We might gain more converts to the cause of universal health care if we begin to speak in terms of reciprocity, rather than of rights. I understand that a very few among us are so well-insulated from the vagaries of life so as never to need to ask for help, but the vast majority are not; so the question should be “What kind of health care system would you want in place if you suddenly needed it?”
This framing puts the emphasis on reciprocity (putting the Golden Rule into practice), while talk of rights—whether for or against—tends to be far more abstract and impersonal.
The refusal of some DINO dems also includes the Clinton factor. HRC despises Bernie sanders and so do (apparently) the Bill & Hill political sycophant clones who put campaign-contribution bribes and self-interest ahead pr the people and Dem party!
Hillary blames Sanders (among others) for her defeat and I’m sure the Clinton country Clones - including that wanker Sean Patrick Maloney, as well as Schumer and other NY DINO’s!
Sellouts for cash r us - always mealy-mouthed diversions and obfuscation in answers from the opponents of Single-Payer universal health care either HR 676 or Sanders MFA bill!
“Dems not Backing Medicare for All” need to be fiercely " primaried" their next re-election cycle! This worked for “Tea Party” Republicans. It can work for Progressive Democrats.
His name is RON not RoB Wyden. Please, let’s at least get their names right as we shame them out of office.
Money is free $$$$$$$peech, got some?
I’ve been trying to make the Tea Party analogy for many years. There are at least three problems:
You need real, credible progressive candidates to actually run for the offices. It’s not going to be good enough to just be nuts, as if you were a real Tea Party candidate.
You need to overcome the cult of the lesser evil who will never vote for anyone not approved by Hillary Clinton;
When people see “Tea Party” they stop reading and call me a Nazi.
I don’t know, this reciprocity deal sounds more complicated. The question you posed might be answered by saying, “a health system where costs are lower,” etc., which doesn’t get us anywhere. Saying it’s a right makes in all-inclusive, and that’s what universal health care is about.
Some folks think of rights like pie—if I get more, you get less. Reciprocity is like that old barn-raising spirit, or paying it forward, or small-c communism. It’s less complicated in practice than in theory.
“[T]he senator’s plan to make government the single payer of the nation’s healthcare costs”: This is a good start. The government should compete in other areas too with businesses until capitalists cease to exist in the US.
Good points. Re. 1., that means forget the Democrats. They never put up a truly progressive candidate, it is always an establishment DNC neo-liberal Israel-first warmongering clone, with the occasional exception on a swing issue or two to make them more appealing to the LOTE crowd (gun control, consumer protection, come down hard on the big banks, keep the internet free, pro-LGTBQ, etc.). But ALWAYS pure Establishment in all things that matter the most.
Re. 2. See 1. Re. 3-lol
This is a good analysis of the GOP Graham-Cassidy health reform bill introduced the same day as Medicare For All:
Healthcare - human health - is an inherent right PERIOD. It’s not about helping people out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s part of the package that comes at conception, just as certain responsibilities do. We don’t need to beg for our rights. We must demand them.
Yes - which is why Trump’s base are so frothing-at-the-mouth hateful towards anyone who is not white, or who supports anyone who is not white. Their tiny little minds think that if black and brown foreigners come here and get more rights, then somehow they will lose some of their own rights. Your pie analogy is right on the money - there is a finite number of rights, so we need to hold on to the few that we have or we will lose them to someone else. Ranting idiocy.
And there’s this: Indians, Chicana/os and African-Americans preceded the vast majority of whites. So really xenophobia is that and nothing else.
Looks like the co-sponsors are driving up their price to sell out.
By invoking the defense of ACA Schumer and Pelosi are likely dividing the base of their own party while, of course, not offending their donors from the health “care” industry. I don’t see them as really that different from the Republicans even if ACA does help millions of people. It still leaves out 28 million people.
Pressure, resistance are necessary against such fossils as Schumer and Pelosi.
And beware of the co-sponsors gumming a good bill to death as their medical-industrial contributions increase. The pressure has to be across the board. The only allies we have are us - WE THE PEOPLE.
Maybe I was unclear. Reciprocity is, as you allude to, not about “helping people out of the goodness of their hearts” (although there’s undoubtedly some of that). It’s about enlightened self-interest—if I refuse to help others in their time of need, I shouldn’t be suprised or offended when no one answers my call; the reverse is also true.
Mexico’s economy is the 13th largest in the world, and immigrants sent 86 billions dollars there last year. 26 billion of that from undocumented workers. It is about money and always has been.