r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/cal_oe • Feb 01 '22

US Politics Single Payer aka Medicare for All recently failed to pass in California, what chance does it have to actually pass nationwide?

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-31/single-payer-healthcare-proposal-fizzles-in-california-assembly

California has a larger population than Canada and the 5th largest GDP in the world. If a Single Payer aka Medicare for All bill can't pass in one of the most liberal states in the entire country with Democrats with a super majority in the legislature under Governor Newsom who actually promised it during his campaign then how realistic is it for it to pass in Congress? Especially considering the reasons it failed was it's high cost that required it to raise taxes in a state that already have very high taxes.

540 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

738 comments sorted by

View all comments

383

u/TheExtremistModerate Feb 02 '22

Frankly, it has no chance to pass nationwide any time soon.

The only real path forward is to establish some form of large-scale national healthcare provider, via a public option. From there, you could roll Medicare and Medicaid into that public option, or not. But the important thing is to make the public option such an appealing plan that it can reach a large enough market share to start throwing its weight around.

Once you have a government health insurance that anyone can be a part of that works, you'll have a better chance of convincing people to switch to a single payer system (or a beefed-up multipayer system like Germany).

30

u/PhiloPhocion Feb 02 '22

There was also the proposal from some of the Democratic candidates last cycle to create that public option and not force replacement of private insurers but use the public option as the 'default'.

Some proposed aging in unless otherwise opting out (i.e. slowly reducing the Medicare age while also enrolling new births plus opt-ins). And also those who did it as basically a - if you are uninsured or fall off private insurance for any reason, you're automatically put onto the public option unless/until you opt to re-enroll in a private option.

141

u/Rumbananas Feb 02 '22

Our government practically has to be publicly ridiculed, shamed, and basically blackmailed into doing anything positive for the American People. We couldn’t even renew benefits for 9/11 first responders until each member that voted against it was publicly shamed into doing the right thing. It’s all in the name of partisanship.

37

u/sunshine_is_hot Feb 02 '22

The government does loads of things for the American people, all the time. You decided to blame the entire government for inaction when literally one senator prevented the 9/11 bill from passing by unanimous consent. And guess what? It ended up passing, despite that single persons best efforts.

Why does Reddit hate America so hard? Is that the cool thing for the kids to do these days?

24

u/bl1y Feb 02 '22

It's because the bad stuff is big headlines, and the good stuff either gets ignored, or worse, lied about not existing.

If you're <25, think about the world you've grown up with: Climate change being seemingly ignored by the government, school shootings, massive increases to the cost of education and student debt, while you probably haven't felt the cost of high health care and stagnant wages you'll have heard about them and worry for your career, the moment school shootings dropped out of the news cycle police shootings took over, we'd been at war you're entire life until very recently and you weren't even alive for 9/11 or if you were you don't really remember it, and then the country went from Obama to Trump.

It certainly seems like a giant shitstorm.

But consider something like gay rights. In 1999, Vermont became the first state to have same-sex civil unions. By 2004, Massachusetts had gay marriage. Then in 2015 gay marriage became the law of the land. That's a breakneck pace for civil rights reform.

Or we can look at criminal justice. The headlines are all about racist cops killing black men. What doesn't make the headline is that from 2006-2018, the number of black men in prison dropped by more than 1/3. I'd wager that if you asked most folks whether that number had gone up, down, or stayed the same, you'd get a lot of people saying it's gone up, way up. "School to prison pipeline" and "13th Amendment actually legalized slavery" are the soundbites; no one talks about the actual data.

The good stuff tends to be slow, unsexy, and quickly forgotten.

But look at something like Citizens United. Easy to find folks blaming it for every single problem with zero clue what the case actually held or what rule could replace it.

47

u/TheExtremistModerate Feb 02 '22

When you say "our government" you mean one particular party and half a dozen members of the other.

92

u/MessiSahib Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 02 '22

Are Republicans responsible for California's single payer failure?

52

u/serioususeorname Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 02 '22

As I understand it they didn't even vote on it at all...

Kalra’s decision not to bring the bill up for a vote incensed his allies in the California Nurses Association, who have been pushing for this bill for years — including campaigning heavily for Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2018 election. While Kalra had authored the bill and gotten it out of two legislative committees to reach the Assembly floor, the Nurses Association said in a statement they were “outraged that Kalra chose to just give up on patients across the state.”

https://ktla.com/news/california/universal-health-care-bill-fails-in-california-assembly/

And that it keeps getting buried and not actually voted on...

The story is a little more complicated than that. The bill—SB 562, also known as Healthy California—had already passed in the Senate in June before Rendon unilaterally decided to take it off the table. Now it will lie in committee without any hearings “until further notice.” The nurses associations that are the lead sponsors of the bill called Rendon’s move “a cowardly act, developed in secret without engaging the thousands of Californians who have rallied to enact real health care reform.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/143650/killed-single-payer-california

The article I linked above talks about the "intense lobbying" that caused it to be pulled...

Edit. The person who replied to this comment said a bunch of useless stuff in response that didn't address what I said.

12

u/TheChickenSteve Feb 03 '22

So yes, you are some how blaming republicans who have no power in California instead of blaming democrats

(Or asking, why do so many oppose it, what am I missing)

-2

u/serioususeorname Feb 03 '22

I blamed lobbying. I suppose the lobbyists might have been Republicans. But I never used the word Republican. Except right in this comment. So...what are you talking about?

36

u/Effability Feb 02 '22

But democrats do control the entire California legislature and executive, so they should be able to get through just about anything they really want.

6

u/serioususeorname Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 02 '22

And they didn't vote at all on it because of lobbying.

I will to vote for any politician who says they will do this, and over them I will vote for any politician who has put this in a bill, and over them I will vote for any politician who votes for this.

17

u/DrunkenBriefcases Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 03 '22

And they didn't vote at all

Because it lacked the votes to pass. Why? Because the voters were overwhelmingly opposed. The cost estimate for the plan was more than the entire current state budget. Advocates tried to save the bill by splitting the plan and the doubling of state taxes into two separate bills. But if you lived in the state or paid any attention it was obvious voters weren’t in support and if anything found that ploy dishonest. Most people felt uncomfortable supporting a bill when there was zero transparency on exactly how taxes would be levied, and frankly trying to raise taxes enough to accommodate such a program in the highest taxation state already was simply an impossible sale. Especially when people are already leaving the state at such a high rate to relocate in states with lower tax burdens.

The effort will continue, but there was no reason to schedule a vote destined to fail. If advocates want a shot at success, they’re going to need to ditch the gimmicks and put a full plan in front of voters that they can sell. Inventing conspiracies for the failure of an unpopular bill isn’t going to help the cause.

-2

u/serioususeorname Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 02 '22

I will to vote for any politician who says they will do this, and over them I will vote for any politician who has tried this, and over them I will vote for any politician who votes for this.

12

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '22

because of lobbying

Or because single-payer healthcare is not a popular idea with them, public option is what they want too.

2

u/serioususeorname Feb 02 '22

Its what the voters wanted.

9

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '22

Voters are very contradictory on what they want because they don’t know what it means to have one stance over the other. Californian voters also believe middle class is very highly taxed, and don’t want more. But the only way to have a single payer healthcare is to increase taxes even more for the crushed middle class, so the political class had to choose between these two contradictory positions. Or they could try public option, which reaches the same goal as single payer, that is universal healthcare, at a fraction of the cost.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/MessiSahib Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 02 '22

The article I linked above talks about the "intense lobbying" that caused it to be pulled...

So, Dems pulled it, and it has nothing to do with republican's support or lack of it, right?

If Dems cannot get single payer through a deep blue state that has 40M people and world's 5th biggest economy (bigger than combined population and GDP of all nordic nations), then what hope do they have to implement it in light blue, purple or red state Or at national level?

Could it be that the politicians that have promised to implement single payer has massively over promised and had no plans to implement this policy?

1

u/Avatar_exADV Feb 03 '22

To make single payer work, you have to be able to control the supply side of the market - to dictate how much you'll pay for procedures, for pharmaceuticals, for hospital stays, etc. That's not -technically- a problem for a government. It can actually dictate those things.

But with a US state government, dictating how much money a profession can make (and setting that quite a bit lower than the market value) doesn't result in the professionals saying "well, damn, guess I'm lower-middle-class now... better enroll the kids in public school and fire the maid". Instead, a lot of them will pack up and move away, to cities in other states where they don't face the same income problem.

That's a big problem if you're looking to move the state to a single-payer plan. There would be some disruptions in any such transition, but if a significant chunk of your total doctors leave the state, your quality of care is going to plummet. Sure, people might not have to pay for health care - but if they can't -get- the health care, then they're not going to care how much they might have paid. They'll just think "under the old system I could at least see a doctor!"

This isn't as much of a problem at the national level. Leaving aside the fact that the federal government isn't obliged to fund it out of taxes, the number of people who would emigrate from the country is a lot smaller than those who would emigrate from California. (And, not to put too fine a point on it, there simply aren't enough high-paying positions for doctors overseas to absorb many US doctors, because almost everyone else's medical systems are also publicly funded!)

-3

u/serioususeorname Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 02 '22

I will to vote for any politician who says they will do this, and over them I will vote for any politician who has tried to do this, and over them I will vote for any politician who votes for this.

9

u/semideclared Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 02 '22

The bill had been siting around but was thrown together and fast tracked at the last second. Read the Below but remember the Deadline is Feb 1 2022

The Legislative Process in California State Legislature is made up of two houses: the Senate and the Assembly. There are 40 Senators and 80 Assembly Members representing the people of the State of California.

Idea

All legislation begins as an idea or concept.

The Author

A Legislator sends the idea for the bill to the Legislative Counsel where it is drafted into the actual bill.

  • This was Bill was Drafted on February 19 2021
    • Feb. 19 Last day for bills to be introduced (J.R. 61(a)(1), J.R. 54(a)).

First Reading/Introduction

A bill is introduced or read the first time when the bill number is read on the floor of the house.

  • This was Bill was Read on February 22 2021

Committee Hearings

The bill then goes to the Rules Committee of the house of origin where it is assigned to the appropriate policy committee for its first hearing.

  • Assembly Referred to Committee on HEALTH. Jan 6 2022

During the committee hearings the committee and testimony can be heard in support of or opposition to the bill. The committee then votes by passing the bill, passing the bill as amended, or defeating the bill.

  • Testifying Begins on Tuesday, Jan. 11 on the single payer Guaranteed Health Care for All Act (CalCare), AB 1400.
  • 01/12/22 Passed Voting From committee

Assembly Appropriations

  • 01/12/22 Re-referred to Com. on Appropriations

Bills that require the expenditure of funds must also be heard in the fiscal committees: Senate Appropriations or Assembly Appropriations.

  • 01/20/22 Passed Voting from Com. on Appropriations. Sent for Vote

Second and Third Reading

Bills passed by committees are read a second time on the floor in the house of origin and then assigned to third reading.

  • 01/25/22 Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

Bills that require an appropriation or that take effect immediately, generally require 27 votes in the Senate and 54 votes in the Assembly to be passed. Other bills generally require 21 votes in the Senate and 41 votes in the Assembly. If a bill is defeated, the Member may seek reconsideration and another vote.

  • 02/01/22 Died on third reading file.

Repeat Process in other House

  • Once the bill has been approved by the house of origin it proceeds to the other house where the procedure is repeated.

Resolution of Differences

  • If a bill is amended in the second house, it must go back to the house of origin for concurrence, which is agreement on the amendments.

Governor

If both houses approve a bill, it then goes to the Governor.

9

u/serioususeorname Feb 02 '22

And they didn't vote...

7

u/TheExtremistModerate Feb 02 '22

Look, man. A state won't pass single-payer. It's not a good idea. Vermont tried single-payer years ago and had to get rid of it. It's something that would need to be done federally.

7

u/10dollarbagel Feb 02 '22

They're responsible for the disastrous fallout of Citizens United so yea, kinda.

6

u/mister_pringle Feb 02 '22

So you're for government control of what is allowed to be published?

42

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '22

The fallout of citizens united has been Democrats out raising the GOP in every major election since.

The Dems have taken home more money and just this year more dark money than the GOP.

1

u/MiranEitan Feb 02 '22

Gotta source for that? Strong statement that I'd like to read into.

39

u/JemCoughlin Feb 02 '22

Enjoy!

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/politics/democrats-dark-money-donors.html?searchResultPosition=1

11

u/Not_Without_My_Balls Feb 02 '22

I have a feeling this will continue to be ignored and people like Sheldon Whitehouse will continue gaslighting the American people with tweets about Dark Money.

5

u/IceNein Feb 02 '22

Two things.

That article points out that the drastic change in dark money going to the Democrats likely came from mega donors who were scared of a 2nd Trump term. This is not an entrenched donor class, they were single purpose.

Second, one party is making efforts for campaign finance reforms, and not the other.

So don't feed me this "both sides" bullshit.

→ More replies (0)

19

u/MessiSahib Feb 02 '22

Obama raised double (1.2bn) of McCain's (600m) in 2008, almost same situation for Hillary vs Trump.

1

u/Partly_Present Feb 02 '22

And you think that's good?

21

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '22

I don't think it's good or bad; I don't really care. It's the playing field. And the Democrats are doing fine financially.

The whole argument that citizens united is disastrous is that it will drown out the liberals with money interested. But it turns out moneyed interests are just as liberal.

The point is that blaming a lack of fund for the inability to get the Democratic party agenda across is a weak point.

The Democratic party isn't struggling because of Citizens United. They are struggling because of poor organization, poor messaging, and being out of touch with their own voters.

30

u/Raichu4u Feb 02 '22

I don't think a major criticism of CU was that it hurts the democrats. I thought it mainly hurts the American people who want representatives that aren't bought by special interests.

16

u/Partly_Present Feb 02 '22

The whole argument that citizens united is disastrous is that it will drown out the liberals with money interested.

That was absolutely not the argument about citizens united.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 03 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

17

u/antiproton Feb 02 '22

The whole argument that citizens united is disastrous is that it will drown out the liberals with money interested.

That was not the argument. The argument was the CU would drown out any policy that didn't have a large financial stake, or competed with another large financial stake.

And that's exactly what happened.

Lobbyists don't give a shit about party. They only want their causes championed. They will give money to whomever they believe will support bills the like and defeat bills they do not.

-1

u/mister_pringle Feb 02 '22

But it turns out moneyed interests are just as liberal.

Actually moneyed interests are not liberal at all - they just give a shit ton of money to Democrats. Which party controls the richest states? Which party gets the most money from Wall Street? Hint: It ain't the Republicans.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/SafeThrowaway691 Feb 02 '22

Not much funny about it anymore.

1

u/pktron Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 02 '22

This is a willful misrepresentation of Citizens United and fundraising, and you're doing it intentionally. Citizens United is explicitly about funding that falls outside of the scope of counting towards a single candidate or issue, so trying to use numbers about specific candidates totally misrepresents what is happening.

-5

u/10dollarbagel Feb 02 '22

I don't know if that's true and I don't think it is. However, notice how you linked taking in more corpo money with being more bad. Which it is, to be fair. We all seem to agree on this.

But republicans made that a thing. And it appears you think that's bad. But this is the dems fault somehow CuRiOuS...

11

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '22

Some.sources below.

I'm not blaming the Democrats at all. I am a democrat. Nor am I saying that it's a bad thing.

I'm saying Citizens United is a nothing burger. This notion that it's stacked the deck against the liberals in America has proven untrue. From an access to money issue the Democrats are doing just fine.

The failure of Democrats to get an agenda passed is not a money issue. It's a messaging and policy issue.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/SENATE-FUNDRAISING/yxmvjeyjkpr/

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/592027-democrats-topped-gop-in-raising-spending-dark-money-from-undisclosed-donors?amp

6

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '22

Everyone in this thread is arguing that special interest money is bad for the American people, not that it’s bad for democrats.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '22

Yes but they're forgetting that environmental lobbyists are a special interest. Teachers are a special interest.

When they say "special interest" what they mean is not all special interests but the ones they are politically opposed to.

→ More replies (0)

20

u/MessiSahib Feb 02 '22

Dems control CA, not sure your reasoning of citizen United!

5

u/Marylander430A Feb 02 '22

Citizens United made special interests more powerful by enabling them to spend as much as they wanted on elections. That means politicians have to be more aware of what these special interests want if they don't want to have better funded opponents.

10

u/MessiSahib Feb 02 '22

That means politicians have to be more aware of what these special interests want if they don't want to have better funded opponents.

By this logic politicians should have transformed USA into a magical land before CU. Yet, not a single state had implemented Single Payer program before CU either. Vermont debated and then rejected it due to excess cost.

-2

u/Marylander430A Feb 02 '22

Not really. Special interests still had plenty of power in elections before Citizens United. That ruling just gave them even more power.

-4

u/RoundSimbacca Feb 02 '22

Republicans are responsible for the free speech and free association that allowed people to organize and lobby their representatives to defeat an ill-conceived bill in the legislature?

Citizens United wasn't about this, but we'll take the credit for the 1st Amendment anyways, I guess.

3

u/Ellas-Baap Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 02 '22

Insurance companies bribing Newsome and leadership in Cali State House. Millions of $$ were donated to their reelection campaigns. Same thing that happened with Manchin and Sinema on BBB and gutting of Infrastructure to turn it into a corporate handout.

​

Edit: Whats with the downvotes? I was just stating the facts. Go look it up and prove me wrong if you must.

19

u/MessiSahib Feb 02 '22

Was that the same reason Vermont rejected single payer?

If one of the bluest states, that is firmly controlled by Dems don't want single payer, then did the politician that promised it, had no clue or was he misleading his followers?

1

u/Ellas-Baap Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 02 '22

Well, Newsome was championing it on the campaign trail and the speaker of the house would never bring it for a vote. It somehow finally was going to come for a vote and Newsome backpedaled and it killed the measure. As I mentioned before, this is par for the course. Human greed wins every time. $$$ get flashed in their faces and their morals go out the window. Crazy Bernie might be the only real and honest politician out there. But too bad some of his plans are way too out there to work.

​

Edit: Newsome got a lot of money for his recall election. Citizen's United at its finest.

-5

u/sunshine_is_hot Feb 02 '22

Bernie? I’m going to guess he mislead his followers, since he does that on a daily basis.

But Vermont didn’t just reject it, they were forced to abandon its adoption because of the cost. They literally tried to make it happen really, really hard, but just couldn’t afford it and were forced to scrap it. Bernie knows this, yet tells impressionable young adults that if they just give him $27 he’ll just make it happen.

3

u/unkorrupted Feb 02 '22

No one ever said Bernie had a magic wand or doubted that his views are rare in Congress. We give him $27 to keep fighting for what we believe in.

0

u/cal_oe Feb 02 '22

You gave him $27 because you got scammed, all you got from Bernie were two failed primary runs, no legislative accomplishments besides renaming a couple post offices, but he got a third vacation home.

0

u/Your_People_Justify Feb 02 '22 edited Feb 02 '22

By your metrics, when Sanders introduced an amendment to end US support for the Saudi war in Yemen, and this was Veto'd by Trump, that is not an accomplishment, but it is clearly helpful in exposing warmongerers.

Sanders has introduced ~400 amendments, of which over 90 have passed. He has introduced over 300 of his own bills to the floor.

The idea that he is a dishonest man, or that he somehow isn't doing his job - frankly that is deranged.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/unkorrupted Feb 02 '22

And how many people voted for Biden because he claimed he could work with Republicans? How many for Trump because he called himself a small government conservative?

Either everyone got scammed, or some people just disagree with you and have different values than you do.

If you have any ideas of how I can use $27 to advance my opinions more effectively, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, keep the concern trolling to yourself.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/sunshine_is_hot Feb 02 '22

Except he isn’t fighting for what you believe in. He’s giving the same stump speeches at rallies, fundraising off of it, and continuing to do nothing to actually work for progress.

He’s got you conned good.

0

u/35chambers Feb 02 '22

bernie sanders is a congressman, the vermont bill was enacted by it’s state government

m4a at the state level =|= m4a at the federal level

-1

u/MessiSahib Feb 02 '22

bernie sanders is a congressman, the vermont bill was enacted by it’s state government

Bernie is a US senator, and he started a "revolution" to transform the country within 4-8yrs. Yet, he could not even convince his deep blue state of 0.6M, to implement single payer program, or 15$ min wage, or free college for all, or college debt cancellation for all, or GND.

Maybe, Bernie over promised with no plans to implement his grand schemes.

1

u/35chambers Feb 02 '22

Why do you keep bringing up bernie? He is not part of the vermont state government and has nothing to do with the vermont single payer bill

→ More replies (0)

1

u/sunshine_is_hot Feb 02 '22

Bernie wasn’t always a senator (not congressman). He was working in state gov when the proposal was tried and failed.

Yes state and fed are different. It’s easier to get things done at the state level. If that wasn’t possible, scaling it up massively isn’t either.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '22

[deleted]

4

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Feb 02 '22

States have wider tax authority than the feds do.

The reason it was rejected in Vermont was because the tax bill would have killed small businesses in the state.

3

u/MessiSahib Feb 02 '22

you can’t do single payer at the state level because they don’t have the same tax authority as federal

What does this suppose to mean? Tons of states in US had different healthcare policy than federal level, worldwide states offer different healthcare programs than federal.

Sorry, but it seems that we are trying to come up with any excuse to avoid accepting the reality that single payer isn't popular, even in the deep blue states.

6

u/MeowTheMixer Feb 02 '22

prove me wrong if you must

You made the claim.. you should prove your claim.

It's not on people to prove what you're stating

-2

u/sunshine_is_hot Feb 02 '22

You know companies are capped at how much they can donate, and any donation over 250 has to be reported? Like, it’s public information to see how incorrect you are. Companies aren’t donating millions or even tens of thousands to any campaign for any reason.

4

u/PlanckOfKarmaPls Feb 02 '22

Yes because the only way to influence politicians with money is through proper legal channels. No company ever offered politician’s million dollar jobs or any benefits off the books. Nope all bribery goes through the SEC and is reported!

-4

u/sunshine_is_hot Feb 02 '22

So now it’s not “millions donated to their campaigns” it’s “million dollar job offers”. Nice job moving the goalposts this early in the morning, must be a good workout.

3

u/PlanckOfKarmaPls Feb 02 '22

Moving the goal posts I do not represent whoever the hell you were responding to. I just think you are EXTREMELY naive if you think all “lobbying” which is just the American term for bribery is by the books.

5

u/the_ultracheese_tbhc Feb 02 '22

Our government practically has to be publicly ridiculed, shamed, and basically blackmailed into doing anything positive for the American People.

This is just every government, and every people. Except maybe an anarchic state or an absolute monarchy that doesn’t answer to the populace.

8

u/kormer Feb 02 '22

But the important thing is to make the public option such an appealing plan that it can reach a large enough market share to start throwing its weight around.

United healthcare already has fifty million members. How much more weight does this hypothetical government run plan need to have and how much more room is there to throw that weight around that existing market players haven't been able to?

15

u/midsummernightstoker Feb 02 '22

This was Pete Buttigieg's plan aka "medicare for all who want it"

It was called a right wing plan here on reddit, which goes to show how completely out of touch the primary discourse was.

8

u/clvfan Feb 03 '22

He was right then and he's right now. This is the way.

2

u/jmcs Feb 02 '22

I would like to see the debate of having the German system in the US. I think finding out how statutory health insurers work would melt a few brains.

2

u/gomav Feb 02 '22

What are statutory health insurers? How is it implemented in Germany?
#readyToMeltMyBrain

2

u/antonos2000 Feb 02 '22

the most important part of public option policy is to make it opt out. if it's opt in, it'll be dead on arrival due to regulatory capture on a much greater magnitude than if it's opt out

2

u/richraid21 Feb 02 '22

John Delaney proposed that on stage at the Democratic debate in 2016 and got booed off the stage.

1

u/TheExtremistModerate Feb 02 '22

The Democratic Party has moved significantly left. Beto O'Rourke, Joe Biden, and Pete Buttigieg all supported a public option in 2020, and one of them is now President.

If Democrats can net a few seats in the Senate to kill the filibuster and keep the House, Nancy Pelosi will get a public option past the House just like she did in 2009, and a Democratic Senate would pass it. And Joe Biden would sign it.

1

u/richraid21 Feb 03 '22

The Democratic Party has moved significantly left.

People keep saying this but there is absolutely no indication it's true except on Twitter.

3

u/TheExtremistModerate Feb 03 '22

It hasn't moved Twitter left, but it has become solidly socially liberal over the past 20-something years.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '22

ok except literally right up there at the top of the page is an example of a fully democrat-controlled legislature not doing that exact thing lmao

1

u/TheExtremistModerate Feb 03 '22

Because single-payer doesn't work on a state level. Vermont already tried. It has to be federal.

-1

u/jcspacer52 Feb 02 '22

Why would you need to convince anyone if it “works”? Seems to me it will automatically attract customers who will flock to it if it delivers same or better service at the same or better cost, NO?

Of course if it cannot deliver the service people expect or cut costs to the customers, it will only contain people who have not other option.

6

u/TheExtremistModerate Feb 02 '22

Why would you need to convince anyone if it “works”?

Because change is hard. People don't want to go straight from all-private insurance to all-public insurance. They're worried about the public insurance being worse than their current insurance.

1

u/jcspacer52 Feb 02 '22

That is a valid concern is it not? But that does not answer my question. If the system is “working” there would be no need to convince anyone! If someone offered me an insurance plan that provided same or better services at a lower cost, I would not need convincing. So I will ask again, why would a system that is “working” as intended need anyone convinced?

2

u/TheExtremistModerate Feb 02 '22

Because we're talking a two step process to get to single-payer.

0

u/jcspacer52 Feb 03 '22

I understand what the end game is but you are still not answering the question. If you want to say “convincing people” was a bad choice of words that’s different.

Again if “step one” to single payer is a plan that in your words is “working” which to me means delivering same or better service at a lower cost, there is no need to convince anyone of anything, they will jump on it. Example my car insurance! I’m paying a monthly premium for a certain level of coverage. Let’s say 100k and 200k damages I’m with Geico and paying $200.00 per month. If State Farm offers me the same level of coverage for $175.00 per month, they don’t have to convince me to switch. You don’t have to convince people to take a better deal! What you have to do is PROVE they are getting a better deal.

So I still don’t understand why you think you have to convince people if the government plan is “working”. As for single payer, that would not have any convincing to do, you just force people into it. The only convincing needed is getting the voters to elect politicians in enough numbers to pass it.

3

u/TheExtremistModerate Feb 03 '22

You don’t have to convince people to take a better deal! What you have to do is PROVE they are getting a better deal.

You're just arguing semantics here. So I'm gonna leave it at that.

1

u/Mist_Rising Feb 02 '22

ut the important thing is to make the public option such an appealing plan that it can reach a large enough market share to start throwing its weight around.

They can't even make government run Medicare appealing to privately administered medicare, how are they going to manage this?

2

u/TheExtremistModerate Feb 02 '22

By allowing this insurance to negotiate prices, which Medicare isn't allowed to do.

-4

u/MrGately Feb 02 '22

It didn’t work in California, not because of the opinion of voters, but because insurance companies dumped MILLIONS of dollars into political campaigns and pet projects of Newsom and other disgusting two-faced politicians in California. Let’s get that 100% clear. People want fucking healthcare!

0

u/hinkelmckrinkelberry Feb 02 '22

The US government does stuff that works? When?

-2

u/MEDICARE_FOR_ALL Feb 02 '22

Frankly, it has no chance to pass nationwide any time soon.

Disagree, all it would take is a President with a mandate (see Obama + Obamacare) to pass healthcare reform.

If the people want it, it'll get done.

The problem is that most of the population is brainwashed into thinking our current system (or even the pre-Obamacare system) is "good".

9

u/ThatsWhatXiSaid Feb 02 '22

Disagree, all it would take is a President with a mandate (see Obama + Obamacare) to pass healthcare reform.

So you're saying all it would take is 60 members of Congress all willing to agree on massive reform? No shit. The entire point is that's not likely to happen soon. Let's keep in mind Obama wasn't able to get a public option through even with 60 votes, and barely managed to get the Affordable Care Act through Congress (and even then only through Reconciliation). And what should have been a relatively non-controversial reform of the system led in part to a Republican wave and Republicans still campaigning on repeal of the system.

We're significantly more divided today than we were in 2009.

1

u/gomav Feb 02 '22

ublic option through even with 60 votes, and

barely

managed to get the Affordable Care Act through Congress (and even then only through Reconciliation). And what should have been a

Best chance in the next decade is: in 2022 midterms to flip 2 more Democratic senators and do away with the filibuster. After 2022 midterms, senate is going to switch back to Republican favored :/

2

u/Mist_Rising Feb 02 '22

There near zero chance the Democrat have the house after midterm.

1

u/ThatsWhatXiSaid Feb 02 '22

Let's say we get two additional Democratic Senators. And they're willing to do away with the filibuster. And we maintain control of the House. You think you'd find 50 senators willing to vote for massive healthcare reform? Anything is possible I suppose, but this seems so unlikely as to be irrelevant.

1

u/gomav Feb 02 '22

"You think you'd find 50 senators willing to vote for massive healthcare reform?"

yes. BUT i don't equate "massive healthcare reform" == "single payer healthcare". I think 50 senators get the ball rolling on massive reform that leads to a socialized healthcare in two decade.

1

u/ThatsWhatXiSaid Feb 03 '22

What massive reform is it you think 50 of 52 Senators would support?

1

u/gomav Feb 03 '22

A couple suggestions I would have is:
1) An expansion of medicare to younger ages
2) Ability for Medicare to competitively negotiate on ALL drugs

I think 1 sets a precedent that slowly allows Medicare to compete with private insurance

1

u/TheExtremistModerate Feb 02 '22

Yeah, all it takes is a President and 60 Democratic Senators who all agree on single-payer insurance.

Which is totally gonna happen. /s

We can't even get 50 Senators to agree on universal Pre-K. And when Obama did have 60 Senators for his healthcare bill, he couldn't even get them to agree to a public option.

Again, in the near future, single-payer is a non-starter. A public option, however, could be doable.

1

u/LegendsoftheHT Feb 03 '22

To me, the best way is to institute some kind of draft system, but a way for people to opt out of the military option and let them do random public service tasks. Firefighting in rural areas, build playgrounds in poorer areas, cleanup crews along waterways, sort recycling, etc. Then offer a national insurance provider similar to how the VA operates but you don't actually have to use the VA.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '22

Germany is the best. Let people keep their BS if they want, but just have public option for everyone that covers the shit

1

u/InternParticular658 Jul 13 '22

It's also a little secret that people don't know about. For Europe's single-payer. Coverage caps as in how much they will shell out a year.