of the world has shown.

The vast majority of Democratic didn't choose a candidate who campaigned on MFA.

Imagine the outcry from Sanders supporters if Sanders had actually won, and les than 5% of the total delegates said they wouldn't vote for a platform that included MFA instead of expanding the ACA...



Just when we need unity the most...

they would not know... and it was WAY longer than two years...

Also, it only went national after all the provinces had done so independently, and even now, it's still primarily administered and funded at the province level, not the federal level, as the M4A proposal promises.

Interestingly, the Sanders M4A proposal went from being fully operational in eight years in his 2016 iteration, down to two years in 2019, when it had to compete with other Single Payer proposals.

I guess when you don't expect to ever have to really deliver, you can promise that your invention will do "thiiiiiiiiiiiiiis much more" to make it more appealing to investors than the other prototypes of the same product. But when a more practical and workable invention is chosen, one can always claim that their invention would have changed the world and all mankind as we know it for the better, if only they hadn't been targeted by those who hated them personally and just didn't want to see progress in the world...

A rather status quo tactic in campaign years.

a good thing.

So there's that.

Imagine the accusations that would fly if Sanders had won, let alone by as much as Biden did, and Biden candidates stated that they would not vote for any platform that included M4A....

That's what is problematic for you?

Or that you would be calling those 360 delegates pushing the ACA if the primary outcome was reversed "divisive" and "sore losers?"

but I'm sure I will be utilizing the tool again.

"We're done here."



BTW - I don't see any "nasty ass comments about AOC" on DU. You may be misreading people's posts if you are finding that sort of thing.

There are 360 delegates pushing this out of almost 4000 delegates. This is a rather lame stunt that will fail.

I had to live through this crap at the 2016 convention where sanders delegates engaged in planned stunts of booing John Lewis, Stacy Abrams and Elijah Cummings. I was at the mini-riot at the Texas delegation breakfast where sanders delegates demanded that we condemn Hillary Clinton and vote for Sanders. My daughter was my guest and was yelled at and called the c-word by sander delegates for not agreeing to get me to change my vote.

I hope that we do not have a repeat of the 2016 convention.

of a minority of the population, but for some that doesn't apply when it comes to attempts by a small minority of Democrats to demand outsized representation when it comes to the platform.

Link to tweet

There will br no real floor fighting this issue. Politico is pushing a bogus issue

that this tiny group made a couple of changes that're no real change from what they intended anyway. They'll do that to please those who want to hear that. The little 360 will trumpet it as a victory they achieved by "talking truth to power," but they'll also smear their fellow delegates as corrupt for rejecting their extremely questionable agenda.

In other words, no change from 2016, no new awareness, no shame. In words Politico happily reported against another, but very different Democrat, they are "without remorse."

She’s quite awful.

....aren't in a position to bicker.

"M4A" is not a popular plan with Americans. In fact even at this late date it's not even a plan yet.

Now is the perfect time for Democrats to push for M4A

....we can push for it.

But divisiveness among the Democratic Party about three months before a CRITICAL election will do more harm than good.

When I was a young boy, my father used to tell me that the first priority of a politician is to get elected. If he/she doesn't get elected, he/she can do very little if anything to affect legislation.

something for them that is severely needed at this point in time. You obviously disagree and there is nothing that will ever convince me that M4A is something that can wait or shouldn't be tried.

....yet. It's a concept, a list of bullet points, with very few specifics.

"M4A" is a catchphrase, and most Americans do not embrace that concept.

Without the Presidency and a Senate majority that's all that will result, an "attempt" that will fall short.

I've said it several times, those advocating for "M4A" need to have a detailed plan before "attempting" to get it passed.

Over the years, many years ago, I ran several marathons. I didn't start any of them with just 385 yards remaining. I had to run the first 26 miles first.

Just like the dogma that getting rid of Planned Parenthood will bring in an era of chastity and abortions will go away.

Even those GOP leaders who know that's not the way things really work, acording to health policy experts, they are never going to say so because their constituents who think that Planned Parenthood is the dragon that needs to be slain won't listen to anything else. It would be heresy.

Many feel that acknowledging that M4A isn't going to work here in the U.S. is equal to betraying Senator Sanders, because he has equated himself and "Morality" with M$A or bust, and would be considered heresy by many of his supporters.

Unquestioning lockstep in with manifesto thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere, but it does make for a really dynamic rally.

The reason that BLM will last as a movement, whereas Nader's and those like him don't, is that they are inclusive, not a cult of personality, and don't fall on and feed upon anyone who dares to suggest more solutions.

it's divisive, and only serves the self-satisfaction of a few at the expense of the greater good.

For example, voting against actual, possible health care for poor children because one didn't get to have everything in it that they wanted, nor have ownership of it.

No need to respond.... as you have so politely informed others on this thread.

No one will be paying attention to these delegates in the real world. They lack the vote to do anything in the real world

Link to tweet

I was a Clinton delegate to Philadelphia and as such I was vetted by the campaign. The campaign had the right to approve me and to remove me as a delegate. Sander has made his delegates sign agreements acknowledging this right

Link to tweet

UHC should be the goal though, not a specific solution.
As I understand Medicare, it only covers 80% and supplemental insurance is required to cover the rest.

What other solutions are out there? What can we do to not make healthcare tied to your job?

We cannot start fighting each other and work towards a solution.

But hey, why listen to the majority of Democrats when creating the party platform... or the actual winner of the primary?

The other chance we had was to sit at the table in 1971 with Nixon, who had a plan to the left of Obamacare. Ted Kennedy was told by fellow Democrats "Single Payer or nothing" so he walked away. We cut off our nose to spite our face for the sake of purity.

Ted learned a lesson from that, even though others clearly have not.

He said before he died that it was one of the biggest regrets of his political career, because we might have had something close to what Canada or the UK has by now.

What ever you want to call it.

But saying you won’t support the nominee over labels is dumb.

Also, whatever, it’s not happening right away, so quit your whining, pull up your drawers and save the world from trump.

First priority.

Great at tilting at windmills and losing.

The primary is over. The platform was negotiated WITH YOUR INPUT.

Biden is in favor of UHC, stop crying because it not YOUR VERSION of UHC.

These folks act like there are two choices M4A or Mad Max. There are many ways to accomplish UHC. None of them include letting Trump win.

A smart person changes their mind when new information changes the equation.

Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2020, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

As of May 27: "KFF polling finds more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer voting for a candidate who wants to build on the ACA in order to expand coverage and reduce costs rather than replace the ACA with a national Medicare-for-all plan (Figure 12). Additionally, KFF polling has found broader public support for more incremental changes to expand the public health insurance program in this country including proposals that expand the role of public programs like Medicare and Medicaid (Figure 13). And while partisans are divided on a Medicare-for-all national health plan, there is robust support among Democrats, and even support among over four in ten Republicans, for a government-run health plan, sometimes called a public option (Figure 14). "

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/

Besides, the vast majority of countries who have UHC don't use single payer to get to UHC, but a hybrid of public/private mechanisms to administrate and deliver health care.

There are politicians who claim that new information that comes in that changes the equation from what they propose is just HATE, and must be totally false, and PROPAGANDA from nefarious sources, and should not be listened to.

By your own standard, would you say that they are smart people, or not so smart people?

given what we have ALL learned as a result of this pandemic. If he changes his mind and swings toward M4A, it's perfectly understandable at this point in our collective evolution.

crucify him for being "inconstant" or "corruptable."

Why should he "swing towards" M4A any more than he has? As I showed you, most Democrats want to focus on repairing and restoring the ACA.

Those people you talk about on "the far left" are usually russian plants, not American democrats. I'm about as far left as you can go, and I can't imagine throwing a hissy fit over Biden going for M4A.

what they appear to be?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/13/bernie-sanders-fans-joe-biden-democratic-candidate

You may want to re-read my post:

Sanders Med for all is extremely flawed. How can you strong arm someone to force a flawed law? Lol. We don't need them

There won't be any ridiculous and infantile booing and attempted disruption this year.

full respect that he deserves.

He would be a galvanizing figure, and not a divisive one.

and disdain in the last convention have a chance to think about how their actions appeared to those in the Social Justice community.

Congressman Lewis was gracious, and not defensive, as always, as befits someone secure in their own skin, message and motivations.

Here we go again, 360 delegates out of almost 4,000 delegates will not be able to get their way With a virtual convention, there should be little coverage of this stunt.

I am still irked. It took years of hard work to be elected as a delegate to the National Convention in 2016. I have the joy of watching planned stunts of John Lewis, Elijah Cummings and other being booed (Clinton delegates were warned of these planned stunts by our whips at least 20 minutes in advance). I got to watch a mini-riot at the Texas delegation breakfast where sanders delegates demanded that we condemn Hillary Clinton and vote for sanders. My daughter was yelled at and called the c-word by sanders delegates because she would not try to get me to change my vote.

I hope that there is not a repeat of the 2016 convention

thing about a Virtual Convention.. we won't have to hear the Boos from the Losers.

All votes will be by secured emails with no chance to disrupt

The total lack of interest in actually trying to pass something in the place where laws are made is very noticeable.

He's missed 70% of Senate votes since he conceded the primary to Biden.

I wonder if he's having health issues.

nothing to help with it.

It was the democratic governor that tried.

So there is still that total lack of interest in actually trying to pass something.

And Sanders gets testy when asked about lessons learned from Green Mountain Care.

One would think that if one had analyzed what happened and learned lessons from a failed attempt in VT that would to make it work better and be more appealing to a much wider and more diverse population, one would be eager to share them.

Then again, some people don't like to acknowledge data or anecdotal evidences which does not support their dearly held ideas. Or subject those ideas to close analysis.

ColoradoCare was voted down soundly in 2016, and the California plan hit a huge obstacle when Medicare recipients found out that funds from Medicare and Medicaid would be diverted to the new plan.

I don't think that COVID is going to change that.

of bills to with massive amounts to benefit corporations and a little bit to people who are hurting? No need to respond. We all know that nothing will get done in the Senate and trying to pass anything that benefits people will go nowhere. But then you knew that.

We all know that Pelosi and Obama were able to do in months what Sanders has not been able to do in all his decades on the Hill, get actual health care legislation that delivered health care to actual people who needed it. 30 million and counting.

CHIPRA was expanded from CHIP by Obama in 2009, giving more children coverage under Medicaid.

Ted Kennedy and HRC (when she was FLOTUS) were the others who managed to actually deliver on a promise of access to health care via CHIP, which provided health care for millions of children - AOC being one of them. Congressman Sanders voted against it. Ironic isn't it?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/105-1997/h345

How many people have gotten health care coverage as a result of Senator Sanders's talking about it for decades? Other than his family and staff?

No need to respond.

has passed over 400 bills. Mitch is ignoring them. Nothing that anyone introduces that benefits people will be brought to a vote. Unless it gives billions to corporations and the wealthy.

The answer to the question that I asked you is "Zero." Which you knew.

That's why you tried to change the subject to McConnell and Trump.



Did you even know that Sanders voted against CHIP, which AOC said was the only way that she got health care as a child?

No need to respond....

posts there is no rule that says you have to look for them to respond to me.

clearly uncomfortable.

No need to respond...

board.

Especially if one is trying very, very hard to distract from the rather uncomfortable truths revealed in a thread.

Such as a politician who votes against a very successful law that provides free health care for poor children (AOC, no less!), yet claims to have the corner on truth or health policy expertise or political will when it comes to dismissing other legislators successful laws that help people actually get health care who didn't before as inferior to a proposal that hasn't been successful since the 1940s, when it actually had a chance to work.

No need to respond, as you've politely told others here.

You got that right ehrnst.

Especially after you being the very first to tell people, "no need to respond..."

I can always count on a good laugh from your responses.

Thanks!



(My revelations still too uncomfortable to even acknowledge, eh? I understand. Especially the irony of Sanders' no vote on CHIP in light of AOC being a beneficiary...that's gotta be rough to hear. But you know what they say about lawmaking and sausage - don't look too close if you have a delicate constitution.)

I understand why. I don't have a problem with that vote. He's not the only politicians who voted no on a bill because of something contained in the bill. I'm also not the first to tell people no need to respond to a rhetorical question.

Go for it.

I would be utterly shocked to hear otherwise. You're not going to answer any of my questions, address them, whatever, no matter how many times you respond. It's just too awkward. I totally get it. Believe me.

No need to respond, as you've so politely told people.

plenty of no votes by Democrats that you are fine with.

Really hit a nerve, didn't I?

I guess that aligning or not aligning with votes "by Democrats" is something that's a difference between you and I? You made that distinction between Bernie's votes and those "Democrats'" votes, not me.



TagURit!

But that post of yours about me agreeing with "votes by Democrats" as opposed to something you agree with was rather telling.



Talk about getting personal...



TagURit!



When way more than half of Democrats vote "Nope" that's more than a mandate for a Democratic platform, BTW.

that you have been fine with. I understand and was fine as to why Bernie voted no on CHIPS. Also his no vote would have made no difference in the outcome. It still passed.

I guess when you have nothing and still want to post, that's what you have left.

Since you brought it up, Bernie certainly has no problem taking down Democrats who vote no on something he proposes, even if it "would have made no difference in the outcome," and no matter how symbolic, even an amendment that had no chance of passing. As you've clearly demonstrated, dissent is not an option.

So there's that. Anything other topic you'd like to try to redirect to?



See, here's the thing. BLM will last as a movement, because they invite a wide group in to join them. They don't quash any dissent from a manifesto as heresy. Nader and his like will not have a "movement" that lasts past their campaigning. John Lewis was a great example of a real leader, a civil rights Icon, and he was called a "neoliberal traitor" by those on the far left because he didn't subscribe to the manifesto.

Real leaders don't expect people to look away from their inconsistencies while they demand absolutes from others. They listen, instead of simply waiting for people who kindred that they don't agree lockstep with to stop talking so they can tell them how "silly" or misguided they are, then repeat their talking point loop again. While it makes for dynamic rallies, a movement requires growth to last. Rigidity isn't strength in a movement, just in manifestos. Manifestos don't last once things they claim to be infallible on change, they become hollow.

That's life, Hon. Look at history. I didn't invent it.

That's what MY response was on because that's what YOU brought up, and if "way more than half of Democrats vote "Nope" on CHIPS" what is your complaint about Bernie's no vote?

I responded. And REALLY hit a nerve.

HRC and Ted Kennedy were certainly on the right side of history on that, wouldn't you say? By the standards of Sanders' current political messaging, anyway. And certainly where AOC and other kids like her are concerned.

HRC and Ted Kennedy got it DONE, unlike others who simply talked a whole lot about free health care, then voted no when they had a chance to make something real happen to bring it about, and claim "consistency" as a hallmark.

Since you brought it up, the "way more than half of the Democrats" who voted no on that bill didn't claim a corner on "morality" or infallibility on Health Care policy or make "free health care" their political brand.

But I'll bite - tell me the names any of the Democratic "no" votes who have.

I'll wait.



You see, Ted Kennedy learned a lesson about the cost of political purity for purity's sake in preventing one from getting real progress back in 1971. He understood when a foolish consistency to save face would prevent actually helping people, and didn't keep promoting the same failed tactic over and over again.

Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2020, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)

You will be waiting a long time before I discuss anything more than MY opinion on Bernie's 'no" vote on CHIPS. And no, it didn't hit a nerve, I was fine with his vote, and obviously so was AOC.




And actually, YOU brought up the CHIPS subject.

ehrnst (31,263 posts)

40. The ACA and CHIPR passed in months. Before that Ted Kennedy and HRC got CHIP through in months.

We all know that Pelosi and Obama were able to do in months what Sanders has not been able to do in all his decades on the Hill, get actual health care legislation that delivered health care to actual people who needed it. 30 million and counting.

CHIPRA was expanded from CHIP by Obama in 2009, giving more children coverage under Medicaid.

Ted Kennedy and HRC (when she was FLOTUS) were the others who managed to actually deliver on a promise of access to health care via CHIP, which provided health care for millions of children - AOC being one of them. Congressman Sanders voted against it. Ironic isn't it?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/105-1997/h345

How many people have gotten health care coverage as a result of Senator Sanders's talking about it for decades? Other than his family and staff?

No need to respond.

And you can't name a single one of those Democrats who voted no who had made "free health care" their political brand, and claimed the moral high ground on it, let alone to this day.

Ted Kennedy, on the other hand understood the lessons of 1971 in clinging to a failed strategy, and he, unlike others, got actual legislation into being. Thankfully for AOC, who didn't mention Sander's no vote CHIP when she talked about it in her speech about him. Do you think she knew? I can't imagine that Sanders brought it up when she said she was going to talk about what was HRC and Ted Kennedy's signature achievement in health care justice. It would not be something one would expect him to do.

You can ask a question, I'll answer it or not. It just happens I chose to answer that one.

That seems to show that you think if you stop posting, that will indicate that you reallly have no rebuttal to my points, but continuing to post irritated responses while avoiding the issue shows the same, and doesn't convince anyone.

Just as you didn't convince people that you weren't referring to ousting Pelosi when you talked about others "taking the reins."

TagURit.

If dissident groups agree with the majority, they lose their reason for existence and their leaders lose something to lead. But that's no excuse for not doing just that and turning their focus to genuinely achieving universal healthcare.

At least a few of them have to know that dismantling the ACA and pretending they're sure they could get even most of a whole new program begun from scratch successfully implemented -- over the next DECADE against virulent Republican opposition -- is not a viable option and inimical to achievement of universal healthcare.

THIS, while so many continue to suffer as a result of the dreadful derailing of 2016.

things will come afterwards, after the celebrations die down and things get down to serious business, repairing the crap that rump and Senate failed to do or canceled via exec. orders, bills/etc. to forever ban the crap that rump thinks he has the power to do (but didn't), that is, to restrain the excesses of the WH.

I think far more people are surprised by just how much the PINO abused this office (and that he was able to), with no checks and balances (they were unwilling to exercise their duty to impeach the PINO). Everything else will come afterwards. We have 4 years at least.

Everyone won't get what they want in this sort of thing.

The Biden campaign won't commit to the Party Platform (the nominee hasn't for decades) and the average voter will never bother to read what's in it.

So, one has to wonder the actual goal behind it.

Many of the Bernie supporters insisted during the Primaries that Biden was a weak candidate and could not beat Trump.

There can be only one.... so I hear.

Booing, hissing, refusing to vote, etc, etc, etc..?

icons by some like the last convention.

I just wish John Lewis he had lived to see this convention, where he wouldn't be so disrespected, and he could inspire another generation by showing what real sacrifice and service to what some would dismiss as "identity politics" and remind everyone who the party of social justice - including universal health care - is.

However, they could get creative and stage an online boo-fest.

Hopefully not.

and mute those who are not in line to speak.

Having led online meetings for years, usually in large meetings, participants are muted until it's their time to speak, and then it's limited only 2 or 3 at a time.

I think Katie Porter talked about conference calls for Congress during the pandemic being a "level of hell" because of the reps that didn't know how to mute their phones. I'm assuming something more sophisticated like Adobe Connect will be used for the convention.

Then of course the media will pick it up much like the protest Jill Stein did outside the convention in 2016.

He's not as ego-driven, hyperdefensive, or needy as other less secure leaders.

landslide either. I don't care what they want. We need to move the country forward in terms of policy. Had Hillary been elected it would be different. Those who voted for Stein lost influence and gained nothing...we move right and won the house with moderates...now these moderates are going to have a say...and the left will maybe begin to realize they miscalculated and really have less influence. Also influence is won at the ballot box by winning hearts and minds... it is earned. A big tent is the only way we ever win...deal with it folks.

Meh.

Priorities...

Link to tweet