Home | About | Donate

Too Early, Says Sanders, But 2020 Run 'Not Off The Table'


#161

As for stabbing in the back - as in Medicare for All, HR 676, has been introduced in the House since '03 - but not introduced, let alone fought for, the Sen., Sanders not withstanding ,,, when those charming Sen hearings were held in '09 with Ds in control of both chambers and the Pres - SP was not even allowed to be discussed and docs were arrested in those Sen hearings for simply trying to get it on the agenda - the Ds knew that that the momentum for SP was rising and they had to head it off at the pass - so they placated folks with the ACA while further entrenching the interests of private insurers and big phrma - no "public option" (which will fall apart anyway), no cost controls on drugs and Sanders, that SP "champ" voted for it, as did other "prog" Ds ....

As for those 20 million more on the insurance rolls, how many of them could actually afford to access the healthcare they needed, and oh yeah, how many got to "keep their docs" as was promised ,,,,, either pay a very large premium, or a lower one with a large deductible and c0-pays and if you can't afford either you don't get care - no matter how "eligible" you are for "insurance" - the devil is always in the details

We have had bait and switch from the Ds on healthcare for so long - how can you trust any oi them - why do those Sen who express support for it not introduce HR676 as a Sen bill? There is no GOOD reason not to - so why not we keep being told, "now is not the time, we have to first, yadda, yadda, yadda ...: but we have been told that for years - put up or shut up, let them roll up their sleeves and fight for it ... instead of giving us all the excuses why "now is not the time" - all those folks without actual access to care don't have time to wait for the Ds to "tweak" a plan that was seriously defective form the get-go, they don't do it because as Clinton said in perhaps her only honest statement - "you will never get SP" - and she is correct, we won't with D/Rs in power - there are a lot of things we won't get with D/Rs in power ...

We don't have to "primary" corp Dems, any one who runs as a D is dependent on a corp controlled party whether they like it or not ... that's the price they, and we, pay for their "pragmatism"

We have to remove the D/Rs from office - i don't quite get why, after all these years and a series of successive Admin and Congresses, each arguably worse than the last - each "winning" because we keep insisting on LOTE as our guide for voting and each LOTE worse than the last ,, these Ds are to the right of Nixon, for Pete's sake ...

I suppose folks were "deeply satisfied" when Clinton and O were elected as well - until they weren't ....


#162

LOL! Your choices are too palatable! I think perhaps it's more like cyanide v strychnine - no OJ ..(smile)


#163

But my dear - no water, no steam ..... (smile)

Blue is the color of a healthy sky ...

And what are you modeling? No, don't tell me, i think I know ...


#164

Well, if you're a vegetarian like me, then beef isn't very palatable. This night after night as my only choices would mean starvation.


#165

Gotcha! (grin)


#166

Hello Aquifer,

The greatest increase in insurance under the ACA has been in MEDICAID, which is Single Payer and FREE.

From 2009 to 2017, enrollment in Medicaid rose from 50.9 million to 73.5 million, an increase of 22.4 million.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/245347/total-medicaid-enrollment-since-1966/ .......... See the bar graph.

But why are you telling me about Democratic deficiencies in health care? I already agree with you.

Go out and get pro-SP people elected, either in primaries or in general elections. It's not too soon to start.

And as Joe Hillstein said. Don't kvetch, organize.


#167

Qualification for Medicaid is income dependent and one has to practically pauperize oneself to qualify - are you saying that the 20 million that will lose their "insurance" if the ACA is repealed are those on Medicaid? In that case the rest of the ACA is rather useless, doncha think? The only part that would need to be "saved" is the provision for Medicaid expansion - and the actual implementation of that is up to the individual states, some of who have signed on, some of whom haven't ....

In any case, what about the millions who didn't "benefit" at all?

So have you called your Congress reps and insisted on the bill known in the House as HR 676, telling you Congressman to support it, telling your Sen to introduce it?

I have been "forever" trying, here and elsewhere, to get folks to support SP candidates - and pointing out that the Ds are not going to do it, so jumping on their bandwagon is, when push comes to shove, a useless endeavor - so that leaves the folks i HAVE been pushing for some time ...