Author Topic: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?  (Read 884 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41365
  • Tommy Points: 2277
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
So this was said in the Trump thread:

Quote
What if we had an ALT LEFT thread?  What would they talk about?  The left has no constructive agenda. 

So disregard the 'Alt Left' stuff, the criticism that the Democrats don't have a strategy is a favorite talking point of Conservative talking heads. They're basically saying that the democrats are doing a re-mix of 'the party of no'. And I sincerely hope that is not the case. It would be an easy strategy to implement, but as we saw recently with republicans, saying no without having a viable alternative can be pretty terrible as well. You don't want to be the dog that catches the car. You want to be the car. You want to be going somewhere, not just united in what you won't do.

So yesterday, I was surprised and I guess...well I'm not sure if 'optimistic' is the right word but interested, to see Kamala Harris, a potential 2020 candidate but who is usually seen as very 'establishment' endorse Bernie's single-payer plan.

Quote
Washington (CNN)Sen. Kamala Harris is the first Democrat to announce she'll co-sponsor Sen. Bernie Sanders' single-payer health care bill when it's introduced in September.

The California freshman -- seen as a rising star in the party and a 2020 presidential prospect -- revealed her plans to back Sanders' legislation at a town hall Wednesday night in Oakland.
"Here, I'll break some news: I intend to co-sponsor the Medicare-for-all bill, because it's just the right thing to do," Harris said. She announced her support for Sanders' single-payer plan at the end of her town hall and joked that "somebody should tell my staff."

Her co-sponsorship is another sign that the Democratic Party is increasingly embracing a shift away from the private health insurance market and toward a government-run program. The issue is poised to become a major litmus test for its presidential candidates in 2020.

It comes just 20 months after the party's last standard-bearer in a presidential election, Hillary Clinton, called Sanders' single-payer proposal "a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass."

"This is about understanding, again, that health care should be a right, not a privilege. And it's also about being smart," Harris said. "It is so much better that people have meaningful access to affordable health care at every stage of life, from birth on. Because the alternative is that we as taxpayers otherwise are paying huge amounts of money for them to get their health care in an emergency room. So it's not only about what is morally and ethically right, it also makes sense from a fiscal standpoint, or if you want to talk about it as a return on investment for taxpayers."

The early endorsement from Harris could clear the way for more Democrats to co-sponsor the bill. Already this summer, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand have announced their support for single-payer health insurance.
Sanders tweeted his thanks to Harris on Wednesday night. "Let's make health care a right, not a privilege," he wrote.

Some of Sanders' most vocal supporters, who had questioned Harris' progressive bona fides, expressed cautious optimism about Harris' position.

"Like it or not, single payer has become the litmus test in order to run for office. I expect a a lot or senators to agree. But count on Bernie 100% to actually follow through," said RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United, the first major union to back Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign.

This is interesting to me. One of the reasons republicans only said 'no' to President Obama is that it is hard to provide a counter-attack when nothing is offered. It is part of the reason Trump could deflect policy questions with bullcrap dismissals, because he never offered any real policy plans. This is an 'establishment' democrat stepping out and getting behind an idea, which makes her very vulnerable. It is a big risk, maybe big reward, maybe big disaster move on her part.

I guess that's all I have to say about it.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2017, 11:50:04 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32496
  • Tommy Points: -28032
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Kamala Harris is extremely liberal. I'm not sure why this is a surprise?

It's an "idea", but let's see a detailed plan that pays for it in a sustainable way, and which doesn't decrease quality of care, create lengthy wait times, and result in bureaucratic death panels.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2017, 01:07:24 PM »

Offline Silas

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 320
  • Tommy Points: 10
Roy, you are joking about her idea...right.  What republican alternative plan are you comparing her strategy with?
Never miss the luxury of an unexpressed thought...

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2017, 01:16:16 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7943
  • Tommy Points: 483
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
Single-payor is the way to go. as shown by many other countries.  The insurance companies obviously hate it, but I really don't care.

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2017, 01:20:06 PM »

Offline Silas

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 320
  • Tommy Points: 10
Roy, your mention of death panels just reminded me of how Sarah Palin frightened many people in this country--especially older citizens--by predicting Obama Care would include death panels.   
Never miss the luxury of an unexpressed thought...

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2017, 01:39:52 PM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
  • Tommy Points: 114
Single-payor is the way to go. as shown by many other countries.  The insurance companies obviously hate it, but I really don't care.

I just hope we don't end up with the worst of both worlds where we have a single-payer system with conveniently outsourced administration of the system to the "experts" at the insurance companies.

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2017, 07:25:55 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32496
  • Tommy Points: -28032
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Roy, your mention of death panels just reminded me of how Sarah Palin frightened many people in this country--especially older citizens--by predicting Obama Care would include death panels.

We're seeing it in England right now.

As for her "idea" it's an extremely vague concept. I mean, Republicans can say they're for "free market solutions that preserve individual choice while also protecting those with preexisting conditions". Awesome! Now what are the details and how do we pay for it?

"Single payer" doesn't mean anything without specifics.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2017, 11:41:42 PM »

Offline mqtcelticsfan

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1738
  • Tommy Points: 173
Consider me open to both single-payer and President Kamala Harris.

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2017, 12:32:19 AM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5013
  • Tommy Points: 878
Health care is such a dicey issue in our current political climate, with so much loaded terminology. Harris couches the issue in terms of "right" vs. "privilege," but her use of "privilege" makes it sound (to me) like only rich people can afford health care, which obviously isn't true, as my wife and daughter and I have health care and we're not even upper-middle class. On the other hand, I do wish that every single person in America had access to solid health care, but I'm not quite down with calling it a "right," and maybe that's because I think of "rights" as political freedoms. It costs me no money to exercise my rights of free speech, freedom of religion, etc., whereas health care costs money (and quite a bit of it).

Admittedly, though, I'm no health care expert, and what I hear only seems to confuse me more—liberals tend to share lots of good stories about single-payer care, and my fellow conservatives tend to share lots of bad stories about it. I understand that people are people, and we shouldn't treat each other as mere commodities—yet health care costs a lot of money, which means someone has to pay for it, yet I'm not sure I'm comfortable with having some of the money I worked hard for being taken from me to pay for someone else's health care, especially given that my family has its own health care needs, portions of which aren't covered by insurance.

Anyway, just processing my thoughts.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis


Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2017, 04:18:55 AM »

Offline freshinthehouse

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1542
  • Tommy Points: 133
I understand that people are people, and we shouldn't treat each other as mere commodities—yet health care costs a lot of money, which means someone has to pay for it, yet I'm not sure I'm comfortable with having some of the money I worked hard for being taken from me to pay for someone else's health care, especially given that my family has its own health care needs, portions of which aren't covered by insurance.

Somewhere in that sentence there should be the words "so far."  Because if, god forbid, someone in your family had a catastrophic injury or illness, you would not be able to pay for it.  Nearly all health insurance plans have a spending cap, and if someone in your family suffers a serious malady (spinal injury, cancer, etc) odds are they'll go over it.  And when that happens a vast majority of families file for bankruptcy and the rest of Americans have to eat the cost.

A family shouldn't have to ruin itself financially just because it has bad luck.  We need to get with the rest of the civilized world and get universal health care.  It makes too much sense.

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2017, 06:29:09 AM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7943
  • Tommy Points: 483
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
I understand that people are people, and we shouldn't treat each other as mere commodities—yet health care costs a lot of money, which means someone has to pay for it, yet I'm not sure I'm comfortable with having some of the money I worked hard for being taken from me to pay for someone else's health care, especially given that my family has its own health care needs, portions of which aren't covered by insurance.
Somewhere in that sentence there should be the words "so far."  Because if, god forbid, someone in your family had a catastrophic injury or illness, you would not be able to pay for it.  Nearly all health insurance plans have a spending cap, and if someone in your family suffers a serious malady (spinal injury, cancer, etc) odds are they'll go over it.  And when that happens a vast majority of families file for bankruptcy and the rest of Americans have to eat the cost.

A family shouldn't have to ruin itself financially just because it has bad luck.  We need to get with the rest of the civilized world and get universal health care.  It makes too much sense.
This.  TP.

You are not just paying for someone else's insurance.  You are paying forward in case YOU need coverage.

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2017, 07:26:16 AM »

Online saltlover

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9337
  • Tommy Points: 2035
Roy, your mention of death panels just reminded me of how Sarah Palin frightened many people in this country--especially older citizens--by predicting Obama Care would include death panels.

We're seeing it in England right now.

As for her "idea" it's an extremely vague concept. I mean, Republicans can say they're for "free market solutions that preserve individual choice while also protecting those with preexisting conditions". Awesome! Now what are the details and how do we pay for it?

"Single payer" doesn't mean anything without specifics.

There's no death panel in England.  Please stop with this myth.  If you're talking about Charlie Gard, please read this informative article, which consistently refers to court judgment and goes into very important details about the relevant laws (which, I was myself surprised to learn, had nothing to do with the medical system).  https://reaction.life/charlie-gard-facts/  It even explicitly derides CNN for its coverage of the case (the only media outlet called out by name), so you have criticism of CNN as something in common with the author.

Below is a link to a study comparing 11 (and sometimes 17, depending on available data) countries' health care systems.  Since you want to compare the US to the U.K., let's look at some actual data.

1) You mentioned earlier that you're concerned about quality of care: As of 2013, there were 86 deaths per 100,000 people attributable to the U.K. healthcare system, compared with 115 deaths per 100,000 people in the U.S.

2) Lengthy wait times: 52% of those in the U.K. reported being able to get a same-day or next-day appointment when sick, compared with 48% in the U.S.  69% said it was somewhat or very easy to get an after hours appointment in the U.K., compared with 39% in the U.S.  7% reported a wait of more than 2 months to see a specialist in the U.K., compared with 6% in the U.S.  In other words, both countries experience comparable wait times, with the exception of the U.K. coming out ahead for after-hours care.

3) Affordability: The U.K. spends 8.8% of their GDP on health-care, compared to 17.1% in the U.S.  Spending per capita was about $3,400 in the U.K., compared with $9,100 in the U.S.  Out-of-pocket costs (costs no covered by respective insurance systems) averaged $321 in the U.K. and $1,074 in the U.S.

Putting it together, we're getting no better care, and no faster care, in the US than the U.K. currently is.  Arguably it's worse.  And we're paying 2-3 times as much for it. 

Looking more broadly, the US comes in dead last amongst the 17 countries surveyed in terms of amount paid on health care overall (although Switzerland required more out-of-pocket spending).  And it was a distant last, as per capita we had about 50% more in healthcare spending per capita than the next highest country (again Switzerland).  Of the 11 countries for which data was available, we were again in last place in deaths attributable to the healthcare system, about 30% higher than second-worst New Zealand.  For wait times, the US was second-to-last in ability to get a same-day or next-day appointment, third-to-last for after hours care availability, and a respectable 4th in waiting 2+ months for a specialist (all of those out of 11 countries).  It wasn't all terrible for the US, as we're 3rd for survival rates for both breast cancer and heart attacks.

Also, you didn't state this concern, but it's important to acknowledge one of the greatest reasons why people want single-payer -- a belief that affordability on a personal level should not be an obstacle to receiving care.  In the US, 37% reported they experienced a barrier to health care in the prior year due to cost.  In the U.K., it was 4%.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/%7E/media/files/publications/fund-report/2016/jan/1857_mossialos_intl_profiles_2015_v7.pdf?la=en

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2017, 08:05:03 AM »

Offline arctic 3.0

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2093
  • Tommy Points: 326
Roy, your mention of death panels just reminded me of how Sarah Palin frightened many people in this country--especially older citizens--by predicting Obama Care would include death panels.

We're seeing it in England right now.

As for her "idea" it's an extremely vague concept. I mean, Republicans can say they're for "free market solutions that preserve individual choice while also protecting those with preexisting conditions". Awesome! Now what are the details and how do we pay for it?

"Single payer" doesn't mean anything without specifics.

There's no death panel in England.  Please stop with this myth.  If you're talking about Charlie Gard, please read this informative article, which consistently refers to court judgment and goes into very important details about the relevant laws (which, I was myself surprised to learn, had nothing to do with the medical system).  https://reaction.life/charlie-gard-facts/  It even explicitly derides CNN for its coverage of the case (the only media outlet called out by name), so you have criticism of CNN as something in common with the author.

Below is a link to a study comparing 11 (and sometimes 17, depending on available data) countries' health care systems.  Since you want to compare the US to the U.K., let's look at some actual data.

1) You mentioned earlier that you're concerned about quality of care: As of 2013, there were 86 deaths per 100,000 people attributable to the U.K. healthcare system, compared with 115 deaths per 100,000 people in the U.S.

2) Lengthy wait times: 52% of those in the U.K. reported being able to get a same-day or next-day appointment when sick, compared with 48% in the U.S.  69% said it was somewhat or very easy to get an after hours appointment in the U.K., compared with 39% in the U.S.  7% reported a wait of more than 2 months to see a specialist in the U.K., compared with 6% in the U.S.  In other words, both countries experience comparable wait times, with the exception of the U.K. coming out ahead for after-hours care.

3) Affordability: The U.K. spends 8.8% of their GDP on health-care, compared to 17.1% in the U.S.  Spending per capita was about $3,400 in the U.K., compared with $9,100 in the U.S.  Out-of-pocket costs (costs no covered by respective insurance systems) averaged $321 in the U.K. and $1,074 in the U.S.

Putting it together, we're getting no better care, and no faster care, in the US than the U.K. currently is.  Arguably it's worse.  And we're paying 2-3 times as much for it. 

Looking more broadly, the US comes in dead last amongst the 17 countries surveyed in terms of amount paid on health care overall (although Switzerland required more out-of-pocket spending).  And it was a distant last, as per capita we had about 50% more in healthcare spending per capita than the next highest country (again Switzerland).  Of the 11 countries for which data was available, we were again in last place in deaths attributable to the healthcare system, about 30% higher than second-worst New Zealand.  For wait times, the US was second-to-last in ability to get a same-day or next-day appointment, third-to-last for after hours care availability, and a respectable 4th in waiting 2+ months for a specialist (all of those out of 11 countries).  It wasn't all terrible for the US, as we're 3rd for survival rates for both breast cancer and heart attacks.

Also, you didn't state this concern, but it's important to acknowledge one of the greatest reasons why people want single-payer -- a belief that affordability on a personal level should not be an obstacle to receiving care.  In the US, 37% reported they experienced a barrier to health care in the prior year due to cost.  In the U.K., it was 4%.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/%7E/media/files/publications/fund-report/2016/jan/1857_mossialos_intl_profiles_2015_v7.pdf?la=en

Thanks Salt.
I am so tired of these boogie man arguments and fact free assertions about potential negative consequences of single payer.
Unfortunately knocking  these down with facts doesn't seem to phase the purveyors of falsehood. They just keep spewing it.

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2017, 08:07:47 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14469
  • Tommy Points: 904
It is a huge problem looming over us.   The big thing about single payer is how our going to pay for it?  I am not talking about affordability, I mean how do we pay for it when we are drowning in debt?  I think Bernie is a good guy but I am skeptical about how we would pay for a lot of his ideas.   The GOP won't go for just taxing the rich.   The Dems should have done this when they had the chance instead of Obamacare but lacked the courage and the will to get it done.

I think this is a gesture to get people talking and this quote affirms it.

Quote
Like Sanders readily admits, this bill isn't going anywhere any time soon.

The whole thing is more about political framing — getting Democrats to the point where this would be a top priority whenever the party is back in power.

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/11/542676994/bernie-sanders-knows-his-medicare-for-all-bill-wont-pass-thats-not-the-point

I lived overseas in Germany and my friends over there liked their healthcare.  I think it has been much vilified.   Also, my friends in Canada like their health care but they griped a little more than the Germans due to their taxes.   

A lot of these countries do palliative care with terminal cancer rather than wasting money on treatments that provide false hope and do not give a positive prognosis but make the doctors and hospital money.   I think this is where the death panel idea comes from.   I as a Cancer Survivor, renal cell carcinoma,  agree with this stance.  We waste money on treatments that do not work.   

Quote
A family shouldn't have to ruin itself financially just because it has bad luck.  We need to get with the rest of the civilized world and get universal health care.  It makes too much sense.

We pay for folks to live in Hurricane Zones, time and time again due to bad luck...

Quote
Consider me open to both single-payer and President Kamala Harris.

Good luck for her becoming president with her gun control stances.   Still, this is smart to get her name out there as the Dems lack a lot of young faces with name recognition, so does the GOP.

Re: Kamala Harris co-sponsors bill with Bernie. Shift in Dem strategery?
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2017, 09:46:39 AM »

Offline D Dub

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3003
  • Tommy Points: 237
It is a huge problem looming over us.   The big thing about single payer is how our going to pay for it?  I am not talking about affordability, I mean how do we pay for it when we are drowning in debt?  I think Bernie is a good guy but I am skeptical about how we would pay for a lot of his ideas.   The GOP won't go for just taxing the rich.   The Dems should have done this when they had the chance instead of Obamacare but lacked the courage and the will to get it done.


My recollection of the Obamacare debate, at the time, was that his original bill DID include single-payer.  But the GOP in congress negotiated single-payer out of the bill; in favor of the free market system that now has us all white-knuckling our wallets every time we need of care. 

In my view, until we can address the greed at the c-suite levels of Insurance Companies, our healthcare costs will remain high no matter how the system is administered. 

Healthcare isn't a great market for the laize faire approach, in my view, because healthy people don't consume products & services.  The goal, having a healthy population, is very much at odds with the "business models" of our major healthcare providers. 

I'm all for improving Obamacare, but its going require positive conversations about new ideas.   

The 'repeal & replace later' idea was incredibly short-sited, and the fact that it took the GOP the last seven years to land upon it as their best approach underscores the complexity of the problem.

Like it or not, blue and red are going to have to work TOGETHER on this one.     

Quote from: Isaiah Thomas
I don't believe in pressure