Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

In the long run, single payer advocates are all dead

Yesterday, on Medicare's anniversary, I received this amazing -- or rather, completely normal -- email letter from Bernie Sanders.

Subject: Letter to Single-Payer Supporters
'A STRONG MOVEMENT BEHIND MEDICARE FOR ALL'

It directed me (caps in original) to "READ THE OPEN LETTER TO SINGLE-PAYER SUPPORTERS." Which I did; confusingly, the page isn't headlined "Open Letter." Here are some excerpts:

“Now that a new health care bill has been signed into law, it has never been more important to have a strong movement behind Medicare for All,” Sanders wrote along with Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. But they warn: “The truth is not enough. We already know that such a health care system has repeatedly proven to control costs more effectively, cover everyone or almost everyone, and deliver care of significantly higher quality than health care systems that tolerate the presence of private health insurance companies. Now we must make it so that the truth can no longer be ignored.

Well, wouldn't 2008-2009 have been a very good time to make sure the truth couldn't be ignored? And what happened? Conyers rolled over, and enabled the public option bait and switch, which had already been "pre-betrayed" by Obama.* Kucinich opposed the Obama Baucus Wellpoint HCR bill until Obama took him up on Air Force One, and then proceeded not merely to vote for it, but to prance around the House floor whipping for it. And Sanders got some clinics. Well done, all. The "letter" continues:

The single payer champions [BWA-HA-HA-HA!] discuss some significant steps toward progress** which were included in the recently-passed health care law, including a Sanders provision “allowing a waiver from the Exchanges for states to innovate with health coverage such as a state-based Medicare for All-like system that was included in the new law. … Though the effective date for the Exchange waiver was pushed back to 2017 by the Congressional Budget Office*** to avoid driving up the estimated cost of the bill, the waiver’s presence sent a clear message: if a state thinks it can do better, Congress wants to see it.”

The message I get is that we have to wait seven years for a friggin study. Such a deal. Obviously, as we've seen 2006-2010, the the legacy party system is pathetic and useless -- from our standpoint -- and should be destroyed as soon as possible. If the Ds go first, then so be it. (Health insurance companies love the legacy parties, of course, but the health insurance companies are killing people for money, so, unlike Versailles, which is in that business anyhow, I don't especially care about their good opinion.)

Bottom line is that if I have to spend seven years of my life getting something done, I'm not going to invest a single second of that time, let alone any money, with the Ds.

NOTE * The "realists" and career "progressives" are always telling us how their insider status gives them special insight into what can actually be accomplished in Versailles. So, either they knew about Obama's pre-betrayal and didn't tell anybody on the outside about it, in which case nobody should ever trust them again, or they didn't know, and so much for their "savvy" and strategic abilities. And nobody should ever trust them again.

NOTE ** I like that. We don't have "progress." We have "steps toward progress." Prolegomena, style of thing.

NOTE *** Who, apparently, Congress works for, and not the other way round.

0
No votes yet

Comments

editor_u's picture
Submitted by editor_u on

"We have 'steps toward progress.'"

What have they done to my language, Ma? Reminds me a little of "Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Related Activities."

"Prolegomena," now there's a word. I had to look it up, of course. I'm not as smart as I look.

Submitted by jawbone on

pro·le·gom·e·non (prl-gm-nn, -nn)
n. pl. pro·le·gom·e·na (-n)
1. A preliminary discussion, especially a formal essay introducing a work of considerable length or complexity.
2. prolegomena (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Prefatory remarks or observations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Greek, from neuter present passive participle of prolegein, to say beforehand : pro-, before; see pro-2 + legein, to speak; see leg- in Indo-European roots.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

prole·gome·nous adj.

From Free Dictionary

cwaltz's picture
Submitted by cwaltz on

Who knew that there was a "discussion" of a single payer health care system. And here I was thinking that the House Leader had pronounced it "off the table" and the chairman of the committee had citizens arrested for attemping to bring it intpo the discussion. Goodness gracious I must have been mistaken on what the word "discussion" actually means( and I say this as someone who is on the record as wanting a robust ,and yes I could define robust at ALL times during the debate,public option).

I really, really need to inquire this year how much a booth at the Wilderness Festival costs. I am so freakin' sick of the legacy parties and their posturing.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

that had "prolegomena" in the title. you can imagine how the rest of the stuff read. so pretentious. and like, 1000 pages (with footnotes!) of 8 point font. archaeologists, meh. they use so many words to say, "i'm basically just guessing." /naughty/

working for the dems is a great idea... if you're trying to get on the Gravy Train. sometimes, The Franchise rewards one well. until it doesn't, and then it will gut you without feeling. but anyway, no. you won't see me working with dems for a while, at least, not seriously. that kitty has left the bag for the time being.

meh, i got sick today and missed out on an alternative, something i was really looking forward to doing. i apologize. but then, that's what happens when we Little People, being small and poor and unimportant, go without real health care. which the dems aren't going to bring us, ever. but some of their apologists may fuck/suck/sycophant their way into having that for life, which is why they act they way they do.