Schumer - Single Payer is on the table, target is to win back Obama/Trump voters

[Dr. Arch]

Democrats do need a messaging correction, but embracing single payer would only hurt them. Plus, it's a socialist, unamerican system.

As unAmerican as... roads, bridges, emergency response services, social security, medicare...

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Democrats do need a messaging correction, but embracing single payer would only hurt them. Plus, it's a socialist, unamerican system.

As unAmerican as... roads, bridges, emergency response services, social security, medicare...

The first three are absolute necessities, the last two fall to destroy an entire industry. Single Payer completely abolishes private insurance (destroying an entire industry, and thus millions of jobs), rations care, and is far from the only way to provide health care to the nation. It makes sense that it should be viewed on a different level than things like roads and the fire station, and it must be avoided at all costs.

[Dr. Arch]

Democrats do need a messaging correction, but embracing single payer would only hurt them. Plus, it's a socialist, unamerican system.

As unAmerican as... roads, bridges, emergency response services, social security, medicare...

The first three are absolute necessities, the last two fall to destroy an entire industry. Single Payer completely abolishes private insurance (destroying an entire industry, and thus millions of jobs), rations care, and is far from the only way to provide health care to the nation. It makes sense that it should be viewed on a different level than things like roads and the fire station, and it must be avoided at all costs.

I don't know, honestly. Public health seems to fall right in line with the "absolute necessity" category, imo, especially when industries are making more and more profit out of people's well-being. Something about that is just not right.

Private insurers don't need to disappear. A public option would be just that, an option.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I don't think so. The underlying causes and aftereffects of the 2008 financial crisis haven't been adequately addressed beyond financial reform and it's gonna take us to get hit hard again to restructure our macroeconomy in a way that fixes it for good. And that President who solves it will be as beloved as Reagan and Roosevelt were and their legacy and policies will force the opposition Party to moderate.

I think these are the only things that need to be fixed : reinstate glass stegall and have Feds rate rates a few times . Other then that the current system will be fine.


Anyway people who live in the suburbs are usually benefit least from populism and there is no way Dems can win without the suburbs.

We aren't reinstating any kind of glass steagall and to be honest I don't even think the financial system crashing will be the cataclyst to the crisis. There's a few things to keep an eye on:

1. Private debt accumulation coupled with low inflation and no real wage growth is really taking a beating on tens of millions of people out there. I worry about this the same exact way hardline Tea Partiers worry about the national debt. Couple this with fairly crappy economic opportunities for young people, the gutting of the heartland through the opioid epidemic and economic decline, etc. has made a populace both here and in Europe that is very angry, very bitter, and is demanding for decent political solutions to their problems.

2. State pension systems are usually underfunded and given that economic growth has been concentrated more in certain states and regions of the country (rather than being dispersed fairly evenly), this is gonna cause some crises. Illinois is only one example; but plenty of states have older populations and underfunded pensions systems with limited economic growth and fleeing youth populations. They're gonna be in trouble soon.

3. Our politicians are completely dumbfounded on how to deal with the largest technological revolution since the industrial revolution unfolding before our eyes. A lot of Silicon Valley billionaires aren't taking this lightly either; they understand that this is going to uproot large segments of the American population not seen in a century. But this time unlike last we have a middle class, safety net, etc. People want those things and they're not gonna take technological upheaval well if it means that Republican or state level politicians insist on cutting the budget for these programs during the transitionary phase we're going through.

Supply side economics was created to deal with high inflation, high unemployment, and to create more capital. None of these are problems in today's world. The problems today include: no real wage growth, private debt accumulation plus extremely little inflation to help eat away at the debt, capital underutilization, displaced workers from globalziation, etc. The set of problems we have today are dramatically different than they were in the early 80's.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Democrats do need a messaging correction, but embracing single payer would only hurt them. Plus, it's a socialist, unamerican system.

As unAmerican as... roads, bridges, emergency response services, social security, medicare...

The first three are absolute necessities, the last two fall to destroy an entire industry. Single Payer completely abolishes private insurance (destroying an entire industry, and thus millions of jobs), rations care, and is far from the only way to provide health care to the nation. It makes sense that it should be viewed on a different level than things like roads and the fire station, and it must be avoided at all costs.

I don't know, honestly. Public health seems to fall right in line with the "absolute necessity" category, imo, especially when industries are making more and more profit out of people's well-being. Something about that is just not right.

Private insurers don't need to disappear. A public option would be just that, an option.

I'm open to the idea of a public option. But a public option /=\ single payer. Single payer means the government pays for everything and you can't opt out.

[Dr. Arch]

Democrats do need a messaging correction, but embracing single payer would only hurt them. Plus, it's a socialist, unamerican system.

As unAmerican as... roads, bridges, emergency response services, social security, medicare...

The first three are absolute necessities, the last two fall to destroy an entire industry. Single Payer completely abolishes private insurance (destroying an entire industry, and thus millions of jobs), rations care, and is far from the only way to provide health care to the nation. It makes sense that it should be viewed on a different level than things like roads and the fire station, and it must be avoided at all costs.

I don't know, honestly. Public health seems to fall right in line with the "absolute necessity" category, imo, especially when industries are making more and more profit out of people's well-being. Something about that is just not right.

Private insurers don't need to disappear. A public option would be just that, an option.

I'm open to the idea of a public option. But a public option /=\ single payer. Single payer means the government pays for everything and you can't opt out.

Well, ultimately, I think single payer is best, as in other advanced countries. However, a public option would work too, especially as a compromise. Medicare is a good system that can just be expanded.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats do need a messaging correction, but embracing single payer would only hurt them. Plus, it's a socialist, unamerican system.

As unAmerican as... roads, bridges, emergency response services, social security, medicare...

The first three are absolute necessities, the last two fall to destroy an entire industry. Single Payer completely abolishes private insurance (destroying an entire industry, and thus millions of jobs), rations care, and is far from the only way to provide health care to the nation. It makes sense that it should be viewed on a different level than things like roads and the fire station, and it must be avoided at all costs.

You can still have private insurance with a single payer system. Free roads put a lot of turnpikes out of business.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think so. The underlying causes and aftereffects of the 2008 financial crisis haven't been adequately addressed beyond financial reform and it's gonna take us to get hit hard again to restructure our macroeconomy in a way that fixes it for good. And that President who solves it will be as beloved as Reagan and Roosevelt were and their legacy and policies will force the opposition Party to moderate.

I think these are the only things that need to be fixed : reinstate glass stegall and have Feds rate rates a few times . Other then that the current system will be fine.


Anyway people who live in the suburbs are usually benefit least from populism and there is no way Dems can win without the suburbs.

We aren't reinstating any kind of glass steagall and to be honest I don't even think the financial system crashing will be the cataclyst to the crisis. There's a few things to keep an eye on:

1. Private debt accumulation coupled with low inflation and no real wage growth is really taking a beating on tens of millions of people out there. I worry about this the same exact way hardline Tea Partiers worry about the national debt. Couple this with fairly crappy economic opportunities for young people, the gutting of the heartland through the opioid epidemic and economic decline, etc. has made a populace both here and in Europe that is very angry, very bitter, and is demanding for decent political solutions to their problems.

2. State pension systems are usually underfunded and given that economic growth has been concentrated more in certain states and regions of the country (rather than being dispersed fairly evenly), this is gonna cause some crises. Illinois is only one example; but plenty of states have older populations and underfunded pensions systems with limited economic growth and fleeing youth populations. They're gonna be in trouble soon.

3. Our politicians are completely dumbfounded on how to deal with the largest technological revolution since the industrial revolution unfolding before our eyes. A lot of Silicon Valley billionaires aren't taking this lightly either; they understand that this is going to uproot large segments of the American population not seen in a century. But this time unlike last we have a middle class, safety net, etc. People want those things and they're not gonna take technological upheaval well if it means that Republican or state level politicians insist on cutting the budget for these programs during the transitionary phase we're going through.

Supply side economics was created to deal with high inflation, high unemployment, and to create more capital. None of these are problems in today's world. The problems today include: no real wage growth, private debt accumulation plus extremely little inflation to help eat away at the debt, capital underutilization, displaced workers from globalziation, etc. The set of problems we have today are dramatically different than they were in the early 80's.

Yah I know but the suburbs get hit by far less of those problems than urban and rural areas . The Reagan Revolution didn't happen cause people in urban areas became more conservative it happened cause of the rise of suburbs which will keep a check on A leftist revolution from happening.

If you look at it Reagan mainly won on the same coaliton Nixon built except suburbs were much more influential  in the 1980s then when Nixon was in charge and Reagan was a lot more charismatic .

[Technocracy Timmy]

I don't think so. The underlying causes and aftereffects of the 2008 financial crisis haven't been adequately addressed beyond financial reform and it's gonna take us to get hit hard again to restructure our macroeconomy in a way that fixes it for good. And that President who solves it will be as beloved as Reagan and Roosevelt were and their legacy and policies will force the opposition Party to moderate.

I think these are the only things that need to be fixed : reinstate glass stegall and have Feds rate rates a few times . Other then that the current system will be fine.


Anyway people who live in the suburbs are usually benefit least from populism and there is no way Dems can win without the suburbs.

We aren't reinstating any kind of glass steagall and to be honest I don't even think the financial system crashing will be the cataclyst to the crisis. There's a few things to keep an eye on:

1. Private debt accumulation coupled with low inflation and no real wage growth is really taking a beating on tens of millions of people out there. I worry about this the same exact way hardline Tea Partiers worry about the national debt. Couple this with fairly crappy economic opportunities for young people, the gutting of the heartland through the opioid epidemic and economic decline, etc. has made a populace both here and in Europe that is very angry, very bitter, and is demanding for decent political solutions to their problems.

2. State pension systems are usually underfunded and given that economic growth has been concentrated more in certain states and regions of the country (rather than being dispersed fairly evenly), this is gonna cause some crises. Illinois is only one example; but plenty of states have older populations and underfunded pensions systems with limited economic growth and fleeing youth populations. They're gonna be in trouble soon.

3. Our politicians are completely dumbfounded on how to deal with the largest technological revolution since the industrial revolution unfolding before our eyes. A lot of Silicon Valley billionaires aren't taking this lightly either; they understand that this is going to uproot large segments of the American population not seen in a century. But this time unlike last we have a middle class, safety net, etc. People want those things and they're not gonna take technological upheaval well if it means that Republican or state level politicians insist on cutting the budget for these programs during the transitionary phase we're going through.

Supply side economics was created to deal with high inflation, high unemployment, and to create more capital. None of these are problems in today's world. The problems today include: no real wage growth, private debt accumulation plus extremely little inflation to help eat away at the debt, capital underutilization, displaced workers from globalziation, etc. The set of problems we have today are dramatically different than they were in the early 80's.

Yah I know but the suburbs get hit by far less of those problems than urban and rural areas . The Reagan Revolution didn't happen cause people in urban areas became more conservative it happened cause of the rise of suburbs which will keep a check on A leftist revolution from happening.

If you look at it Reagan mainly won on the same coaliton Nixon built except suburbs were much more influential  in the 1980s then when Nixon was in charge and Reagan was a lot more charismatic .

A couple things,

1. Millennials will continue moving to suburbs as they come of age. Their economic standing is demonstrably worse than their parents and that's a big reason why they're more open to left wing economic ideals compared to their boomer parents who will start passing away soon.

2. Not all cities or city folk are doing well. Young people don't have opportunities and an economically populist Democratic Party with a crisis to point to can really gin up turnout in these areas. Combine this with Obama 2008 margins in rural areas and demographic/generational turnover and you get a 55% mandate for the Democratic Party (or maybe 51% if a third party candidate runs ala 1980).

3. Nixon is to Reagan what Obama will be to the next Democratic President. There has been only three Democratic coalitions which won consecutive popular vote majorities: Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Barack Obama. It's really not hard to see where the next Democratic majority comes from with this mandate. It'll be Obama's growing 2008 coalition plus resettling many populist whites back into the Party.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Democrats do need a messaging correction, but embracing single payer would only hurt them. Plus, it's a socialist, unamerican system.

As unAmerican as... roads, bridges, emergency response services, social security, medicare...

The first three are absolute necessities, the last two fall to destroy an entire industry. Single Payer completely abolishes private insurance (destroying an entire industry, and thus millions of jobs), rations care, and is far from the only way to provide health care to the nation. It makes sense that it should be viewed on a different level than things like roads and the fire station, and it must be avoided at all costs.

You can still have private insurance with a single payer system. Free roads put a lot of turnpikes out of business.

Private Insurance with some single payer elements is our current system, and I'm definitely looking to improve that, potentially by adding a "public option". What I am opposed to is a full single payer system, under which private insurance is banned.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats do need a messaging correction, but embracing single payer would only hurt them. Plus, it's a socialist, unamerican system.

As unAmerican as... roads, bridges, emergency response services, social security, medicare...

The first three are absolute necessities, the last two fall to destroy an entire industry. Single Payer completely abolishes private insurance (destroying an entire industry, and thus millions of jobs), rations care, and is far from the only way to provide health care to the nation. It makes sense that it should be viewed on a different level than things like roads and the fire station, and it must be avoided at all costs.

You can still have private insurance with a single payer system. Free roads put a lot of turnpikes out of business.

Private Insurance with some single payer elements is our current system, and I'm definitely looking to improve that, potentially by adding a "public option". What I am opposed to is a full single payer system, under which private insurance is banned.

We don't have single payer. Canada has single payer. You can get private insurance to get your own hospital room.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Democrats do need a messaging correction, but embracing single payer would only hurt them. Plus, it's a socialist, unamerican system.

As unAmerican as... roads, bridges, emergency response services, social security, medicare...

The first three are absolute necessities, the last two fall to destroy an entire industry. Single Payer completely abolishes private insurance (destroying an entire industry, and thus millions of jobs), rations care, and is far from the only way to provide health care to the nation. It makes sense that it should be viewed on a different level than things like roads and the fire station, and it must be avoided at all costs.

You can still have private insurance with a single payer system. Free roads put a lot of turnpikes out of business.

Private Insurance with some single payer elements is our current system, and I'm definitely looking to improve that, potentially by adding a "public option". What I am opposed to is a full single payer system, under which private insurance is banned.

We don't have single payer. Canada has single payer. You can get private insurance to get your own hospital room.

Canada's system is not true single payer then.

[Dr. Arch]

Democrats do need a messaging correction, but embracing single payer would only hurt them. Plus, it's a socialist, unamerican system.

As unAmerican as... roads, bridges, emergency response services, social security, medicare...

The first three are absolute necessities, the last two fall to destroy an entire industry. Single Payer completely abolishes private insurance (destroying an entire industry, and thus millions of jobs), rations care, and is far from the only way to provide health care to the nation. It makes sense that it should be viewed on a different level than things like roads and the fire station, and it must be avoided at all costs.

You can still have private insurance with a single payer system. Free roads put a lot of turnpikes out of business.

Private Insurance with some single payer elements is our current system, and I'm definitely looking to improve that, potentially by adding a "public option". What I am opposed to is a full single payer system, under which private insurance is banned.

We don't have single payer. Canada has single payer. You can get private insurance to get your own hospital room.

Canada's system is not true single payer then.

That's what everyone refers to with single payer.

[politicallefty]

Pelosi said that they aren't looking for a course correction, so I wouldn't get my hopes up here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/343344-dems-to-announce-a-better-deal-economic-agenda-on-monday-report

I give Pelosi more benefit of the doubt than most. She was once a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (as leader of the entire party, I understand she declines membership to any particular caucus). If you give her a Democratic Majority with about 240 votes or so, I have no doubt she could get single-payer passed in the House. Without Pelosi, we wouldn't even have Obamacare on which to build upon. Once she does retire (personally, I think she wants to retire on a high note and also have an obvious like-minded successor ready), we need to revamp the entire leadership.

If Schumer really is on board and possibly ready to vote for single-payer, it could actually happen if Democrats get strong enough majorities in each House with a Democratic President.

The first three are absolute necessities, the last two fall to destroy an entire industry. Single Payer completely abolishes private insurance (destroying an entire industry, and thus millions of jobs), rations care, and is far from the only way to provide health care to the nation. It makes sense that it should be viewed on a different level than things like roads and the fire station, and it must be avoided at all costs.

It's not the only the way to achieve the means of a universal right to healthcare, but it does seem to be one of the best. As for the jobs lost, I'm not unsympathetic at all. I think those that are displaced should have first chance at the new jobs under the new universal program. If it's federally run, the federal government will have to hire many new people to implement and administer the new program. For those that cannot get employment under the new system, I think the federal government should provide for immediate assistance and job retraining (and regardless of any of that, the new single-payer program would cover their health costs no matter what).

[Orser67]

Given Trump's unpopularity, there's a good chance that Democrats will be in position to pass another major healthcare law in 2021.

I think Democrats could probably get single-payer through the House if they have ~230 seats, and having that number of seats seems possible with good cycles in 2018 and 2020. But I really doubt that Democrats will have 60 seats in the Senate, so a major healthcare bill would require the use of reconciliation, some Senate Republican support, or the elimination of the legislative filibuster. The latter two seem unlikely to me.

I'm pretty sure you could use reconciliation to create a public option but I don't think you could use it to totally overhaul the system to single-payer, so I think we're probably looking at a public option in 2021 if Democrats win the 2018 and 2020 cycles.

[7,052,770]

Democrats do need a messaging correction, but embracing single payer would only hurt them. Plus, it's a socialist, unamerican system.

As unAmerican as... roads, bridges, emergency response services, social security, medicare...

The first three are absolute necessities, the last two fall to destroy an entire industry. Single Payer completely abolishes private insurance (destroying an entire industry, and thus millions of jobs), rations care, and is far from the only way to provide health care to the nation. It makes sense that it should be viewed on a different level than things like roads and the fire station, and it must be avoided at all costs.

No it doesn't. Canada and Europe still have plenty of health insurance companies.

Whatever single payer plan that's eventually adopted will undoubtedly have copays/deductibles and non-covered services, such as dental/vision/etc., so there will still be a need for insurance. Not to mention insurance for people traveling out of the country.

[Illiniwek]

Ok, but don't campaign on anything that you don't plan on fighting to get through.

[GoTfan]

Ok, but don't campaign on anything that you don't plan on fighting to get through.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Democrats do need a messaging correction, but embracing single payer would only hurt them. Plus, it's a socialist, unamerican system.

As unAmerican as... roads, bridges, emergency response services, social security, medicare...

The first three are absolute necessities, the last two fall to destroy an entire industry. Single Payer completely abolishes private insurance (destroying an entire industry, and thus millions of jobs), rations care, and is far from the only way to provide health care to the nation. It makes sense that it should be viewed on a different level than things like roads and the fire station, and it must be avoided at all costs.

You can still have private insurance with a single payer system. Free roads put a lot of turnpikes out of business.

Private Insurance with some single payer elements is our current system, and I'm definitely looking to improve that, potentially by adding a "public option". What I am opposed to is a full single payer system, under which private insurance is banned.

...that's not what single payer is. Nor is that how what any country with single payer does. Even the UK with its NHS still has private health insurance companies.

This is like saying that having a public school system will mean that private schools are banned and that the US thus doesn't have a true public school system because there are still private schools.

And single payer is often just referred to as "Medicare for all", well guess what? There are private companies that offer Medicare plans. I should know this seeing as I work for one.

[Adam Griffin]

Boy, I'm really glad I spent my time reading two pages' worth of Bleep Blorp and Muh Hillary talking past each other, along with Wulfric rambling on about yet another thing he doesn't understand!

[Santander]

Boy, I'm really glad I spent my time reading two pages' worth of Bleep Blorp and Muh Hillary talking past each other, along with Wulfric rambling on about yet another thing he doesn't understand!

What exactly does Wulfric understand?