Nancy Pelosi says no to Sanders' health care proposal

[Holmes]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/politics/nancy-pelosi-bernie-sanders-taxes/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry.

[The Free North]

She's 100% correct, but I don't think this is much of a revelation for anyone at this point.

Large portions of Sander's agenda would never get close to passing.

[Phony Moderate]

If only Sanders had the personality of LBJ he could get literally anything passed.

[The Free North]

If only Sanders had the personality of LBJ he could get literally anything passed.

*Congressional supermajority

[ProgressiveCanadian]

It's obvious who's side she's on.

[Pyro]

HP

[Holmes]

It's obvious who's side she's on.

Yes, she's always been in favor of the policies that will get Democrats elected all over the country because she knows that's the best way to go about passing progressive legislation. Remember that the legislation that Pelosi brought forward as Speaker always passed, no matter how many blue dogs were in the Democratic caucus at the time.

[Virginiá]

It's obvious who's side she's on.

Yes, she's always been in favor of the policies that will get Democrats elected all over the country because she knows that's the best way to go about passing progressive legislation. Remember that the legislation that Pelosi brought forward as Speaker always passed, no matter how many blue dogs were in the Democratic caucus at the time.

I'm actually rather pleased she isn't willing to try and pass legislation that will cost Democrats a hypothetical majority right after losing their large majority for passing similar legislation.

[NeverAgain]

It's obvious who's side she's on.

Yes, she's always been in favor of the policies that will get Democrats elected all over the country because she knows that's the best way to go about passing progressive legislation. Remember that the legislation that Pelosi brought forward as Speaker always passed, no matter how many blue dogs were in the Democratic caucus at the time.

I'm actually rather pleased she isn't willing to try and pass legislation that will cost Democrats a hypothetical majority right after losing their large majority for passing similar legislation.

*cough* Watered-down legislation that only gives to the private industry instead of really focusing on those without healthcare *cough*

[Adam Griffin]

The thing is...what Sanders is offering had majority support before Democrats spent all of their political capital and years of effort on a private-sector patchwork solution that was too complicated for people to understand, pissed them off and handed us a generation of defeat. The public option even passed her House as I recall. It had a majority in the Senate I believe as well. Procedure killed it, and the wishy-washy outcome of that procedure (healthcare) killed us, and we couldn't even get it right in the process.

There's the public reality and then there's the political reality; she understands the political reality. However, it seems she misses one part of the political reality. The reality that "that's not going to happen" is very poignant, and something Pelosi should take to heart: thanks to the drumming we took in 2010, nothing's going to happen during the remainder of Pelosi's lifetime in regards to her having influence on the process, other than those instances where we pull the government back from the brink of disaster by putting our caucus with a few dozen partially-lucid GOP members to pay our debts or defund the gas chambers at the last minute.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's obvious who's side she's on.

Yes, she's always been in favor of the policies that will get Democrats elected all over the country because she knows that's the best way to go about passing progressive legislation.

That worked out great.

[Lief 🗽]

The thing is...what Sanders is offering had majority support before Democrats spent all of their political capital and years of effort on a private-sector patchwork solution that was too complicated for people to understand, pissed them off and handed us a generation of defeat.

Are you kidding me? Singlepayer healthcare never had anywhere near a majority of even hypothetical support in the 2009 Congress. Total fiction.

[Ebsy]

The thing is...what Sanders is offering had majority support before Democrats spent all of their political capital and years of effort on a private-sector patchwork solution that was too complicated for people to understand, pissed them off and handed us a generation of defeat.

Sorry, this just isn't true.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

It's obvious who's side she's on.

The entirety of the Democratic Party is bowing to their queen.  Hopefully Bernie can give the whole lot of 'em a fine whuppin' and bring out that young idealist that once championed single-payer and other progressive goals.

[Likely Voter]

The Affordable Care Act could easily be called PelosiCare. If it werent' for her, it would have never passed. And she knows it that it barely passed when she was actually Speaker and the Dems had the Senate. So yeah, even if she were inclined to start all over again, she knows it isn't going to happen.

[Holmes]

It just reinforces the idea that none of Sanders' policy proposals will ever get passed. It's also worth noting that pretty much all Democratic congresspeople, save for Keith Ellison, have endorsed Clinton over him, their own colleague. If that's not a big indication of whether they'd go to bat for his proposals over hers, I don't know what is.

The thing is...what Sanders is offering had majority support before Democrats spent all of their political capital and years of effort on a private-sector patchwork solution that was too complicated for people to understand, pissed them off and handed us a generation of defeat.

Sorry, this just isn't true.

Yeah, it's just not. And even if it was, Democrats needed a supermajority anyway, not just a simple majority.

[SillyAmerican]

She's 100% correct, but I don't think this is much of a revelation for anyone at this point.

Large portions of Sander's agenda would never get close to passing.

Agreed. Sanders can't even get Pelosi on board; sorry, he's a nice guy, but his proposals are way off base.

[Virginiá]

*cough* Watered-down legislation that only gives to the private industry instead of really focusing on those without healthcare *cough*

Well, yeah. I totally agree. That actually makes it so much worse. They blew their only shot to implement real reform and instead sacrificed their majorities in Congress for a half-baked insurance company giveaway. If they took back Congress and tried to "reform" healthcare again, they will probably lose their majorities once again. At least as long as the electorate skews somewhat conservative with the "free stuff" mentality.

They need to just stop with healthcare and focus on one of the myriad other issues this country has.

[Adam Griffin]

Are you kidding me? Singlepayer healthcare never had anywhere near a majority of even hypothetical support in the 2009 Congress. Total fiction.

Sorry, this just isn't true.

Unless you're phrasing the question like Scotty Rassy...

2006: 56% in favor of single-payer
2007: 54-44 in favor of single payer
2009: 49-46 in favor of single-payer
2015: Majority still in favor of single-payer

The most important broad-based metric has always been above water...except for that time we wasted all of our political capital on an overly-complicated ball of crap and failed to explain it.

[Green Line]

Are you kidding me? Singlepayer healthcare never had anywhere near a majority of even hypothetical support in the 2009 Congress. Total fiction.

Sorry, this just isn't true.

Unless you're phrasing the question like Scotty Rassy...

2006: 56% in favor of single-payer
2007: 54-44 in favor of single payer
2009: 49-46 in favor of single-payer
2015: Majority still in favor of single-payer

The most important broad-based metric has always been above water...except for that time we wasted all of our political capital on an overly-complicated ball of crap and failed to explain it.

Single payer government run health care that eliminates private insurance and the vague statement that "the government should make sure everyone has health care" are not the same thing.

[7,052,770]

22,000,000 uninsured people get affordable health insurance thanks to Obamacare and some red avatars just whine about how it doesn't exactly line up with a hypothetical "perfect" plan in their minds...

Obamacare IS universal health care. The only ways people don't have health coverage under the ACA:

• People making less than 100% of FPL in states where Medicaid wasn't expanded. This is frustrating, but the holdout states will trickle in over the next decade.
• People who just don't know they are required to get health insurance, or don't know how. As years go by, this number will fall to 0.
• People who are intentionally going insured as an act of civil disobedience against Obama. Like Louie Gohmert. This number will drop dramatically once Obama's out of office, and there's really not much you can do about it anyway -- those same people would refuse to participate in any other universal health scheme too.

Who cares whether universal health care is provided directly by the government (UK, France), or by a mix of private industry and the government (USA, Germany)? As long as it works, it's all good.

[NeverAgain]

*cough* Watered-down legislation that only gives to the private industry instead of really focusing on those without healthcare *cough*

Well, yeah. I totally agree. That actually makes it so much worse. They blew their only shot to implement real reform and instead sacrificed their majorities in Congress for a half-baked insurance company giveaway. If they took back Congress and tried to "reform" healthcare again, they will probably lose their majorities once again. At least as long as the electorate skews somewhat conservative with the "free stuff" mentality.

They need to just stop with healthcare and focus on one of the myriad other issues this country has.

I disagree, as long as there are 44 million people with-out insurance and 38 million without adequate care we need to focus on this. I think it was their goal of a evolutionary healthcare process instead of a revolutionary one that allowed so many to cower in the corner and let the GOP run a muck on their plan. The amount of gaffes and incredulous stupidity that was allowed on the part of the Democrats really was the reason that ACA became a fraction of its intention, one that if fulfilled, many would be happy with.

[NeverAgain]

22,000,000 uninsured people get affordable health insurance thanks to Obamacare and some red avatars just whine about how it doesn't exactly line up with a hypothetical "perfect" plan in their minds...

Obamacare IS universal health care. The only ways people don't have health coverage under the ACA:

• People making less than 100% of FPL in states where Medicaid wasn't expanded. This is frustrating, but the holdout states will trickle in over the next decade.
• People who just don't know they are required to get health insurance, or don't know how. As years go by, this number will fall to 0.
• People who are intentionally going insured as an act of civil disobedience against Obama. Like Louie Gohmert. This number will drop dramatically once Obama's out of office, and there's really not much you can do about it anyway -- those same people would refuse to participate in any other universal health scheme too.

Who cares whether universal health care is provided directly by the government (UK, France), or by a mix of private industry and the government (USA, Germany)? As long as it works, it's all good.

I don't think anyone (red avatar/sane) here is not saying that ACA wasn't a step in the right direction, and for those who don't. It was. What I am is that there are still almost 50 million people without care and many more without adequate access to it. I don't think those people are just in such hatred of Obama that they just don't get healthcare... You may be right that there are some people that don't know that they need healthcare, but that is a minuscule number and is probably just made up of college students who are just lazy or don't feel the need to get it. I agree with you that how ever it works should be the plan, but what we have now doesn't, and that needs to change.

[Adam Griffin]

Single payer government run health care that eliminates private insurance and the vague statement that "the government should make sure everyone has health care" are not the same thing.

It's the fundamental question. You can poll on the broader subject with any number of broad or specific statements that are designed to suppress or expand support for the concept, and end up with anywhere from 35 to 65% of the public supporting the concept. The primary opposition against enacting single-payer does not reside within the public at-large. Any time you provide specifics on a broader issue, public support shifts (and often erodes) - but not always for the reasons some people would like to assume.

One example would be to ask if people support "universal background checks" - 80 to 90% agree. Begin articulating each specific piece of what is required to implement it, and support begins to plunge markedly. A counter-example (where people support a concept more as they learn about it) is ACA: ask people if they like "Obamacare" and a narrow plurality or majority might say no. Ask them point-by-point if they support what constitutes "Obamacare", and it's an aggregate respectable majority in favor.

The common denominator is that the public doesn't know much at all and can be persuaded in either direction by whoever has the best narrative. This is the biggest reason why ACA was a flop, in my opinion: we lost the narrative and it cost Democrats far more than it was worth. At the end of the day, single-payer would follow the same trajectory: people would like the broader idea, grow to dislike whatever actually manifested as advertised, but then would actually like the individual provisions when explained.

[Virginiá]

I disagree, as long as there are 44 million people with-out insurance and 38 million without adequate care we need to focus on this. I think it was their goal of a evolutionary healthcare process instead of a revolutionary one that allowed so many to cower in the corner and let the GOP run a muck on their plan. The amount of gaffes and incredulous stupidity that was allowed on the part of the Democrats really was the reason that ACA became a fraction of its intention, one that if fulfilled, many would be happy with.

I could get on board with it if it's one of the last thing they did after 4~ years or so of working with a governing majority. Assuming they had a large enough majority to fix it, we need affordable college / student debt relief, much better labor laws across the board, major infrastructure expansion, voting rights expansion / campaign finance reform, .. the list goes on.

After the spectacle that was PPACA, the public will no doubt revolt against Democrats just like they did before if they start tinkering with massive healthcare proposals again anytime in the next 10 - 15 years. Students have been waiting for relief for years (basically all my friends from college would agree). The infrastructure is crumbling and its time we expand it instead of just maintaining. Labor laws / unions have been steamrolled by morally bankrupt Republicans for decades now. These things should be prioritized ahead of more healthcare reform.

It's not fair to just risk it all for healthcare time and time again while other seriously important issues go neglected. Besides, at this point, I'm not even sure I trust them to actually enact the reform they always talk about in debates and op-eds. Those special interests aren't just going to go away and they have already shown themselves to be either too greedy or too spineless to ignore the threats of the healthcare lobby.