Can someone explain to me if someone introduces a bill for Single Payer either in the

[still_one]

House or Senate, how it will get acted upon with a republican majority?

While I applaud such actions, does anyone really believe those bills will see the light of day?

[JustAnotherGen]

1. It won't see the light of day

Except in GE Campaign ads by Republicans. If we are looking beyond the 2017 elections - National Security needs to be the focus.

[still_one]

4. Then we agree. I don't think it would ever get out of committee.

[vlyons]

28. and maybe some Dem campaign ads for 2018

even tho single payer makes more economic sense, insurance companies are loath to lose healthcare as a profit center.

[TEB]

2. With repugs

as we know the repugs control house senate the only hope we have in seeing single payer I feel is 2018 as of today it would not stand a chance just my opinion

[still_one]

6. I don't think that is just your opinion TEB, and think that is the political reality

[TexasTowelie]

3. It won't be acted upon

and the discussion about such bills will only last for a short bit of time because the attention span of most Americans is minuscule.

[still_one]

5. Good point Texas, if the past is any indication of the future, the attention span of many

Americans isn't very retentive unfortunately

[TEB]

8. You are correct

Americans suffer from short term memory loss and true it is the option of many on single payer health and it is saddening

[UncleTomsEvilBrother]

7. I wouldn't be so sure to conclude that it won't see the light of day

The President and his administration are desperate for "WINS". His brand depends on that. Depending on how rigid the "Freedom" Caucus is with debt ceiling, infrastructure bills, and budgets, Single Payer may be "on the table".

My fear is, though, like the repukes have done for nice years, that the DEMS have not come up with a solid way to execute the Single-Payer system. Even if the odds are against the bill being acknowledged, we still need to have solid ideas on ways to execute it.

That Trumpcare debacle is not something the DEMS can afford.

[still_one]

9. It won't even get out of committee, the bill will die. That is what happens when you don't have

the majority in either house

It won't even be part of the debt ceiling discussion.

The ACA went down in the House because the freedom caucus, and the slightly less deplorable republicans in Congress couldn't agree on a middle road for the ACA. However, one thing they both are in agreement on, and that is no single payer.

2016 was a complete disaster, and there will be consequences from it.

All the HHS has to do is stop the funding for the subsides, and the ACA will be in big trouble. They don't need Congress for that

[msongs]

10. It is done because it is THE RIGHT THING TO DO! and keep doing it over and over til.... nt

[still_one]

12. That is fine, but the reality is that it will not get out of committee, and will get killed

[truebluegreen]

15. So what?

Give Democrats something to run on, give Republicans something to run from and give voters a really good reason--while the topic is hot--to come out and vote.

This is about 2018; it is not about what is going to pass today. This is how the game is played--as the Republicans just learned, to their cost. Make them start paying now, in the court of public opinion.

The irony is, this is the health care system Trump ran on: everybody is covered, lower costs, better care. Bigly!

[still_one]

16. Where did I say it shouldn't be done?

As far as trump is concerned, and the republicans for that matter, they are liars. They had over 8 years to come up with a healthcare plan or alternative, and they couldn't come up with anything.

Their so-called replacement is a mockery of what the republican party is.

This is the only administration that I can recall that goes to great pains to actually try to create policy that hurts the most vulnerable in our society.

[truebluegreen]

17. The point of your post seemed to be, why bother?

Since it won't pass anyway. This is why.

[still_one]

18. The point of my post is because some have the view in another thread that this is really going

to get acted upon in the next two years, and it was to point out the political reality that 2016 was a disaster, and elections have consequences.

I believe tomorrow trumpenstein will reverse by executive order, President Obama’s work on Climate change.

I would be extremely surprised if the HHS head doesn't stop funding the subsidies for the ACA.

This garbage is just getting started

[truebluegreen]

19. Hmm. OK

Don't really think anybody missed the political reality that 2016 was a disaster.

Btw, not running on things like single payer could have part of the reason why.

[still_one]

20. While Hillary didn't run on Single Payer, she did run on adding a public option to the ACA

and other improvements.

[truebluegreen]

22. Clearly, that generated a lot of enthusiasm. nt

[still_one]

23. That isn't why she lost, and you know it.

[truebluegreen]

32. You have no idea what I know, or don't.

But if you are interested in knowing why she lost, you might want to ask why we have been losing, not just this election, but so many others.

[BainsBane]

29. Sunday Bernie was praised for talking about the public option

That Clinton ran on. Today that is again denigrated because it's connected to Clinton. This is what convinces me that policy is the very last concern.

Good job reviving corporate media memes of "enthusiasm," in which millions more votes are proclaimed to be an absence of enthusiasm.

[Demsrule86]

67. They can run on saving the ACA which will help them...

running on single payer which will be demonized is a bad idea...better to fight in other areas.

[LanternWaste]

57. And in doing so, will engender both conversation and media coverage.

"it will not get out of committee, and will get killed..."

And in doing so, will engender both conversation and media coverage, further spot-lighting the GOP's under-educated grasp on the healthcare question, and illustrating them as incompetent and self-serving in regards to low-wage Americans.

Try not to be so singular in thought and agenda as to miss the many inherent and direct advantages that yet exist outside of an absolute win as defined merely by a shallow diagnosis.

As that too is a reality...

[Demsrule86]

68. Waste of time...and I would rather the media talked of the Russian story and Trump's attempt

to kill the ACA...

[DeeDeeNY]

36. Absolutely yes!!

[TexasTowelie]

11. And if somehow it happens to be passed into law

the tax increase required to pay for it will become fodder for the GOP to latch onto for several election cycles. The Democrats will once again get the "tax and spend" label placed upon them--even if Trump signs the bill into law. Trump will lie about it and his voters will stand behind him.

[still_one]

13. I think it is possible to make it feasible, but since it isn't going to happen, it is academic at

at this point

[BainsBane]

27. Conyers introduced the bill two months ago

[tazkcmo]

55. Execution

A gradual decrease in the Medicare eligibility age until all are covered. Make necessary adjustments to Medicare (I am beyond disqualified to suggest any!).

While we've watched the Democratic party snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the past, I'm pretty sure there are volumes written on this subject. We don't have to start from ground zero and we have the rest of the world to learn from. I think we're good here, one of our strengths actually.

[Demsrule86]

66. Oh please...that is a red herring...more imporant things to do...

if we wanted single payer, we lost our only chance in November of 16.

[murielm99]

14. A futile gesture,

possibly done to attract attention and publicity?

[aikoaiko]

21. You have to have something to fight for in order to fight well.

Your implied criticism is not wrong. It will be difficult to succeed.

But some us want to try anyway. And to keep trying until we win.

Your mileage may vary. Others can work on different approaches.

[BainsBane]

26. Which is why John Conyers introduced the bill two months ago

Have you been fighting for it?

[aikoaiko]

31. Yes, every year for the last four years. Will you fight for Bernie's Senate bill, too?

Conyer's has been introducing this bill every year for over ten years, but when I saw that ACA wasn't enough I supported Conyer's expansion of Medicare.

Can we can't on you supporting a similar bill in the Senate even if Bernie proposes it?

Oh wait. I think I understand you now. You think the OP is criticizing John Conyers, yes?

[BainsBane]

34. The Constitution stipulates that

Appropriations must begin in the House. Of course I'll support it if it makes it to the Senate, but that requires first passing the House, which requires the House leadership to allow it to be heard in committee, pass out of committee, and then be brought up for a vote on the floor.

https://m.

[Demsrule86]

69. Some of us would prefer in what I believe is a more effective strategy...

Single payer will not win the day. Voters are familiar with Medicaid and the ACA...that is what we fight on.

[talking-liberally]

24. Unlike GOP, Dems can build a coalition for Medicare-For-All.

When our time comes, after the mid-term, we'll be ready with a plan and public support. That's the right way to do politics.

BTW, this is a great one-hour documentary building a case for single payer from a pro-business and pro-doctor perspective.

http://fixithealthcare.com/watch-the-movie/

[BainsBane]

25. Paul Ryan and GOP

Committee chairs determine which bills receive a hearing.

[Demsrule86]

70. They will never build such a consensus...it would require

heavy taxation...perhaps years from now...the case could be made that it is worth it which I believe, but it won't happen soon..a public option or lowering the medicare ages is what we should run on...but we won't get that either until we have Congress and the presidency.

[RandiFan1290]

30. Bernie's making the right nervous

It's good to see.

Thank you Sen. Sanders!

[BainsBane]

33. John Conyers introduced HR 676 on 1/24/17

HR refers to HOUSE resolution, which is where appropriations must begin, according to the Constitution.

[WePurrsevere]

35. Bernie's been making the rounds pushing for it and...

He's said that he'll be reintroducing a bill for it.

Will it get far with the Republican majority? Probably not but single payer national insurance coverage is becoming increasingly popular with the majority of Americans now wanting national healthcare. Especially with the recent GOP disaster of a healthcare bill IMO now is the time to keep it in the public eye and push it to increase the 'pro' numbers and create a platform Democrats can run on for the next couple of election cycles.

[paleotn]

37. Nope, but that doesn't matter...

Not all bills are actually meant to pass. If they do, great, but that wasn't necessarily the initial intent. Sometimes they are politically tactical in nature, sometimes strategic. Sometimes it's merely to make a statement. There's a thousand different reasons to float legislation that doesn't necessarily have the votes.

[harun]

38. They are very important, to show what we are about. Like the GOP voting over and over

again to repeal the ACA with no hope of it ever passing. It sends a message to voters about what we are focusing on. Where focus goes, energy flows.

[ehrnst]

39. There has been a bill for such introduced in each congress since 2003. (nt)

[wildeyed]

40. Same as the GOP introducing O-care repeal over and over and over,

knowing that the math didn't work. They promised no mandate, no premium increases, lower taxes AND continuation of pre-existing conditions clause knowing that wasn't possible because they didn't think they would ever have to actually vote on their law. And then they did and came out with egg all over their faces.

I like the idea of single-payer, but the math doesn't work on that either. The tax increase required for that is huge. No way in hell that gets passed, even by relatively progressive reps. Their constituents will scream. And then account for the fact that there is simply not the political will to do this in this country right now.

Incremental change of O-care. Push hard for public option next. If people like it, it will be next to impossible for GOP to tank it later. If we demonstrate that it works and we can get costs down, then there will be a stronger case for single-payer later.

[m-lekktor]

41. I realize this is just another passive aggressive attack on Bernie but putting that aside,

this defeatist attitude before we even start is why people have lost faith in the DEM party are attracted to third party types. People are fucking tired of settling for less just because the other party is worse.

[Gothmog]

43. What happened to single payer in Vermont?

[Gothmog]

42. There is no chance of passing this bill

The GOP will not let such a bill to come to the floor and there is zero chance that any such bill will be considered

[Talk Is Cheap]

44. If you don't put it out there - it will never pass....

The greedy health insurance industry approves of this thread...

[still_one]

45. If it never gets out of committte, it gets killed. This thread ISN'T anti-single payer, but it is

pointing out the political reality that elections have consequences, and just maybe if some of those who decided to vote third party, or decided not to vote had instead voted Democratic, we wouldn't be in this situation

By executive order, trump is going to reverse much of President Obama's climate change work.

Without going through Congress, all Tom Price, the HHS secretary has to do is start cut out funding for the ACA.


and things haven't even got started

[Talk Is Cheap]

54. My point: be positive. Being positive spreads to other people...

Sure, republicans are anti-human, anti society. By talking about it, especially now with
the defeat of trumpcare, even the citizen republican starts to think about it.

We need to replace ACA with Medicare for All ASAP. Period...

Again, if nobody talks about it - it never happens.

Be Positive.

[still_one]

56. That's good, but the best we can hope for right now is delay until 2018

[Demsrule86]

71. No we don't because we can't and such talk endangers the ACA...

I positively sure of that.

[Talk Is Cheap]

73. The ultimate goal is Medicare for ALL.

That's what we need to be pushing...

The ACA still utilizes the health insurance industry and they need to be completely removed
from the equation (except for maybe fancy insurance for rich people so they can have there own
suits in the hospital, etc...).

[Demsrule86]

77. The first goal is to save the ACA and it is not out of the woods yet.

[Talk Is Cheap]

78. Absolutely correct - the repubs are still gunning to kill the ACA...

And we do need to fight them. I think the people
saved the ACA this round - the power of the people does exist.
We just need to be vocal!

Great point in your post - thanks.

[JCanete]

46. Okay. People who think this is actually going to pass are being overly optimistic, BUT

the point is it is legislation being proposed to improve our health system at a time when republican bills are unpopular for attempting to kill more people, and Sanders has visibility. He's on TV constantly right now and his popularity is high. This doesn't just die in committee, it gets heard by more and more people, that previously wouldn't have been exposed to the message. That it is going to get some coverage, and because it is coming out of the mouth of somebody who as politicians go, is generally trusted by the American public, is a big deal.

Nothing is political reality without public insistence upon it. I appreciate that you applaud the actions, but hopefully that clears up for you any question of such a gesture's value.

[still_one]

48. I realize that, and am very much for Single Payer, but this won't get out of committee. The point

being the election was a disaster. Will people take note of that in 2018 and vote?

We will see

[JCanete]

60. Again, never expected to get out of committee. in previous years, I understand Sanders has proposed

such legislation and I suspect it wasn't heard at all by anyone, so this is going to be a step up. Your other point really is a separate matter tacked onto this effort. I guess the people you want to reach are those who seem overly exuberant about this but may have not voted for Clinton in the GE, but I don't think your angle works for the reasons I stated.

You are setting a bar for what this can achieve in a disdainful Republican congress, which could not possibly be in line with the spirit in which it is being proposed given that reality. What it is in, is the spirit of making republicans look bad, while continuing to get the concept of single-payer into the mainstream discourse as viable and sane. Making it more than that and suggesting it will then fail at that standard is unfair.

It would be fair to think and argue that it is grandstanding and pointless, and a waste of energy, even though that doesn't seem to be your opinion or mine.

As to the election, I think the DNC and Clinton signaled a receptiveness to the liberal wing of our party and our national politics although it took longer than it should have. Those who didn't see enough of it or didn't trust it or were too married to some notion of their candidate being wronged by the establishment, weren't being mindful of just how their influence actually mattered. Outsiders rarely get elected. Trump is not an outsider by any stretch. True outsiders get pummeled by the big money and by everything establishment because that is an actual threat to livelihoods and ways of doing business that people there thrive by. What outsiders can do is push on the insiders with the help of popular fervor, which Sanders was able to achieve, but which some people did not recognize, or to be fair, trust.

And some might just see Trump's presidency as a natural conclusion to the way politics has been sliding in the United States, not as anathema to the Democratic party, but as a consequence of the way our two-party system has publicly fought its battles, and what issues they have championed and what issues they have ignored, run away from, or given only soft protest to in the shadow of big money's influence and power to crush campaigns.

We definitely will see whether this Presidency fucks us royally, or whether this is the catalyst that reinvigorates a civic and social conscience in the American people. I'm leaning the former, which is why I ultimately voted for Clinton. But I hope we're all hoping for the latter.

[still_one]

61. You make an excellent argument, and there is nothing you said that I disagree with.

I am in California where we have a bill going through our legislature, 562, for Single Payer.

I hope it is successful, and I will gladly pay higher taxes for it, but this isn't the first time it has been introduced. Perhaps now with the threats trump is making to destroy the ACA by withholding essential funding will be a motivational factor.

I hope so

[JCanete]

62. I live in California too, and wasn't aware of that bill. Awesome! I'll look into it. nt

[still_one]

63. Here

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/17/california-lawmakers-to-introduce-medicare-for-all-health-plan-on-friday/

and here

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/us/california-today-considering-a-single-payer-insurance-system.html

[lame54]

47. start working on it now...

we may need it in 2 years

[still_one]

50. It would need to be resubmitted in 2018, because the republicans will not let this get out of

committee this session, and it will die

[lame54]

79. so don't submit it till we need it...

but have it ready

[spanone]

49. it would NEVER get to the floor. it would be ignored. file 13

[still_one]

51. Elections have very real consequences. Will the voting dynamic change in 2018? We hope so

[spanone]

58. i think we need to bring up single-payer every chance we get, but as long as we're a minority....

the only reason republicans pretended to 'replace' Obamacare was because people liked it enough to have it continue.

they surely would have repealed it...period.

i sure hope it changes in 2018

[Demsrule86]

74. Waste of time...

I tell you when we have a majority, we won't get a big single payer bill through...too many still have work related insurance and they will be against it...It will raise taxes significantly which is not going to work...and the every special interest group will try to kill it and probably succeed as they did with President Clinton's bill. We can try for a public option and lowering the age of Medicare to 55 if we win the White House and take back the Congress by 2020. There are enough late boomers to make that doable...but single payer for all is pie in the sky...it won't happen in a single bill...we can mover towards it and eventually we get it but not right away.

[leftstreet]

52. Citizens STOPPED the ACA repeal. They can GET Single Payer

Without the reaction by THE PEOPLE to the GOP's plan to repeal Obamacare, it would have passed

We can get Single Payer the same way

[still_one]

53. First of all that wasn't the same thing. Second, trump has already threatened that the ACA will be

allowed to die on his own. What he means by that is his HHS secretary, Tom Price, just has to stop the funding of important aspects of the ACA, and it will be in serious trouble. You don't need Congress for that.

Third. The ACA is existing law. Single payer will not even get out of committee, so if the bill is not even brought up it dies

The only way it is going to get visibility is if we are able to take back one of the houses, and that opportunity won't present itself until 2018.

[Demsrule86]

75. There is no evidence they want single payer.

[Heartstrings]

59. By keeping it front and center...

allows the focus and education of why this can and should be accomplished...not fighting for it just because it's going to "lose on the floor" is complacent and plays right into the GOP's hands...call, email, fax your reps...help them fight for us...

[beachbum bob]

64. majority controls the legislative process...elections of consequences, 2018 must happen first

no democratic legislation will be acted upon....and very few "amendments"..


that not choosing the damn lesser of 2 evils thing stopped all that

[Demsrule86]

65. It won't get acted on and with the GOP planning to try to kill the ACA again,

we have bigger fish to fry.

[0rganism]

72. right now it's important to get them on the record in support or opposition

even if it's just getting tabled in committee

[Demsrule86]

76. Why? So we can divide and conquer and attack our own party instead of the GOP.

Now there is a plan...if you want to lose.

[0rganism]

80. really? finding out where our elected representatives stand is "attacking our own party"?

feel free to expand on that idea.

meantime, it looks to me like a simple plan for universal coverage is fairly popular. last i heard, 72 Democratic reps had signed on to a single-payer bill. in your opinion, is this nothing more than a recipe for electoral setbacks?

[Demsrule86]

81. Yes...it would divide Democrats...and for something that has no chance of becoming law

in the foreseeable future. Forcing people to 'go on the record' about stuff years away is never a good idea.

[0rganism]

82. conversely, Democrats need to take clear and unambiguous stands on easily comprehended policies

while i understand and respect your concern, in my opinion now is not the time to play a conservative "long game" -- the odds of any part of the current regulatory or social assistance infrastructure surviving the next 2 years intact are slim at best. we need to present a vision for rebuilding a sustainable future from the smoking rubble Trump and his allies will leave behind.

we have to start pushing for a future people can understand and support. we have to be a party that stands for something more appealing than the situation we had in 2016 when we signed it all away. we need positions that are easy to promote, easy to remember, and exciting to imagine.

"universal healthcare for everyone" is exactly that
"partially subsidized private health insurance" is not