As long as I've been paying attention to this issue the most plausible path toward universal coverage has always been a universal mandate + public option and the public option steadily grows to cover more and more of the population
-
Show this thread
-
This isn't a half measure being proposed because Americans are uniquely recalcitrant capitalists, this is literally what happened in several European countries, whose universal coverage evolved from or in some cases still is a "mixed" system
1 reply 16 retweets 83 likesShow this thread -
But now we're being told this is unacceptable and the only way we will ever see universal coverage is if an iron-fisted President marches into the corporate offices of Blue Cross Blue Shield shouting "Your business is over! To the guillotine with you!" Sorry if I'm skeptical
4 replies 8 retweets 75 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @arthur_affect
There's obviously no middle path between hoping people like Pelosi will let you pass good legislation and rolling out the guillotines, right? It's not like you can do speeches, ask people to cal senators and stir up popular pressure, or even call for strikes, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Freakademic
The President going on TV and demanding a General Strike is not as much of a fantasy as Bernie Sanders personally kicking down the door of Blue Cross corporate HQ and shooting all the executives, but it's a difference of degree and not kind
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Maybe, maybe not. The fact that it hasn't been done (here, recently) does not actually make it impossible or mean it would be ineffective. And you chose to respond to the most extreme option I mentioned and that any of us think might be remotely possible from him.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Freakademic
Unless you're proposing a Second Constitutional Convention to change how the Senate works, overturning the Senate GOP majority by presidential exhortation during Sanders' first term isn't even mathematically possible, much less politically feasible
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Freakademic
And honestly I don't see why passing a "compromised" bill now and getting more people insured now means you've "lost the war" and can't pass a hypothetically better bill later
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Right. Because that has worked so well for us so far. We've just been flush with candidates who sincerely wanted to help normal people. Dude, people see someone who might actually give a fuck and want to seize that chance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Freakademic @arthur_affect
And it's super annoying to have a bunch of people to just assume that's not possible as a *starting point,* rather than fighting it out and seeing how much we can get done. That's some Obama shit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm not talking about people's personalities or core moral convictions or whatever, I'm just asking the relatively simple question of what you think President Bernie should actually do and getting a predictable vague response saying "He should BE ANGRY and BE PRINCIPLED"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
No, I'm saying he should spend the entire 2020 election trying to build support for it, and then speak directly to the American people and ask them to pressure their congressmen once they're actually working on it, and THEN consider whether other options could work.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Freakademic @arthur_affect
And if that doesn't work, THEN he can look at compromises. Also, this thing already has a lot of support. It's not changing a no to a yes. It's changing a yes to a "yes and I'll actively push for it." It won't be easy, but bigger changes have happened hundreds of times.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.