Home | About | Donate

The Impossibility of Bipartisan Healthcare Compromise


The Impossibility of Bipartisan Healthcare Compromise

Ryan Cooper

If there's one thing political centrists claim to value, it's compromise. It's "the way Washington is supposed to work," writes Third Way's Bill Schneider. "Centrists, or moderates, are really people who are willing to compromise," The Moderate Voice's Robert Levine tells Vice.


The word Bipartisan is as stupid and useless a word as Duopoly.

Neither of these two parties will ever save the People.


The unfortunate thing is, if the US were to really try to institute a system like, say, they have in Canada, the capitalist hospital-insurance complex would basically follow the script from Chile in 1972-73, present day Venezuela, and Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” and engineer a deliberate collapse of healthcare sector of the economy, and maybe other sectors too - and blame it on “the socialists”. Many poeple/patients will die, and riots will ensue against the “socialists”.


Cooper sez:
“… the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future (PAHCF), says it is a ‘diverse, patient-focused coalition committed to pragmatic solutions to strengthen our nation’s health-care system.’”

The name should be altered slightly to: the Partnership for Future American Health Care. The acronym ‘PFAHC’ rolls off the tongue more smoothly.


What you’re suggesting could be construed as a " conspiracy " to damage the security of the United States. Attacking the economy in that way would bleed over into the housing and retirement sectors, as well. And, it would take 3-4 years to accomplish this economic collapse. Or, a couple of elections cycles, to put it in a different context and timeline.
That scenario would surely involve tampering with the voting mechanics of federal elections, illegal campaign contributions and wholesale bribery of numerous elected and sworn gov’t officials. Hmmm…even the highest muckety-mucks in our government could face charges of treason and end up jailbird lifers, or worse.
My heart would pump dishwater for them if that happened to some Clintonistas & Obamabots. :):):):slight_smile:


Let’s dearly hope that “compromise” is impossible, for there’s nary a Democrat in Congress - “progressive” or otherwise - who won’t choose that “pragmatic” cop out, afforded the opportunity.


I’m beginning to think a lot of us don’t think we need saving. From the rich on down to the lower middle class, people are content. The low income people have cars, an over sized TV, an expensive cell phone, are able to have their food and housing paid or subsidized, and most can access healthcare.
Other countries use much more mass transit and live in massive housing (projects), for lack of a better word. We will need to suffer a lot more to motivate people to the street in numbers that are meaningful.


I look everywhere for the spirited discussion surrounding the Texas federal judge ruling today that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. While it will be business somewhat as usual until that showdown, there is a lot of political hay to be made by that decision. For all those willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces, there is glee for the ultimate finger to Obama without realizing they’re left with no cover at all. Others will raise a hue and cry to save the Affordable Care Act warts, holes and all. The insurance companies must be salivating at the thought of the increased revenue represented by the possibility SCOTUS will uphold the lower court ruling leaving a gridlocked congress left unable to fix the problem. Progressives will proclaim it as the opportune reason and moment to go all in for Medicare for all. The Centrists, especially those whose campaigns benefited from insurance and big pharm contributions, will be looking for the perfect “compromise” as discussed above. Watershed moment people…lots of ramifications including chaos.


Why do the terms bipartisanship and compromise only come up when the repugs lose power ?

Anyone else pickup on this ?
“including plans that would allow people under 65 to BUY INTO Medicare”

Before the fight even begins, we go from the house version (improved Medicare for All), to Bernie’s version ( Medicare for All with insurance subsidies), to dem centrists version of being able to BUY INTO Medicare.
I hereby designate Washington DC as the new and improved Military live fire training site. Fire for effect.


The entire rest of the developed world can accomplish a not for profit universal system that is both more effective and more efficient than the “free market” abomination in the USA.

You assertions have been shown to be pure dishonesty time and again.


One thing that pisses me off is how preserving the private profit driven system is always characterized as “centrist” when it is nothing of the kind.

When a strong majority favor Medicare for All it is by default Centrist.


Are you familiar with the history of practically every Latin American country when they have tried comparable reforms? Isn’t the fact that the USA still does not have the host of social benefits that the developed world has (really, just Europe, NZ and Canada and Australia - and many benefits are being dismantled in those countries) suggest that the rules are fundamentally different here?


I think you missed my point. The politicians are not the ones holding power in the USA. Business interests do - and it is those business interests who can mess things up to get their way. No spooky conspiracy is needed, just regular Chamber of Commerce meetings.

And in the political sphere, those business interests can also use modern social media to brainwash the people to go directly against their interests - as the recent elections in Brazil illustrated.


There is way too much whistling past the graveyard going on right now. A court that guts the ACA, a 40-year public sector union precedent, and significant portions of the VRA, is not a court that is going to be amenable to Medicare for All or any major social reform. We do not know where this is headed, but as I said in 2016, progressives that think giving the hard right power will lead to progressive outcomes need to read about the Fuller, Lochner, and Taft Courts.


There was a major doctor strike in Saskatchewan in the 60s. I have serious doubts things would play out the same in this country if that were to occur.


Western Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and much of the rest of the developed world operate highly successful universal, not for profit health care systems. And they are not being dismantled! Your friends only want to dismantle them.

Somehow you want to compare us to third world nations. If your aim is not to mislead us why would you do this? I guess you are not to be trusted.

The USA must change to a public universal not for profit system. We are in a health care crisis. Health care costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy. Health care in the USA costs 18% of our GDP! Much of that is a gift to the profiteers, the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry.


I am fortunate enough to live in a rural Golf resort community, and my wife and I both are ready to hit the streets.

From the looks of things on MSM, the Law is now converging on Trump and his family and the corrupt ilk he’s colluded / conspired with these last two years to bleed the country of it’s treasuries, and perhaps soon we’ll be in a much better circumstance.

That won’t change the fact that 95% of the voting electorate needs brain surgery to correct their addiction to a$$hole political parties that have only money and power in their vision.


Could be. Of course, there are a lot of other scenarios that end roughly similarly. This one has not happened elsewhere. Let’s give it a roll.


At present, we do not even have a compromise between the population and a single party.


To add to your list of countries that have successful universal health care: Costa Rica. I saw a ratings of countries’ health care a while back and even Costa Rica had better health care than the US.