Democratic (Party) Direction

That's him answering a question about 61% of Americans being satisfied with their health care, btw. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/13/16297228/bernie-sanders-medicare-single-payer

Voodoo Chilli is probably right, many centrists support the plan because they don't care anyway, assume it will never happen, and is just using it to score free points. So they will never actually pass it.

I didn't say that it would never pass, just that if this current bill makes it to a vote, the majority republican senate would vote it down. Which is obvious.

I also didn't say that "centrists don't care." The single thing that is most important to every single politician in America is winning re-election (or winning election to higher office), and the Dems who are not supporting Medicare For All in its current form are not convinced that it's a winning electoral strategy with their constituents. Sanders proposing Medicare For All is a fairly sound political strategy, imo, because his aim is more to prove the broad support for a single-payer system, and thereby convincing Centrist Dems of its long-term viability, than to actually try to pass this thing, which has far too many veto points to make it out of the bill stage.

"He seems to think the battle will be long and hard because of vested interests and evil elites."

my god, the man is insane, call the men in the white suits

Right, it's not like insurers felt the need to rapidly issue forceful statements in opposition

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/insurers-slam-single-payer-proposal/article/2634259

see now that you can see the behavior and anticipate the consequences, yo can start thinking about how to change the behavior before it occurs

almost afraid to ask, but....fred, what does that sanders quote prove? spell it out for those of us who aren't shareblue readers

social security for all?

almost afraid to ask, but....fred, what does that sanders quote prove? spell it out for those of us who aren't shareblue readers

― k3vin k., 14. september 2017 17:21 (forty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

He was being asked about the 61% of Americans who were satisfied about the health care. The implication being that there might be a large amount of Americans who doesn't want to reform health care. Again. But he never talks about disagreements in the populace (as in, y'know, class struggles for instance) and instead just claims that 'most people' agree and then attacks elite groups.

Peter Daou, Frederik B...its been a bad time for Hilary stans.

sort of have a feeling that a career politician whose ideas have historically had trouble finding broad support understands that passing universal health care will not be easy. i'm not sure what bernie's personal optimism has to do with the issue at hand, considering it isn't just he but a large proportion of the democratic establishment who is now onboard. but i understand that continuing to view every issue as a referendum on bernie's likability is therapeutic for you so i'm just going to let you do your thing.

61% being "satisfied with health insurance" - a number that's dropping year over year, rapidly, and includes the population with Medicare/Medicaid/military/govt. plans that are much more satisfied than average - doesn't mean they oppose further reform.

His entire quote there is spot on - the current system (that 40% of Americans are still unhappy with) depends on increasing subsidies to insurers and pharmaceutical manufacturers (etc.). The function of single-payer to control costs is almost as important as universal coverage in the long run.

Actually if you bother to read what he says, he addresses this statement about the 61%, appropriately enough, by citing other polls of public opinion, suggesting that "most people say yes" to health care being a guarantee and to the current system being financially wasteful. Obviously these things poll differently depending how they're asked. You ask people if they are glad to have any health care at all, they're thrilled. I suspect that if you ask people "do you wish your health care were free, instead of costing what it currently does," the answer will make 61% seem like peanuts. So what's the point of focusing on his response to this one poll being thrown at him?

Attacking elite groups is smart politics btw when the elite groups are ones everybody hates (insurers and pharmaceutical companies) and what you want to change is precisely that the health care system is designed around those elite groups making huge profits at the expense of widespread human suffering. It's a pretty tight, clear, memorable argument, which is part of why Sanders is so popular in the first place, and able to continue building support for changing the system. I'd also point out that his focus on the financial waste of the existing system (which he also lingered on in his New York Times op-ed the other day) is not only OTM, but very smart rhetorical politics - it flips the whole ideology of efficiency and optimization and eliminating waste from being a neoliberal argument for "running government like a business" to being an argument for why certain things need to be government-run and not a business. You can see it being something that helps win over people whose normal favored arguments don't look as much like "health care is a right."

Your class struggle thing is a non-sequitur - it's not like the 61% who are "satisfied" with their current plan (which god knows what all range of attitudes that implies and entails) are at war with the 39% who aren't. We call the ruling class "the one percent" because they do not in fact make up sixty-one percent of Americans, but rather another, much smaller number.

but really i can wait to rain on fred's parade until the day i get my first universal health care card in the mail, which will also be the day the GOP starts organizing around the urgent and doomed fight to repeal #BernieCare. the thing is i now think there's at least a reasonable chance this day will actually come within my lifetime, maybe even the next decade. i would have laughed my ass off at someone hazarding that chance even a short time ago.

also 61% being satisfied maybe could means that a large chunk haven't needed much healthcare for long periods of time -- often the case for many. The expansion of healthcare -- as a policy and the feeling behind it that drove Sanders' campaign -- and the defence of the ACA after Trump's victory makes that stat laughable.

But this was meant to be Hilary's big week, why oh why should Bernie spoil it with this crazy talk. Its making Fred mad.

I sincerely hope everyone else is right and that you get single payer in four years, because you deserve it. But this whole rollout is just a faceplant to me. Badly put together and disingenuous. There's only funding for about 1,6 trillion out of the 3,2 trillion it would cost, and 1 trillion of that is listed as 'Savings'. It's stupid. And I'm not sure it's a good sign that the establishment is onboard, it just shows the unwillingness to tackle the difficult questions. Who wouldn't be supporting a plan that offered free health care for all AND savings for everyone? He should put in the necessary funding, have the spineless centrists balk, then run on the tough plan and defeat them.

This is nothing but rhetoric and sophistry. Smart examples of both, perhaps, but it won't get anyone anywhere. And again, I hope I'm wrong about that. But I suspect I'm not. And that's bumming me out.

lol okay w/e

This is nothing but rhetoric and sophistry.

― Frederik B, Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:30 PM (six minutes ago)

for the love of god, someone make this the board description

Laughable concern trolling. Every single bit of detail doesn't need to be fully-worked out right this sec.

And it can be paid for. By the elites.

Who wouldn't be supporting a plan that offered free health care for all AND savings for everyone?

...

do you get how people build support for things and get legislation passed?

"Who wouldn't be supporting a plan that offered free health care for all AND savings for everyone?"

up until a minute ago, all those "spineless centrists" weren't! now suddenly it appears that everyone seen as a plausible candidate for president, except maybe lolcuomo, is in favor of single-payer universal health care. this is a watershed shift in Democratic (Party) Direction, and i could easily see it being seen by history as one of the most important political developments of the trump era.

it'd be disingenuous if he didn't admit it would have to be paid for, but not having each funding stream delineated isn't that. your math is what's disingenuous - you say bernie's plan would cost $3.2 trillion, but that's not the cost of bernie's plan, it's what america currently spends on health care. much of which does indeed vanish if you aren't dealing with profit and overhead of private insurance and naturally can roll back the tax breaks that exist as part of our current system. so his bringing up "Savings" is not wrong on its face, sorry.

just so everyone has it handy, here's sanders's math. it is, really, far more specific than i expected, or than it even needs to be at this stage.

The Plan Would Be Fully Paid For By:

A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers. Revenue raised: $630 billion per year.

A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households. Revenue raised: $210 billion per year. This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan. A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.

Progressive income tax rates. Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:

37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only 113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)

Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work. Revenue raised: $92 billion per year. Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason is that he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This plan will end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000.

Limit tax deductions for rich. Revenue raised: $15 billion per year. Under Bernie’s plan, households making over $250,000 would no longer be able to save more than 28 cents in taxes from every dollar in tax deductions. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich including the AMT, the personal exemption phase-out and the limit on itemized deductions.

The Responsible Estate Tax. Revenue raised: $21 billion per year.This provision would tax the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent (three-tenths of 1 percent) of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million at progressive rates and close loopholes in the estate tax.

Savings from health tax expenditures. Revenue raised: $310 billion per year. Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related “tax expenditures”) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.

That's old, though, right? Here's the new paper https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all

In my view, there needs to be vigorous debate as to the best way to finance our Medicare for All legislation. Below are a number of options to begin that discussion.

wow yeah how disingenuous, how stupid. what a wasted opportunity. if only he'd never published this, america might really have a chance at improving its health care system. :-(

(should be an ellipsis between the two sentences of the italicized text, sorry)

honestly if your first reaction to single payer entering the national conversation in a meaningful way for the first time in decades is negativity and nit-picking about funding, you can fuck off

do not feed the dane

Marmadon't

folks, the Will McAvoy twitter account is ending. who will lead the Dems now?!

Jimmy Smits hasn't done much lately, Aaron Sorkin could probably go ahead and launch West Wing: The Obama Years picking up right where the old show ended.

https://newrepublic.com/article/144811/centrist-democrats-even-stand-for?utm_content=buffer6b179&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

A whole two elected Democrats quoted in the entire article!

Kessler, Marshall and Troiano can choke on their piles of Silicon Valley's pocket change.

"Centrists have a host of worries about the left’s new agenda, the first being that it’s politically risky."

the first? great set of priorities there, folks.

i don't think a centrist democratic party is long for this world. nothing they do is going to get manchin or heitkamp re-elected, and how "centrist" is the party going to be without manchin, heitkamp, and their ilk? who's going to be playing on Team Clinton/Pelosi in 2019?

as for marshall steinbaum, if he can't even tell the difference between south carolina and north carolina, he has no business prognosticating about regional differences between candidates.

i remember when the ACA was being put together and single payer was thrown out at the time because it was "too politically risky" and Obama needed that all-important political clout for working with the Republicans in the future. fat lot of good that did anybody. it was a completely useless concession.

its frustrating to see these idiots proved wrong time and time again and just continue shooting themselves (and us) in the foot and jumping at their own shadows. they are worried that some things aren't appealing outside of the base yet the solution is to stick to the base and don't try anything new.

also lol the thought that repairing airports will appeal to a wide range of people while free healthcare is a dangerous idea with limited appeal.

i remember when the ACA was being put together and single payer was thrown out at the time because it was "too politically risky" and Obama needed that all-important political clout for working with the Republicans in the future. fat lot of good that did anybody. it was a completely useless concession.

its frustrating to see these idiots proved wrong time and time again and just continue shooting themselves (and us) in the foot and jumping at their own shadows. they are worried that some things aren't appealing outside of the base yet the solution is to stick to the base and don't try anything new.

― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau)

to be fair, we're not seeing "these idiots" doing the same thing over and over. max baucus shot down the public option, and he's now in favor of single payer. the number of people who are supporting the centrist line is getting smaller and smaller... no shit they're circling the wagons!

yeah i suppose centrists are gonna dig in harder because people are starting to get the message

this country's going so far to the left you're not going to recognize it

all's well, Veep and The Handmaid's Tale won the top Emmys #BeverlyHillsResistance

this country's going so far to the left you're not going to recognize it

― difficult listening hour

i stopped recognizing this country last year

I'm confused by the shifting meaning if centrist. I'd consider Manchin to be fairly right of center. There's a significant swath of mainstream democrats that are neither leftists nor anywhere near as conservative.

i'm confused why democrats aren't advocating a 90% estate tax on fortunes over $10,000,000

http://robertreich.org/post/165403227390

I'm confused by the shifting meaning if centrist. I'd consider Manchin to be fairly right of center. There's a significant swath of mainstream democrats that are neither leftists nor anywhere near as conservative.

― Moodles

guys like manchin are who the centrists are fighting for. they're terrified of the democratic party not being "big tent" anymore. they may not agree with what he says, but they'll give his re-election campaign all the money in their coffers...

what other democrat is gonna win a senate seat in WV tho

Manchin sucks, but he will always vote against ACA repeal and that's supremely important

A progressive national turn isn't really a threat to a big tent including Manchins - because WV is WV. What are they going to do, primary him?

"Centrists" are afraid of threats to their links to the donor class, nothing more.

Yeah exactly. Their focus group is fortune 50 board members

A progressive national turn isn't really a threat to a big tent including Manchins - because WV is WV. What are they going to do, primary him?

"Centrists" are afraid of threats to their links to the donor class, nothing more.

― louise ck (milo z)

best i can tell the way they see it is that when manchin loses - and if he runs again, he will lose - they will think it was because of those darn single-payer radicals and not because the democratic party is dead in west virginia. they're pre-prepping the blame game. it's unlikely to avail them much, but the people who need to believe that story will believe it.

I thought Manchin led in all polls?

bernie is so fucking stupid it's unbelievable. chait otm

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/sanderss-bill-gets-u-s-zero-percent-closer-to-single-payer.html

― sleepingbag, Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:23 PM

pareene:

"Something that is well-known to people who’ve read Chait for years, but may not be apparent to those who just think of him as a standard-issue center-left pundit who is sort of clueless about race, is that he is engaged in a pretty specific political project: Ensuring that you and people like you don’t gain control of his party.

"I say “you” because his conception of the left almost certainly includes you. He is not merely against Jill Stein voters and unreconstructed Trotskyites and Quaker pacifists. He means basically anyone to the left of Bill Clinton in 1996. If you support a less militaristic foreign policy, if you believe the Democratic Party should do more to dismantle structural racism and create a more equitable distribution of wealth, if you think Steve fucking King is a white supremacist, Chait is opposed to you nearly as staunchly as he is opposed to Paul Ryan.

"It’s not merely that he thinks your ideas or politics are wrong. He has been battling for years to keep you from having any ability to influence the politics or strategy or direction of the Democratic Party. This is the actual message of much of his work: Don’t let the left win. I don’t even think he’d dispute that, really. But everyone should be clear on how expansive his definition of “the left” is, because you’re probably in it."

http://splinternews.com/you-are-jonathan-chaits-enemy-1818814301

are you sharing that because you think people here don't know that already?

well apparently sleepingbag doesn't

you know what, the twitter echo chamber is really effective at making above-average people write some fucking obvious shit and believe they've discovered something

+ xp, sleepingbag is a troll

i'm trying to reach out to the trolls