Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

[_honorentheos]

I don't think Canadian health care ushers in an authoritarian government to effectuate it. Case in point, all the Western governments that have similar systems. That's overshooting the criticism of single-payer by miles.

Setting aside the exact wording was, ”One doesn't take control of major institutions such as healthcare without being an authoritarian to some extent because to be successful socializing institutions requires enforcement against opposition." as well as Sanders plan being much broader than the Canadian plan he has intends to enact in four years or less, there's a more fundamental, philosophical question. In Canada, there is broad societal consensus a basic level of healthcare is a right. We debate on that here. So, how does one go about reforming societal views about this to align the US with Canada where it's largely past debate that healthcare be considered a universal right?

[_honorentheos]

Explain. I'm curious what you young whipper snappers have to teach everyone else about how things work and can be provided for free.

This made my day, honor. I don't think "young whipper snappers" is used nearly enough, and I think we should start a campaign to bring it back.

I'll sign the petition.

[_honorentheos]

have to teach everyone else about how things work and can be provided for free.

Technology is changing the world. What can 65 year olds teach us about the future?

Ever heard the phrase past is prologue?

[_honorentheos]

Explain. I'm curious what you young whipper snappers have to teach everyone else about how things work and can be provided for free.

Okay let me put it simple: Socialism

What's that even mean?

Socialism could work under A.I. and automation. The reason why socialism doesn't work is because of lazy people, but that probably wouldn't be a problem with A.I. and automation.

So in your view the problem is society needs to bear the burden of freeloaders overloading not just social safety nets but funding a baseline level quality of life through magic production of something from nothing?

I think a Trump campaign person would have a field day with your example being plastered over the internet as representing a typical Bernie Bro. Are you SURE you aren't a middle aged conservative Mormon pretending to be who you claim to be in order to make people like you claim to be look bad?

[_EAllusion]

I don't think Canadian health care ushers in an authoritarian government to effectuate it. Case in point, all the Western governments that have similar systems. That's overshooting the criticism of single-payer by miles.

Setting aside the exact wording was, ”One doesn't take control of major institutions such as healthcare without being an authoritarian to some extent because to be successful socializing institutions requires enforcement against opposition." as well as Sanders plan being much broader than the Canadian plan he has intends to enact in four years or less, there's a more fundamental, philosophical question. In Canada, there is broad societal consensus a basic level of healthcare is a right. We debate on that here. So, how does one go about reforming societal views about this to align the US with Canada where it's largely past debate that healthcare be considered a universal right?

Every Western society that has based a version of universal health care, which is all of them besides the United States, has had a period where it was a contentious political issue and required a transition away from the previous system. Every single Western society has managed this political transition without authoritarianism being the outcome or a significant risk. It's true that once those societies have gotten universal health care for a period of time, those programs tend to be extremely popular and ingrained in their cultural views of human rights, but that evolved. It's not as though all Canadians woke up one day, decided health care access was a human right, and then passed a law.

If your opposition to single-payer health care is based on the idea it will usher in authoritarian government, then I think you have a bad basis for opposing it and should change your views. Moreover, this objection probably looks crazed to proponents of such a system and helps them think opposition to their views is based in ignorance and fear-mongering. Again, I think you are over-shooting the criticism. By a lot.

Look at it this way. If Bobby Kennedy wasn't assassinated, which was a fluke occurrence, the odds that the US would've passed something in the ball park of a single-payer system is very high. Someone like me would have no memory of the US not having such a system anymore than I would have a memory of a time when Medicare didn't exist. If we imagine this counter-factual history, does it make sense to imagine that with it would've come authoritarian government? That seems unlikely. This was an argument against every major New Deal / Great Society social program such as SS and Medicare, and I think most people now recognize that argument was way off-base. There's even an irony in that the desire to expunge those programs is what is helping usher in authoritarianism in the US.

[_honorentheos]

Who said I was opposed to single payer health care? My concern was directed at Bernie Sanders. It wasn't that it would lead to authoritarian government. It was that Bernie has tendencies as the face of a movement that is more concerning than if a Cory Booker or Elizabeth Warren were the President working towards such a shift.

Regarding learning to like it once we have it: We've had polititians attempt to move the US towards some form of public health care many, many times. There were attempts inthe WW2 era when the British nationalized their system. In my life time both Clinton and Obama attempted healthcare reform. The single payer option gets shot down because public sentiment is against the kind of government-directed system being proposed. It's not seen as a right that the government should protect, and we should contribute to ensuring for everyone.

So the question wasn't answered. Your response is that it takes time and effort to convince people to like it ignores the issue of getting the saddle on their back and the bit in their mouth in order to break them in to the idea. So is your view you force it on people and expect they will come around to it?

[_EAllusion]

Who said I was opposed to single payer health care? My concern was directed at Bernie Sanders. It wasn't that it would lead to authoritarian government. It was that Bernie has tendencies as the face of a movement that is more concerning than if a Cory Booker or Elizabeth Warren were the President working towards such a shift.

Warren is (was) the by hook or by crook candidate. Sanders has a long record of political compromise. Schmo is correct that this is his style of negotiating tactic. I don't think Warren is going to usher in authoritarian government to get her way either, but there really isn't any basis to think Sanders is going to use authoritarian tactics to get single-payer passed.

Regarding learning to like it once we have it: We've had politians attempt to move the US towards some form of public health care many, many times. There were attempts inthe WW2 era when the British nationalized their system. In my life time both Clinton and Obama attempted healthcare reform. The a single payer option gets shot down.

The single payer option had a large majority of votes in Congress available for it in the 1970's. It's flukey that it didn't pass, first because Democrats had some awful luck in the '68 election and second because they nominated Jimmy Carter for his squeaky clean imagine in counterpoint to Nixon in '76 rather than basically anyone else.

The Clinton health care plan was essentially the plan Nixon favored and could've passed with a finger snap if not for the fact that Democrats in Congress opposed it because it didn't go far enough.

Where you see a history of American opposition to universal health care, I see a chaotic political system where lucky breaks have path-dependent effects.

So the question wasn't answered. Your response is that it takea time and effort to convince people to like it ignores the issue of getting the saddle on their back and the bit in their mouth in order to break them in to the idea. Sonia your view you force it on people and expect they will come around to it?

People for years said by majorities they opposed Obamacare, but when Congress tried to rescind it, it was wildly unpopular to do so. If you can get some form of universal health care to pass, opposition to it is likely to melt away. People are deeply fearful of their health care being disrupted, so that is a political problem to tackle to generate support, but if you get the votes at some point, people are very likely to then just staunchly favor the new status quo. If there's an opportunity to pass universal health care, proponents would be wise to strike when the iron is hot. Once it passes, it's going to be very hard to overcome opposition to removing it. That's traditionally one of the arguments in favor of opposition to it.

[_EAllusion]

On a related note, the lesson from the Obamacare debacle for Democrats should be that if they want to reform health care to expand government funded access, they should pass a clean bill that either universalizes Medicare or allows some form of universal buy-in. Most Democrats seemed to have learned this lesson. Biden, while proposing a fairly radical expansion of Obamacare, is an outlier on this front.

If his plan passes, it's going to get shot down by the Supreme Court in a legal calvinball argument.

[_honorentheos]

Trump was a vote (McCain) away from repealing the ACA. The public was as partisan over it as ever even as people decided they liked having preexisting conditions not disqualify them from coverage or having older dependant children be able to stay on a parents policy. When the SC chips away at the ACA , conservative outlets cheerlead.

But regardless, I gave Schmo my bigger picture concern that we are seeing partisanship shaking the system apart in ways that are especially damaging to the long term prospects for Western Democracy to survive and the Sanders movement is a long stride in that direction.

[_EAllusion]

Trump was a vote (McCain) away from repealing the ACA.

Correct. And it was wildly unpopular when that was happening. In public opinion polling, people went from opposing Obamacare to Obamacare being quite popular when the possibility of it being fully repealed seemed real. The low-point in Trump polling coincides with this, but once that moment passed, people went back to acting like it never even happened.

You're taking the exact opposite lesson you should be taking from this. When you get power, pass what you can. Public opinion is wide, but not deep. Political memory is short. Especially on healthcare, what the public wants is the status quo, so if you get to change the status quo, do it. Once you establish a new normal, the public will entrench in defense of it. All the risk is front-loaded, so the work is getting to the point where you can change the law.

But regardless, I gave Schmo my bigger picture concern that we are seeing partisanship shaking the system apart in ways that are especially damaging to the long term prospects for Western Democracy to survive and the Sanders movement is a long stride in that direction.

"Partisanship" is not what is shaking Western democracy. Right-wing authoritarianism is. People who can't tell the difference are helping the latter accomplish their goals.