Healthcare

[Raoul]

The simple point is this.
If it is right for the vast majority, you run on it and fight for it...unlike the previous candidate.

The trouble is that the Dems just won a 40 seat blue wave to reclaim the house, but a majority of Dem congress people still don't support medicare for all or single payer. They are still fighting to undo any damage Trump has done by gutting the ACA. So the problem the Dems have right now is that despite these polls that claim most people want medicare for all, the exact same most people didn't bother to elect a house of representatives that support medicare for all. So there's a massive disconnect there, and that's before we even reach the massive brick wall that is a Republican congress and President. Until the public vote in massive Dem majorities specifically to pass a new healthcare bill, medicare for all will remain dead in the water.

 

[Red Dreams]

Democrats lose when they go down the middle.
They win when fighting for what is right, with courage.

Truth resonates.

 

[Red Dreams]

The trouble is that the Dems just won a 40 seat blue wave to reclaim the house, but a majority of Dem congress people still don't support medicare for all or single payer. They are still fighting to undo any damage Trump has done by gutting the ACA. So the problem the Dems have right now is that despite these polls that claim most people want medicare for all, the exact same most people didn't bother to elect a house of representatives that support medicare for all. So there's a massive disconnect there, and that's before we even reach the brick wall that is a Republican congress and President. Until the public vote in massive Dem majorities specifically to pass a new healthcare bill, medicare for all will remain dead the water.

Single payer/Medicare For All is not unpopular. The Democratic leadership has not pushed it for obvious reasons. Money.

 

[Raoul]

Single payer/Medicare For All is not unpopular. The Democratic leadership has not pushed it for obvious reasons. Money.

If it was as popular as you claim then surely the people would've elected Dems who would push for medicare for all. The fact that they didn't suggests that its not as important to the public as some have made it out to be. Nearly every house seat was up for reelection and yet the public sent a Democratic majority to Washington that doesn't support medicare for all.

 

[Red Dreams]

If it was as popular as you claim then surely the people would've elected Dems who would push for medicare for all. The fact that they didn't suggests that its not as important to the public as some have made it out to be. Nearly every house seat was up for reelection and yet the public sent a Democratic majority to Washington that doesn't support medicare for all.

As I said, Single Payer has not been pushed at a party level for obvious reasons.
This cycle the Republicans gifted the Democrats by stupidly voting to remove pre-existing condition protection.
But they cannot run on this again.

Of course its not just health care. It has to be the bucket of Socialist/Progressive goals that need to be pushed.
With simple explanations how they are paid for.

Only Bernie at a National level has done this.

 

[Eboue]

Then why didn't this majority you speak of vote in enough Dems in the Senate to make it happen ?

Because the Democrats didnt run on it ffs. We had this discussion last year and you basically said "what is important is electing Democrats and then they can figure what the priorities are". You cant have it both ways

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

If it was as popular as you claim then surely the people would've elected Dems who would push for medicare for all.

This is an error in logic. You assume that every single race had a viable candidate who supported medicare for all. You also assume that everyone that supports medicare for all was easily able to vote in the first which we know for a fact was not the case in some of these fecked states.

Medicare for all can be the most important issue to me as a voter but if my situation doesn't allow me to vote for someone who supports it(either by establishment Dems dominating locally or by Rep voter suppression) I have no choice but to be recorded as "someone not voting for a candidate who supports universal healthcare".

Why would any Republican vote for a public option ? Their platform is to undo Obamacare and return to the pre-ACA system of private insurance (minus pre-existing conditions)

Because that platform only has a tiny minority of support these days. Maybe 20% like that idea.

 

[Red Dreams]

If we believe in something, we always will find a way to get it done.
It will not be easy.
Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.
Civil Rights was achieved because it was just, but at great cost to many.

 

[Raoul]

This is an error in logic. You assume that every single race had a viable candidate who supported medicare for all. You also assume that everyone that supports medicare for all was easily able to vote in the first which we know for a fact was not the case in some of these fecked states.

Medicare for all can be the most important issue to me as a voter but if my situation doesn't allow me to vote for someone who supports it(either by establishment Dems dominating locally or by Rep voter suppression) I have no choice but to be recorded as "someone not voting for a candidate who supports universal healthcare".

The reality is that there is no consensus on healthcare that is reflected in who people voted to go to Congress on their behalf. People always say it polls well but that is not being reflected in the people voters are electing, which is odd given that healthcare is allegedly the number one issue on people's minds. So there is a disconnect there and until its resolved, there will be no medicare for all.

 

[Eboue]

this one goes out to all the people that jump on me everytime i say obamacare sucks

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

The reality is that there is no consensus on healthcare that is reflected in who people voted to go to Congress on their behalf. People always say it polls well but that is not being reflected in the people voters are electing, which is odd given that healthcare is allegedly the number one issue on people's minds. So there is a disconnect there and until its resolved, there will be no medicare for all.

@Eboue has you here though Raoul

you basically said "what is important is electing Democrats and then they can figure what the priorities are". You cant have it both ways

I really think you are playing mental gymnastics to deny the obvious - the problem is the corporate Dems not the popularity of the concept of universal healthcare

And for the bolded in your post it again ignores two big factors: 1) people do vote for medicare for all candidates when given the chance as the articles I linked have shown and 2) You can't ignore the duplicitous nature of corporate Dems that dog whistle for supporting universal healthcare then pivot to insist that "HMO stakeholders must be at the table"

Your arguments are not valid mate. Just as one example take a look at Adam Schiff. His districts supports Medicare for All even though Schiff has never given outright support to the idea. But no Democrat is going to primary him because he is a former Federal Prosecutor chairing the Intel committee against Trump. The fact he got re-elected is NOT evidence that his district doesn't support Medicare for All. It does.

 

[Raoul]

@Eboue has you here though Raoul



I really think you are playing mental gymnastics to deny the obvious - the problem is the corporate Dems not the popularity of the concept of universal healthcare

And for the bolded in your post it again ignores two big factors: 1) people do vote for medicare for all candidates when given the chance as the articles I linked have shown and 2) You can't ignore the duplicitous nature of corporate Dems that dog whistle for supporting universal healthcare then pivot to insist that "HMO stakeholders must be at the table"

Your arguments are not valid mate. Just as one example take a look at Adam Schiff. His districts supports Medicare for All even though Schiff has never given outright support to the idea. So no Democrat is going to primary him because he is a former Federal Prosecutor chairing the Intel committee against Trump. The fact he got re-elected is NOT evidence that his district doesn't support Medicare for All. It does.

I'm just pointing out an obvious disconnect that the public aren't voting in politicians who favor single payer or medicare for all. Some of them do, but a majority of them don't. That's a problem for M4A proponents to the extent that pretending that a small minority of progressive Dems are going to get the job done is only going to result in disappointment when a majority of Dems still don't support it, and all Republicans are vehemently against it.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I'm just pointing out an obvious disconnect that the public aren't voting in politicians who favor single payer or medicare for all. Some of them do, but a majority of them don't. That's a problem for M4A proponents to the extent that pretending that a small minority of progressive Dems are going to get the job done is only going to result in disappointment when a majority of Dems still don't support it, and all Republicans are vehemently against it.

There's no disconnect though. I already showed you why: not all districts have the choice, not all districts have fair elections and not all Democrats that nod towards universal healthcare actually mean what they say (see Obama) so can't blame people for not trusting the candidates the Democrats put up to do what they say.

And that's even before you trying to have it both ways. You can't argue that the most important thing is getting Democrats elected first and then worry about policy and then claim elections indicate anything meaningful about public support for policy. Sorry man, I don't think you even have a point on this one.

 

[Raoul]

There's no disconnect though. I already showed you why: not all districts have the choice, not all districts have fair elections and not all Democrats that nod towards Medicare for all actually mean what they say.

And that's even before you trying to have it both ways. You can't argue that the most important thing is getting Democrats elected first and then worry about policy and then claim elections indicate anything meaningful about public support for policy. Sorry man, I don't think you even have a point on this one.

If healthcare and single payer is the number one issue on the minds of Dem voters then its not being adequately reflected in the types of candidates that are getting voted in. Voters obviously vote on a far broader set of issues than healthcare which may be part of the problem, but its obvious that the appetite to move to single payer right now isn't being reflected in who people are voting in. This suggests there is no consensus on a particular policy, which there quite obviously isn't, otherwise we would be looking at a progressive House of Representatives and not one that will continue to be run by the old guard of Pelosi, Hoyer et al.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

If healthcare and single payer is the number one issue on the minds of Dem voters then its not being adequately reflected in the types of candidates that are getting voted in. Voters obviously vote on a far broader set of issues than healthcare which may be part of the problem, but its obvious that the appetite to move to single payer right now isn't being reflected in who people are voting in. This suggests there is no consensus on a particular policy, which there quite obviously isn't, otherwise we would be looking at a progressive House of Representatives and not one that will continue to be run by the old guard of Pelosi, Hoyer et al.

This argument is neither sound nor valid. I already explained why even with examples but you keep rephrasing the same invalid reasoning. Literally nothing you said here is valid logical reasoning. I am going to assume you are just playing GOP spin doctor here not stating something you truly think is a valid line of reasoning.

The problem is exactly what I already said:

• not all districts have the choice for a universal healthcare candidate
• not all districts have fair elections (Florida)
• not all Democrats are remotely trustworthy on the issue of universal healthcare

Do you disagree that progressives were far more successful in the midterms than establishment corporate "democrats" ?

 

[Raoul]

This argument is neither sound nor valid. I already explained why even with examples but you keep rephrasing the same invalid reasoning. Literally nothing you said here is valid logical reasoning. I am going to assume you are just playing GOP spin doctor here not stating something you truly think is a valid line of reasoning.

The problem is exactly what I already said:

• not all districts have the choice for a universal healthcare candidate
• not all districts have fair elections (Florida)
• not all Democrats are remotely trustworthy on the issue of universal healthcare

Do you disagree that progressives were far more successful in the midterms than establishment corporate "democrats" ?

Even using the bullet points you cited - if healthcare was truly at the top of the public's agenda then a vast majority of Dem candidates would support it. The fact that "not all districts have the choice for a universal health care candidate" can't be used as an excuse, since all that is saying is that universal healthcare isn't broadly appealing enough to the broader Dem candidate pool to cough up candidates who advocate for it. Look at the abortion issue - its completely baked into the Dem culture to where its pretty rare that the Dems put up a candidate who is anti-choice. That sort of galvanized culture doesn't exist yet with universal healthcare, which is why you see the results we saw last week - a continued minority who are pro medicare for all nestled within a majority of Dems who don't support it.

 

[Eboue]

if healthcare was truly at the top of the public's agenda then a vast majority of Dem candidates would support it.

how can you watch the way politics works in this country and say this with a straight face.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Even using the bullet points you cited - if healthcare was truly at the top of the public's agenda then a vast majority of Dem candidates would support it. The fact that "not all districts have the choice for a universal health care candidate" can't be used as an excuse, since all that is saying is that universal healthcare isn't broadly appealing enough to the broader Dem candidate pool to cough up candidates who advocate for it. Look at the abortion issue - its completely baked into the Dem culture to where its pretty rare that the Dems put up a candidate who is anti-choice. That sort of galvanized culture doesn't exist yet with universal healthcare, which is why you see the results we saw last week - a continued minority who are pro medicare for all nestled within a majority of Dems who don't support it.

This is just false. Why are you basing your thinking on clearly false incentives and logic? Your entire premise is blatantly wrong - you keep assuming the Democrat establishment cares first about what the public's agenda even is!
Let me just repeat: you keep assuming every Democrat candidate and political machine has the public's agenda as their number 1 priority! What makes you actually think all it takes for Democrats to support it is that its number 1 on the public agenda?!?!

That relies on a massive, massive assumption: that the Democrat power establishment cares most about the public!. That is provably false especially on universal healthcare. I am not going to go searching but for Exhibit A see the article berbatrick posted last week on the behind the conversations 2008-2010 with the Dem establishment - they weren't trying to reflect the public agenda ever! The "stakeholders" had to have a seat at the table.

And this is all ignoring the very fecking obvious reality I didn't think I even had to mention: privatized HMO "marketing" in their own self interest that has influence sadly:

"Internal strategy documents obtained by The Intercept and Documented reveal the strategy that private health care interests plan to use to influence Democratic Party messaging and stymie the momentum toward achieving universal health care coverage.

At least 48 incoming freshman lawmakers campaigned on enacting “Medicare for All” or similar efforts to expand access to Medicare. And over the last year, 123 incumbent House Democrats co-sponsored “Medicare for All” legislation — double the number who supported the same bill during the previous legislative session.

The growing popularity of “Medicare for All” in the House has made progressives optimistic that the Democratic Party will embrace ideas to expand government coverage options with minimal out-of-pocket costs for patients going into the 2020 election. But industry groups have watched the development with growing concern.

Over the summer, leading pharmaceutical, insurance, and hospital lobbyists formed the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, an ad hoc alliance of private health interests, to curb support for expanding Medicare.

The campaign, according to one planning document, is designed to “change the conversation around Medicare for All,” then “minimize the potential for this option in health care from becoming part of a national political party’s platform in 2020.”

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/20/medicare-for-all-healthcare-industry/

 

[Raoul]

This is just false. Why are you basing your thinking on clearly false incentives and logic? Your entire premise is blatantly wrong - you keep assuming the Democrat establishment cares first about what the public's agenda even is!
Let me just repeat: you keep assuming every Democrat candidate and political machine has the public's agenda as their number 1 priority! What makes you actually think all it takes for Democrats to support it is that its number 1 on the public agenda?!?!

That relies on a massive, massive assumption: that the Democrat power establishment cares most about the public!. That is provably false especially on universal healthcare. I am not going to go searching but for Exhibit A see the article berbatrick posted last week on the behind the conversations 2008-2010 with the Dem establishment - they weren't trying to reflect the public agenda ever! The "stakeholders" had to have a seat at the table.

And this is all ignoring the very fecking obvious reality I didn't think I even had to mention: privatized HMO "marketing" in their own self interest that has influence sadly:

We're talking about two separate issues here. The public could've sent a clear message about what its priorities are this cycle - and they did. They voted in 40 extra Dems in the house to act as an oversight check on Trump. They did not vote in 40 new Dems to advance medicare for all. We know this because many of the people running weren’t running on it. The issue of the Dem establishment attempting to squash x or y policy is somewhat of a moot point since any person can run for a Dem congressional seat by championing whatever policy they see fit. Pelosi and Schumer or any anti healthcare lobbying effort don't have any influence over whether someone on the outside of government chooses to run for congress. Therefore the argument that the Dem power structure isn't allowing universal healthcare to move forward doesn't hold much water, since its the general public who are still the ultimate arbiters in this regard, and they spoke fairly loudly two weeks ago that they want a check on Trump and more women involved in Congress. That's about all that came out of the election in terms of mandates. There was very little conversation about universal healthcare, single payer, medicare for all or whatever we want to call it. That suggests that the national conversation about proceeding down that path is incomplete and still needs to be developed in a much stronger way than it has at a grass roots level.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

We're talking about two separate issues here. The public could've sent a clear message about what its priorities are this cycle - and they did

They voted in 40 extra Dems in the house to act as an oversight check on Trump. They did not vote in 40 new Dems to advance medicare for all. We know this because many of the people running weren’t running on it. The issue of the Dem establishment attempting to squash x or y policy is somewhat of a moot point since any person can run for a Dem congressional seat by championing whatever policy they see fit. Pelosi and Schumer or any anti healthcare lobbying effort don't have any influence over whether someone on the outside of government chooses to run for congress. Therefore the argument that the Dem power structure isn't allowing universal healthcare to move forward doesn't hold much water, since its the general public who are still the ultimate arbiters in this regard, and they spoke fairly loudly two weeks ago that they want a check on Trump and more women involved in Congress. That's about all that came out of the election in terms of mandates. There was very little conversation about universal healthcare, single payer, medicare for all or whatever we want to call it. That suggests that the national conversation about proceeding down that path is incomplete and still needs to be developed in a much stronger way than it has at a grass roots level.

First its incorrect for you to presume that all voters that voted for candidates did so solely to "act as an oversight check on Trump". In fact of all the focus groups where I talked to people literally none of them said they were voting for a candidate because "act as oversight on Trump". You are just making that up as the reason that people voted with no supporting evidence.

Second, its incorrect to repeat the establishment lies that not many candidates ran on Medicare for All or it wasn't discussed. I heard it brought up in almost every debate I listened to and if you actually look at the numbers the Medicare for All caucus is growing. No one voted for Ocasio-Cortez solely to "act as oversight on Trump". By your logic, just because no one challenged the well funded establishment golden boy Adam Schiff from the left this time that somehow means his district does not care about universal healthcare. That's just bonkers. It's just not accurate at all. Also its plainly false to suggest Pelosi and Schumer have no influence over candidates when they clearly do and they control the purse strings. Its an uphill fight for any universal healthcare candidate because its not what the Dem leadership wants to push.

Its a process for opinions that are popular at the grassroots to try to find their way to the establishment in power. That process has begun and we are already seeing idea of universal healthcare much stronger in popularity than it was 5 or 10 years ago. That process is going to continue. The fact its not complete yet is not proof that somehow the polling is wrong here. On this issue the polling only scratches the surface. Support is stronger even than polling suggests. Beto destroyed every fundraising record for the Senate without corporate PAC money and his stalwart championing of universal healthcare was clearly a big reason why. I donated to Beto not so he could "act as oversight to Trump". I donated to Beto because he steadfastly refused to back down on his support for Universal healthcare. Its pretty much why everyone I know who donated a fiver did so. So to downplay the fact the greatest Democrat fundraiser of all time was a universal healthcare supporter and not accepting corporate money is just repeating the propaganda the ad hoc alliance wants you to repeat.

It certainly was part of the national conversation despite the fact that Democrat corporate media and many establishment candidates intentionally tried to downplay it and the ad hoc alliance of private health interests have been doing everything in their power to stifle any conversation on universal healthcare. Trump had to write an op-ed attacking it. Whenever I was driving in the two weeks before the election I was listening to Rush, Hannity, Prager, Medved and that whole roster of right wing talk radio constantly bashing universal healthcare every single day. If you don't think it was in the national conversation then you simply weren't paying attention. Its very clear that both Republicans and the ad hoc alliance of private health interests are deathly afraid of a public option and they are doing everything they possibly can to twist the conversation away from it because they know it has massive grass roots appeal. That's why they spend hours and hours on end in the two weeks trying to attack the concept from every imaginable angle.

The reality is there is a heavily funded organized effort by an ad hoc alliance of private health interests combined with corporate Democrats that really don't give two fecks more about what the public wants than the Republicans.
An organized coalition of politicians at the state, local and national level combined with representatives of the stakeholders interested in universal healthcare is just in the embryonic stages of development. That's whats going to be needed to force universal healthcare into the media conversation because you have rich, powerful special interests with closer ties to the corporate media that don't want it.

 

[Red Dreams]

How many people really understand the issues.
Everyone who voted for those Republican Senators voted against their own interests.
The point is simple.
The Democratic party that Claims to be for working families has done feck all for them for decades,.

The issues raised by Bernie and other Social Democrats should be at the Top of the agendas of the Democratic leadership.

2020? Just wait see what happens if the DNC goes down its usual path.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

How many people really understand the issues.
Everyone who voted for those Republican Senators voted against their own interests.
The point is simple.
The Democratic party that Claims to be for working families has done feck all for them for decades,.

The issues raised by Bernie and other Social Democrats should be at the Top of the agendas of the Democratic leadership.

2020? Just wait see what happens if the DNC goes down its usual path.

If the DNC thinks running an establishment candidate on just a "we have to remove Trump" platform is a good idea then they are in for a harsh wake-up call

 

[Raoul]

First its incorrect for you to presume that all voters that voted for candidates did so solely to "act as an oversight check on Trump". In fact of all the focus groups where I talked to people literally none of them said they were voting for a candidate because "act as oversight on Trump". You are just making that up as the reason that people voted with no supporting evidence.

Second, its incorrect to repeat the establishment lies that not many candidates ran on Medicare for All or it wasn't discussed. I heard it brought up in almost every debate I listened to and if you actually look at the numbers the Medicare for All caucus is growing. No one voted for Ocasio-Cortez solely to "act as oversight on Trump". By your logic, just because no one challenged the well funded establishment golden boy Adam Schiff from the left this time that somehow means his district does not care about universal healthcare. That's just bonkers. It's just not accurate at all. Also its plainly false to suggest Pelosi and Schumer have no influence over candidates when they clearly do and they control the purse strings. Its an uphill fight for any universal healthcare candidate because its not what the Dem leadership wants to push.

Its a process for opinions that are popular at the grassroots to try to find their way to the establishment in power. That process has begun and we are already seeing idea of universal healthcare much stronger in popularity than it was 5 or 10 years ago. That process is going to continue. The fact its not complete yet is not proof that somehow the polling is wrong here. On this issue the polling only scratches the surface. Support is stronger even than polling suggests. Beto destroyed every fundraising record for the Senate without corporate PAC money and his stalwart championing of universal healthcare was clearly a big reason why. I donated to Beto not so he could "act as oversight to Trump". I donated to Beto because he steadfastly refused to back down on his support for Universal healthcare. Its pretty much why everyone I know who donated a fiver did so. So to downplay the fact the greatest Democrat fundraiser of all time was a universal healthcare supporter and not accepting corporate money is just repeating the propaganda the ad hoc alliance wants you to repeat.

It certainly was part of the national conversation despite the fact that Democrat corporate media and many establishment candidates intentionally tried to downplay it and the ad hoc alliance of private health interests have been doing everything in their power to stifle any conversation on universal healthcare. Trump had to write an op-ed attacking it. Whenever I was driving in the two weeks before the election I was listening to Rush, Hannity, Prager, Medved and that whole roster of right wing talk radio constantly bashing universal healthcare every single day. If you don't think it was in the national conversation then you simply weren't paying attention. Its very clear that both Republicans and the ad hoc alliance of private health interests are deathly afraid of a public option and they are doing everything they possibly can to twist the conversation away from it because they know it has massive grass roots appeal. That's why they spend hours and hours on end in the two weeks trying to attack the concept from every imaginable angle.

The reality is there is a heavily funded organized effort by an ad hoc alliance of private health interests combined with corporate Democrats that really don't give two fecks more about what the public wants than the Republicans.
An organized coalition of politicians at the state, local and national level combined with representatives of the stakeholders interested in universal healthcare is just in the embryonic stages of development. That's whats going to be needed to force universal healthcare into the media conversation because you have rich, powerful special interests with closer ties to the corporate media that don't want it.

It’s a safe assumption that the primary mandate from the midterms is that the public wanted a check on Trump, which is why so many Dems were elected (particularly women, who Trump has been consistently disparaging since 2015). I’m not denying that there is an active effort to squash UHC, which would be completely rational given that the forces opposed to it would lose a lot of money and power if it was ever implemented. That doesn’t however prevent more single payer advocate Dems from running for office to promote a change in policy, and if they did run this cycle then they clearly didn’t do well enough to win enough seats to force the existing power structure of the party to change course.

This takes us back to the original point if there being a clear disconnect between public sentiment towards UHC (which is largely positive) and the results of the mid term house races (which are neither here nor there in terms of moving the needle) on healthcare. All of this is of course a moot point since nothing universal health care related will ever see the light of day in a bifurcated Congress and with a Republican in the White House.

 

[Raoul]

If the DNC thinks running an establishment candidate on just a "we have to remove Trump" platform is a good idea then they are in for a harsh wake-up call

It’s obviously not the only reason people run. The Dems are clearly fractured in terms of progressive v establishment right now which is causing more problems than benefits for them at the moment.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

It’s a safe assumption that the primary mandate from the midterms is that the public wanted a check on Trump, which is why so many Dems were elected (particularly women, who Trump has been consistently disparaging since 2015). I’m not denying that there is an active effort to squash UHC, which would be completely rational given that the forces opposed to it would lose a lot of money and power if it was ever implemented. That doesn’t however prevent more single payer advocate Dems from running for office to promote a change in policy, and if they did run this cycle then they clearly didn’t do well enough to win enough seats to force the existing power structure of the party to change course.

This takes us back to the original point if there being a clear disconnect between public sentiment towards UHC (which is largely positive) and the results of the mid term house races (which are neither here nor there in terms of moving the needle) on healthcare. All of this is of course a moot point since nothing universal health care related will ever see the light of day in a bifurcated Congress and with a Republican in the White House.

Its an assumption all right but not one supported by facts.

Its really bizarre for you to suggest the major reason the Dems won was just 'check on Trump' what that was not at all the campaign strategy for most of them. In fact I think that is the opposite of why they won. They didn't mention Trump hardly at all and most of the winners from the Dems won because they crafted local messages that appealed to the local communities not because of some check on Trump. This was in stark contrast to the Republicans who tried to nationalize every district with constant Pelosi references and candidates like De Santis "wrapping themselves in Trump".

Also I think you are flat out wrong about moving the needle. The next Congress is absolutely going to have a stronger and larger medicare for all caucus. I already linked articles that basically prove this. You can go look it up. The needle is moving on universal healthcare, obviously not as fast as I would like but it is definitely moving in that direction and we definitely are getting more House members that support it in 2019 than we had in 2017.


"The further we get from Election Day, the drastically better the midterms results look for Democrats. And more specifically, no one can now conclude that progressives fell flat while the rest of their party was busy retaking the House. Sure, moderate Democrats filled the win column early, but a growing number of progressives have joined them in the days since. The past 24 hours alone have increased their ranks by two: Katie Porter was projected the winner in Southern California on Wednesday night, and Jared Golden was declared the ranked-choice winner in northern Maine on Thursday afternoon. Both defeated two-term Republican incumbents in swing districts."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...dicare-for-all-jared-golden-katie-porter.html

Your last point is meaningless. In 2014 I could easily have said "a harsh stance on immigration and tonnes of tariffs will never see the light of day in a bifurcated Congress and with a Democrat in the White House". This is why Trump is currently magnitudes more popular with his base than any Democrat President has been with theirs since JFK. He is getting more done for his base than any Democrat in the last 50 years

 

[Raoul]

Also I think you are flat out wrong about moving the needle. The next Congress is absolutely going to have a stronger and larger medicare for all caucus. I already linked articles that basically prove this. You can go look it up. The needle is moving on universal healthcare, obviously not as fast as I would like but it is definitely moving in that direction and we definitely are getting more House members that support it in 2019 than we had in 2017.

That’s great but by moving the needle I meant actually passing some legislation. There’s no chance of that happening for the next 2 years (100 percent guaranteed for obvious reasons), nor is there any indication it will happen for the next 4 thereafter since the Dems may or may not win the Senate in 2020.

 

[Eboue]

Logged on to look at the health insurance options for 2019 on the marketplace. Here are the silver plans for 1 non smoker in their 20s in good health:

$358 premium, $4000 deductible
$428 premium, $5700 deductible
$444 premium, $3000 deductible
$447 premium, $7900 deductible
$448 premium, $3300 deductible
$495 premium, $650 deductible


here are the catastrophic plans which cover practically nothing

$251 premium, $7900 deductible
$314 premium, $7900 deductible




this is absolutely insane

 

[Eboue]

by the way, none of those cover dental or vision at all

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

This is what we are up against. These are profits from one quarter only. This is the massive inefficiency in privatized health insurance systems:

 

[Eboue]

ah yes, the "stakeholders" that democrats love to "bring to the table"

 

[Red Dreams]

the party of working families.

 

[Eboue]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[nimic]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

That's evil.

 

[Eboue]

This country actively hates people who make less than 100k. It's just such sheer hostility. We exist only for money to be made off of us.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

How Economic Incentives have Created our Dysfunctional US Medical Market
Real life examples from patients (and readers!) that inspired my list of 10 Economic Rules

2. A lifetime of treatment is preferable to a cure. Medically this sounds crazy. But financially this is a no-brainer:

3. Amenities and marketing matter more than good care. In Europe most hospitals look like junior high schools; in the U.S., hospital lobbies resemble 5-star hotels. Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital hired a hotel industry executive to upgrade its services and the “guest experience,” turning a once financially failing hospital around. That’s what brings in patient business. But none of that luxury correlates very well with the quality of care.

6. More competitors vying for business doesn’t mean better prices; it can drive prices up, not down.
in 2014 the “usual and customary” surgeon’s fee for gall bladder surgery in Queens, New York, was about $2,000, but twenty miles east in Nassau County, Long Island, where more doctors are in private practice, it was $25,000.


https://medium.com/@RosenthalHealth...-dysfunctional-us-medical-market-b681c51d6436

 

[Red Dreams]

Universal Health Care is as fundamental as Voting and Civil rights.
Yet the Democratic party is debating it.

 

[Carolina Red]

3. Amenities and marketing matter more than good care. In Europe most hospitals look like junior high schools; in the U.S., hospital lobbies resemble 5-star hotels.

So true. The hospital my wife works at embodies this.

 

[nimic]

Universal Health Care is as fundamental as Voting and Civil rights.
Yet the Democratic party is debating it.

Add education into that. But I think the US is a long way away from making higher education free. So's the UK (minus Scotland? I don't know about NI/Wales), I suppose. I guess it's hard to be convinced your higher education system is broken when you have many of the highest ranking institutions.

 

[Adisa]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Eboue]

scroll up