizens, twice, passed propositions to expand our AHCCCS Medicaid program. More than 3/4 of the voting population did this in two different decades.

You make assumptions that are just not grounded in reality.

Whatever you are talking about is not single payer. Got any links that show what percentage of AZ voters currently want single payer?

And how am I "uninformed" about Vermont? Even Bernie knew a lost cause when he saw one. After talking up Vermont's single payer law as the "model" for the nation, he clammed up when it came time to pass a 9.5% tax on the middle class to pay for it.

So tiresome...so childish!

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229959-majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/ralph-nader/70-years-most-americans-have-supported-single-paye/

The majority of ALL Americans have supported and still support single payer. Only those that fear the 'socialism' like Libertarians and Neoliberals don't.

Sanders is the state Senator. He has no say in the state matters.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711

States alone will fail because it will not be a true single payer system until the Federal government is behind it.

Bernie's single payer system would be implemented by the states. I see you refuse to divulge the support for single payer in red states like AZ or AL, just national support, and even that is at 50%. It was even more than that when the ACA was being debated and we couldn't even get a public option.

If Vermont's single payer plan was so unworkable, why did Bernie call it the "model" for the nation? The fact is, the Vermont politicians were afraid of raising taxes and came up with excuses. "Complexity" is why we don't have Tricare? Like our current system isn't complex?

There was nothing prohibitively "complex" about Vermont's single payer plan. Bernie hailed it as a model for the country:

You choose always to ignore what is in them.

The costs for a single state are prohibitive. For the entire country, they are not.

Costs for single payer in a single state are not prohibitive. It appears it is just prohibitively costly to a politician's career.

It would have required about a 9.5 % tax on the middle class to pay for it in Vermont. That is what I understand the tax would be on the national level for it as well.

You think paying 9.5 % in taxes is not worth it for single payer?

Therefore, I provided first hand knowledge and links given I fucking live here.

Sanders had no control over the governor nor the local positions. You know this but play a game of gotcha to pretend otherwise.

You did not read my links or you would have seen the answer to the question you ask.

You have a proven track record of not reading links that provide facts that contradict your agenda.

Your links did not provide any "answers" to the questions I asked. They were just obfuscation.

Support for single payer in red AZ is not the same as it is in blue VT. If you live in AZ you should know that. Your assertions to the contrary are really disingenuous.

Yet you claim I am disingenuous because I actually fucking live here and know how Arizonans supported en masse AHCCCS expansion not once but twice.



We are done.

That is being disingenuous.

And as I said before, AHCCCS expansion support is not the same as single payer support.

Seriously, why? Single payer health care is a Dem core and health care is a human right. You worried about taxes is a conservative position to take and an argument to defend the status quo that would go on to leave millions dying or dead. The ACA is great but not great enough, despite it saving my life. Medicare For All is far more cost effective and would save us tons of money.

Please check groups like Physicians For A National Health Program http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/july/‘medicare-for-all’-would-cover-everyone-save-billions-in-first-year-new-study

Arguing single payer is "prohibitively expensive" is the Republican point of view. I'm not the one who is defending that point of view.

I personally think a 9.5% tax is fine for true single payer.

All I saw is your reply, nothing in the forums is threaded for some unknown reason.

I presented the reasons as stated in linked too articles why what was being promoted in VT was not true single payer nor was it cost effective without federal support.

I likely won't see your reply as I am done dancing with that individual and off to Ignore they go!

I see that person now has me on ignore. So I can't ask him/her why if VT's single payer is not "true single payer" and why Bernie would call it the "model for the nation" if it was not true single payer.

that Bernie had no real say in that as he's in DC and not working at the local level.
In the end, single payer saves money. ACA monthly premium costs make that happen as it's so high.

He pushed for the law and talked about how great it was on Breakfast with Bernie on the Thom Hartmann Show.

Then he clammed up when it came time to push through a 9.5% tax increase to pay for it.

That 9.5% is nothing though. The average ACA plan is $328/mo. That's a LOT of dinero to many people. The ones who are complaining about the tax hike are the ones who make the most. Don't forget that.

But he didn't.

I seriously doubt that ANY state can operate a Single Payer system successfully the first year and that was the poison pill that was stuck into the ACA for the purpose of killing state run single payer.

The risk pool is not large enough to share the costs,
but a true National Single Payer System would save us BILLIONS in just a few years.
The larger the risk pool, the lower the costs.

...AND Bernie was correct:
Single Payer is STILL alive.

How is Vermont's single payer so much more expensive at 9.5% tax whereas as the state-implemented single payer system Bernie is proposing on the national level that costs "around 9%" in taxes?

1) Lets say I'm self insured.
My "Risk Pool" would be zero, and I have to pay all costs myself if I get sick.

Now, if another person joined my Insurance, the risk pool would be two,
and if I got sick, then my costs would be 1/2.
But the real problem is if BOTH of us in the risk pool get sick.

The same relationship holds if my risk pool is several thousand.
Only a few have to get really sick to bankrupt such a small risk pool... and I believe the Single Payer in Vermont had only a few thousand.

If the Risk Pool is expanded to 330 MILLION, everybody IN, nobody OUT,
the costs and risks drop in a direct relationship.

2)ALSO,
with a National System, we would have tremendous Collective bargaining power with Care providers and Drug companies. We could force them to stop the gouging, like $7 dollars for an aspirin in the ER, or the unbelievable cost at an American pharmacy for the same drugs available in other in countries at much lower costs.

3)In a small Risk Pool, the overhead costs are proportionately higher to maintain the administration of the program for fewer people.
This cost is automatically lower with a larger, national program.

4) We would no longer be paying for Summer Homes in Aspen, or yachts, or private jets for the Big Wheels of Big Pharm and Care Providers. That would be a considerable saving.

5) We are currently paying FOR the MILLIONS of Dollars spent by Big Pharm and Care Providers to lavish on their favorite lackeys in Congress. BIG savings.

No charge.

My ignore list just gets longer and longer

About 29,000 Americans are dying each year because they do not have healthcare. How do tax cuts help them?

EDIT: it would help a fraction of them - very probably a pretty small fraction.

I am not sure where you get your 29,000 figure from, but the number of people dying for lack of coverage has dramatically decreased since the ACA was implemented, from the 45,000 that were dying due to lack of coverage before we had the ACA.

Giving the middle class tax cuts is a huge deal for the middle class--it will go right into necessities like healthcare and spur the economy. Tax cuts for the rich are a horrible waste--they go right to bank accounts, do not improve anyone's life nor stimulate the economy. You should not equate tax cuts for the middle class with tax cuts for the rich when it comes to sound tax policy.

According to Harvard, 45,000 died from roughly 45,000,000 not having healthcare. 0.1% death rate.

ACA got 16,000,000 million or more covered so we're down to roughly 29,000,000 that need coverage. From that, in the next year, 29,000 more Americans will die because we're still arguing about it. To me, that's unconscionable and I'm not buying the tax credit BS because that means more will die for years to come in Hillary's administration.

I'm fed up. Tired of the same old political BS excuses.

STOP THE PEOPLE FROM DYING WITHOUT HEALTHCARE!!

I don't really care how they do it. They're willing to spend trillions on war to avenge 3,000 death by terrorists but unwilling to pony up less money for the more than 600,000 Americans who died because they didn't have healthcare since 9/11.

If Hillary lacks the intestinal fortitude to get it done, then Bernie ought to get a shot.

Enough is enough. It's time to end this deadly stupidity.

Hillary has plenty of intestinal fortitude. But courage alone is not going to get people covered, as Hillary found out in the 1990s. Her strategy has the best shot of getting the most people covered the soonest.

Thanks but my mediocre company coverage went from $1700/year to $9600/year thanks to Heritage Care. On take-home pay of $40K. Any more improvements and I'll be broke.

Holding out for perfect, as Ted Kennedy did, kept us from getting healthcare reform for decades. Each year, 45,000 Americans died for lack of healthcare coverage because folks like Kennedy refused to compromise. He finally learned his lesson, and got on board with the push for the ACA. Even then, the ACA barely squeaked by, with no public option thanks to the conservadems.

As Hillary said at the debate, we need to strengthen the ACA, not abandon it. That will expand its coverage and save more lives. Starting from scratch and trying to get single payer all at once, like Bernie is suggesting we do, is just not political reality at this time. More lives will be saved by doing the possible, rather than a quixotic campaign for single payer that will get us nowhere and not help any more people get coverage.

Your quote is just her explaining some of the reasons single payer didn't and won't fly in the US. Bernie knows the others, from his failed attempt in Vermont.

Where's the link which contains the quote attributed to her in the headline?

I'm not sure how to respond when you are presented with facts, and refuse to accept them as such. You should, as most of the hillarians have, accept that the candidate favors insurance companies and drug companies over citizens, and defend that, instead of trying to contradict established facts.

Hillary favors saving people's lives over political purity.

Holding out for perfect, as Ted Kennedy did, kept us from getting healthcare reform for decades. Each year, 45,000 Americans died for lack of healthcare coverage because folks like Kennedy refused to compromise. He finally learned his lesson, and got on board with the push for the ACA. Even then, the ACA barely squeaked by, with no public option thanks to the conservadems.

As Hillary said at the debate, we need to strengthen the ACA, not abandon it. That will expand its coverage and save more lives. Starting from scratch and trying to get single payer all at once, like Bernie is suggesting we do, is just not political reality at this time. More lives will be saved by doing the possible, rather than a quixotic campaign for single payer that will get us nowhere and not help any more people get coverage.

Single payer is just not possible at this time. So we will pass this insurance mandate instead.

Sanders supports ACA and is working towards single payer with it which is what neoliberals have been saying we would have to do since 2009.

I see, like Hillary, y'all are changing your tunes yet again. How typical.

And yes, the article clearly states in numerous places Clinton's opposition to single payer.

The headline put the statement in quotes. That implies she said that word for word. She didn't. Nor did she shout anything, so the exclamation point was inflammatory too. The title was all about smearing Hillary. It was a lie.

Hillary does not oppose single payer as a concept, and she never shouted "No single payer!"--she just doesn't think it can be implemented in the US at this time. She is a pragmatist and knows the forces we progressives are up against. She wants to cover the most people as fast as possible. The most likely way we can do that is expand the ACA rather than scrap it.

Since any attempt to control drug costs is open to being attacked as "cutting Medicare".

We can start with allowing Canadian pharmacies back into the country to do business.

That's exactly what happens whenever Congress tries to lower doctors' and hospitals' compensation for Medicare.

The nice thing about money is that it's gender neutral.

then he turned around and negotiated a deal with "Billy"

Clinton is promising the same thing ... fool me once!

Last edited Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

It's absolutely disgusting that people on here are defending a system which still leaves millions uninsured. It's amazing. Ironically, some seem to be shifting their POV's as quickly as their candidate does

you. It seems saving a few dollars is better than saving many lives.

He just uses single payer to get people to vote for him but he knows it can not happen. Hillary's approach, which is fixing The Affordable Care Act to make it better is more realistic and could happen. Bernie's just using his empty promises as a vote bribe.

Bernie is bribing voters? Really? Can you tell us more about this please?

that they know they can not back up if elected like Bernie Sanders is doing with healthcare and free college etc...

So let's fight for nothing and just let the screwing of the American people continue. Legit.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon Nov 23, 2015, 10:13 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Even if Bernie Sanders were elected he couldn't enact single payer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=841181

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Accusing a Dem POTUS of bribing voters? What site am I on again?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 23, 2015, 10:23 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Lame alert.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sanders isn't President. And I've seen people justify broken campaign promises on this site as words used to get elected and not to be taken as face value.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, that's a legitimate opinion. Yes, I disagree virulently with it, but it is a legitimate opinion. If we shut down discourse like this, then we're little better than an echo chamber. So, 'GO BERNIE!!!' but let's argue back, not hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Holeeeeee shit!!!! Of all the alerts I've ever seen, THIS may be the biggest bullshit alert of all!!! "OMG! This person expressed an opinion that wasn't in line with mine!" Wow, alerter. You should be ashamed of yourself and this is likely alert stalking of someone you don't care for. I will be sure to send this to the admins after I get the results.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dishonest alert
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: sheesh
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Let this person lie for Hillary

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.