• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why didn't the dems do "medicare for all" when they had the power to do so?

I

itsforthekids

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
2,754
Reaction score
572
Location
Reality
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
They spent every nickel of political capital on barrycare...which we were told was a "big ****ing deal", remember? Instead of doing what they're now saying would "really fix our medical system", which is medicare for all.

Why didn't they do that then?

By the way, lefties keep telling us how barrycare is awesome, but out of the other side of their mouths still barking about how bad it is. Weird. Really ****ing weird.
 
itsforthekids said:
They spent every nickel of political capital on barrycare...which we were told was a "big ****ing deal", remember? Instead of doing what they're now saying would "really fix our medical system", which is medicare for all.

Why didn't they do that then?

By the way, lefties keep telling us how barrycare is awesome, but out of the other side of their mouths still barking about how bad it is. Weird. Really ****ing weird.
Click to expand...

Because they knew that the medical system is super expensive and that ramping up access to it that much bankrupts the country much faster than we are currently doing that. However increasingly people dont care about the financial ruin of America, or they are too dim to know about it.
 
I think Obamacare was set up knowing it would be inadequate as well as disliked and that would be the signal to go whole hog for single payer. While the insurance companies figured they were feathering their nests, the Dems had (have) plans to make them obsolete. What they didn't count on was their sinking political fortunes.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Because they knew that the medical system is super expensive and that ramping up access to it that much bankrupts the country much faster than we are currently doing that. However increasingly people dont care about the financial ruin of America, or they are too dim to know about it.
Click to expand...

We reached across the aisle to the very end. We even used YOUR IDEAS instead of ours.

Working with Republicans is fruitless.
 
itsforthekids said:
They spent every nickel of political capital on barrycare...which we were told was a "big ****ing deal", remember? Instead of doing what they're now saying would "really fix our medical system", which is medicare for all.

Why didn't they do that then?

By the way, lefties keep telling us how barrycare is awesome, but out of the other side of their mouths still barking about how bad it is. Weird. Really ****ing weird.
Click to expand...

Fixing health care would be easy if everyone at the table wanted it to be fixed.
 
itsforthekids said:
They spent every nickel of political capital on barrycare...which we were told was a "big ****ing deal", remember? Instead of doing what they're now saying would "really fix our medical system", which is medicare for all.

Why didn't they do that then?

By the way, lefties keep telling us how barrycare is awesome, but out of the other side of their mouths still barking about how bad it is. Weird. Really ****ing weird.
Click to expand...

The power to do so? What country were you living in?
 
Howard the Duck said:
We reached across the aisle to the very end. We even used YOUR IDEAS instead of ours.

Working with Republicans is fruitless.
Click to expand...

LOL... they didn't need a single republican. Weird how you throw that "reaching across the aisle" BS. And the so called republican whose ideas were used is extremely liberal.
 
itsforthekids said:
They spent every nickel of political capital on barrycare...which we were told was a "big ****ing deal", remember? Instead of doing what they're now saying would "really fix our medical system", which is medicare for all.

Why didn't they do that then?

By the way, lefties keep telling us how barrycare is awesome, but out of the other side of their mouths still barking about how bad it is. Weird. Really ****ing weird.
Click to expand...

They did not have the political capital for Medicare for all.

The best they could muster was Obamacare.. that in retrospect.. had a lot of bad things in it.. also had a lot of good things and was probably the most significant piece of healthcare insurance reform in decades. (the problem was that if didn;t focus more on healthcare insurance reform).
 
Howard the Duck said:
We reached across the aisle to the very end. We even used YOUR IDEAS instead of ours.

Working with Republicans is fruitless.
Click to expand...

"Your Ideas"? WTF is that? I am a heretic, the definition being that my ideas tend to be in the minority, often extreme minority.

I have been very clear that I am a socialist, that I have not been a republican since 1983.

Would you care to try again?
 
I seem to recall that part of the ObamaCare debate was why not go single payer, government run.

Now that we finally hear about the price tag, I'm glad we didn't. Perhaps those that did the analysis, those liars Gruber and Emanuel, realized that when that $32T bill came due, no one couldn't survive it, and decided against it.
 
They did the wrong thing and tried to compromise. Hopefully they learned their lesson.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Because they knew that the medical system is super expensive and that ramping up access to it that much bankrupts the country much faster than we are currently doing that. However increasingly people dont care about the financial ruin of America, or they are too dim to know about it.
Click to expand...

I think single payer is the only option. The reason the democrats didn't push it through is because the rich and powerful do not want single payer. The rich and powerful own the medical profession and make lots of money off of it. You have the insurance companies, the pharmaceuticals, and the medical establishment. We are talking about trillions of dollars worth of profits going to the upper 1%. We would have to eliminate all those profits going to the rich for it to be affordable. I am sorry as long as these 1% own our government, both parties, the media, and control our money through the federal reserve it is never going to happen.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I think single payer is the only option. The reason the democrats didn't push it through is because the rich and powerful do not want single payer. The rich and powerful own the medical profession and make lots of money off of it. You have the insurance companies, the pharmaceuticals, and the medical establishment. We are talking about trillions of dollars worth of profits going to the upper 1%. We would have to eliminate all those profits going to the rich for it to be affordable. I am sorry as long as these 1% own our government, both parties, the media, and control our money through the federal reserve it is never going to happen.
Click to expand...

The problem with your story is how corrupt Washington is, and that it has been busy for a long time further enriching the rich at the expense of the rest of us, as well as all those who will be born American in the foreseeable future. They would make out like bandits under single payer.
 
itsforthekids said:
They spent every nickel of political capital on barrycare...which we were told was a "big ****ing deal", remember? Instead of doing what they're now saying would "really fix our medical system", which is medicare for all.

Why didn't they do that then?

By the way, lefties keep telling us how barrycare is awesome, but out of the other side of their mouths still barking about how bad it is. Weird. Really ****ing weird.
Click to expand...

They didn't have 218 votes for it in the House or 60 votes for it in the Senate. Any other questions?
 
itsforthekids said:
They spent every nickel of political capital on barrycare...which we were told was a "big ****ing deal", remember? Instead of doing what they're now saying would "really fix our medical system", which is medicare for all.

Why didn't they do that then?

By the way, lefties keep telling us how barrycare is awesome, but out of the other side of their mouths still barking about how bad it is. Weird. Really ****ing weird.
Click to expand...



Here's the deal. When Obama wanted a health care package, Obama did not have a supermajority in the Senate. So, he knew a medicare for all would never pass the Senate. Because the genesis of mandated insurance began with Republicans, and that Romney instituted it for Massachusetts, Obama deemed that the ACA would be his best bet for Universal Health Care and mandated insurance might be something the right could live with, or so he thought. Anyway, that was his reasoning.

Now then, one day Obama did have a supermajority in the Senate, but this was after a year of working on the bill, and that supermajority only lasted for 72 days, so in that small window, the 2700 page bill with all of his republican amendments was passed. There was no way he could start from scratch on a totally new idea at that juncture.

Capiche?

Yeah, dems want medicare for all, and it's time will come, just as Gay Marriage's time came, Medicare for all will have it's day when the time is right but it's time wasn't right during Obama. What dems need is control of both houses for a longer period of time, if that is at all possible, we shall see what the future brings.
 
eohrnberger said:
I seem to recall that part of the ObamaCare debate was why not go single payer, government run.

Now that we finally hear about the price tag, I'm glad we didn't. Perhaps those that did the analysis, those liars Gruber and Emanuel, realized that when that $32T bill came due, no one couldn't survive it, and decided against it.
Click to expand...

32T over 10 years is less than America spends on healthcare right now...
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The problem with your story is how corrupt Washington is, and that it has been busy for a long time further enriching the rich at the expense of the rest of us, as well as all those who will be born American in the foreseeable future. They would make out like bandits under single payer.
Click to expand...

Weird how you're totally fine with all that enriching the rich as long as it's private sector. Lotta Air Traffic Control bribery, is there? :lamo
 
Deuce said:
Weird how you're totally fine with all that enriching the rich as long as it's private sector. Lotta Air Traffic Control bribery, is there? :lamo
Click to expand...

What is not weird is how yet again you get caught with no idea about what you are talking about....You clearly have not the first damn clue about who I am...and I would really like to go into how that happens but you are not worth the points.

Get Lost.
 
itsforthekids said:
They spent every nickel of political capital on barrycare...which we were told was a "big ****ing deal", remember? Instead of doing what they're now saying would "really fix our medical system", which is medicare for all.

Why didn't they do that then?

By the way, lefties keep telling us how barrycare is awesome, but out of the other side of their mouths still barking about how bad it is. Weird. Really ****ing weird.
Click to expand...

The party wouldn't exist, now, much be sitting on the bench looking stupid. Look how bad they ****ed themselves with Obamacare. They knew that single payer was political suicide.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
What is not weird is how yet again you get caught with no idea about what you are talking about....You clearly have not the first damn clue about who I am...and I would really like to go into how that happens but you are not worth the points.

Get Lost.
Click to expand...

You haven't criticized private sector healthcare "enriching" even once since you registered here :shrug:
 
Greenbeard said:
They didn't have 218 votes for it in the House or 60 votes for it in the Senate. Any other questions?
Click to expand...

For a few months democrats under Obama had a super majority.

"... Exactly one month later, on September 25, Democrat Paul Kirk was appointed interim senator from Massachusetts to serve until the special election set for January 19, 2010 – once again giving the Democrats that 60th vote.

... With the supermajority vote safely intact once again, the Senate moved rather quickly to pass the ACA – or ObamaCare – on Christmas Eve 2009 in a 60 – 39 vote ...

... They decided to have the House take up the identical bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. It passed on March 21, 2010, by a 219 – 212 vote. ... President Obama signed the ACA legislation two days later on March 23. ..."


https://www.forbes.com/sites/physic...amacare-into-law-four-years-ago/#2aaa8aff526b
 
Greenbeard said:
They didn't have 218 votes for it in the House or 60 votes for it in the Senate. Any other questions?
Click to expand...

More likely they didn't have the balls to pass the taxes they needed to pay for it. Alternatively, if every American family just put away the $2,500 in savings on health care expenses the ACA delivered, we'd get there eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom