3 ms·

I'm pretty sure the political group that can guarantee a quality National Health Service in the US will win

MajimasEyepatch 2y ago
When the Democrats had a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate when Obama was elected, they couldn't even get a public option included in the Affordable Care Act, and the right so successfully demagogued "Obamacare" (their name for it) that the Democrats lost an incredible number of seats in the 2010 midterms. Bernie Sanders campaigned on Medicare for All (essentially what you're suggesting) in 2016 and 2020, and he didn't even win the Democratic primary. Despite how big a problem healthcare is in the US, most voters fear any change that may put their current health coverage at risk. Most people under 65 have (or feel like they have) decent-to-good health insurance through an employer-sponsored plan and don't necessarily see a big benefit to throwing that away. People over 65 are fiercely protective of their Medicare benefits and tend to worry that Medicare for All is going to make their healthcare worse. (Judging by the amount of "shocked Pikachu face" we see lately from Trump voters who expected him to fix the economy, there's a critical group of swing voters who seem unwilling or unable to accurately judge candidates based on their policies vs. their vibes.) I don't agree with those people. I'd love to see our healthcare system dramatically overhauled. But between the polarization and risk aversion of American voters, "a quality National Health Service" has not proven to be a winning platform so far and is unlikely to be in the future.
- aSanchezStern 2y ago
  "Didn't even win the democratic primary" might be a bit of a misnomer if it's implying that winning the democratic primary should be much easier than winning the general. Bernie has positions that are popular outside of democrats, many people think that if he had won the primary, he would have had a much better chance of winning than Hilary or Biden, since he had less baggage and his policies were broadly popular.
  - MattGaiser 2y ago
    Has this idea of Bernie positions being popular outside the Democratic Party gone anywhere? Has it survived an election? I’ve heard it frequently claimed, but where has a progressive Dem won where a moderate didn’t? They seem to lose badly. The Sanders people were all in on Paula Jean Swearengin in WV and even tried to primary Manchin with her. WV has all the supposed demographics Sanders appeals to. White working class people mired in poverty. She was the worst performing Democratic nominee in West Virginia history.
    - mullingitover 2y ago
      There is a huge market for populism in the US electorate. You would be floored by how many Obama 2008 voters are now Trump voters. Obama beat Clinton in the 2008 primaries and people believed he did it by running to left of her. People thought he was going to burn for-profit health care to the ground and deliver a single payer system, and that he'd throw the bankers who triggered the 2008 crisis in prison. The disappointment when he governed like it was a third Clinton term did major damage to the party, and it let Trump pick up the populist mantle. Populism, however, is like candy. You can add it to something wholesome, like Sanders does, and get virtuous results. Or you can add it to antifreeze, like the Musk/Trump regime, and get what we're getting.
      - MattGaiser 2y ago
        The market only seems for the hurting other people part. Obama voters who voted for Trump didn’t vote for better healthcare. They voted to hurt healthcare insurance workers. They then voted to hurt someone else with Trump. As they first seemingly voted for universal healthcare and then voted for abolishing what public healthcare the USA had. That’s not consistent with caring about it as an issue at all. I can accept that politically, the Dems may need an enemy. Shared hating of someone is a potent bonding agent.
        MajimasEyepatch 2y ago
        That’s true of Trump’s base, but I don’t know if it’s true of swing voters. A lot of them are just frankly ignorant and think they voted for “change” without understanding what that actually means.
- hkt 2y ago
  In fairness, and NHS didn't get tested at the ballot in 2016. There's a structural problem with parties of the "left", namely that they're hostages of their predominantly centre-right memberships. Labour in the UK has the same problem, as do the Socialist party in France. Pretty much all social democratic parties have been hollowed out by a managerial class (alongside career lawyers and the like) that their traditional bases aren't welcome. This stymies the ability of left wing populists who would challenge the current system and bring about policies like universal healthcare to even run in the first place. What's worse is that they'll inevitably be attacked by those same centrist incumbents while they do run: Jeremy Corbyn was a great example of this. One of his fiercest critics is now a minister for health, another was made a Lord, others are now safely pickled in think tanks which will tide them over nicely until they can return to the fold. The only way to fix this is to do as the right have done across Europe: to accept that it'll be a very long haul indeed until your people get power, and to start insurgent, radical parties. This sidesteps the big incumbent parties as a filter, and makes it clear who one's friends are. That's what needs to happen in the US on the left, but the odds of it paying off in anything less than decades are staggeringly low.
  - tormeh 2y ago
    The American voting system only permits two parties. You're welcome to think otherwise but it'll just lose you elections. If you want the left to win elections you need to start a new right-wing party to split the vote for the Republicans. Name it True Patriots or some shit like that.
  - rdm_blackhole 2y ago
    > as do the Socialist party in France I don't agree with you here. On the right of the Socialists, you have Macron's party. These two parties vote together on some things but disagree on others. Also the fact that the socialist were part of the downfall of the previous French government is telling that they are not on the same side and their respective electorate are very different. So to say that the socialists are hostages of their right leaning members is not correct. All the right leaning socialists have already jumped ship to Macron's party a long time ago.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  > a supermajority in the Senate when Obama was elected Obama wasn't elected with a super-majority. He had 58 votes, but Al Franken's race was contested, then Robert Byrd got sick, then Ted Kennedy died. He did have one briefly for about 20 working days the Senate was in session about 9 months after he took office.
dboreham 2y ago
No group can provide such guarantee (because systemic corruption).
tormeh 2y ago
Let's be real. The Republicans would absolutely ruin any such institution the moment they'd get the chance. Better to keep health care private and instead socialize insurance. A hollowing-out of insurance is far easier to reverse than a hollowing-out of hospitals and clinics. An NHS led by an openly antagonistic government is not long for this world. Look at what the Trump admin is doing to other government services. The German model is far more Republican-proof than the British one.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  They’ve been saying they want to repeal Obamacare since Obamacare and they haven’t been able to do it.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    It's better for them to run on it than to actually do it.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    They genuinely tried but enough old dumbasses finally realized that the ACA they loved WAS "Obamacare" to yell at them for it (look at the town hall videos) and McCain was upset enough about the way the party was going (that he had no problems with before mind you) to kill the attempt. The republicans STILL claim to have "A concept of a plan" when it comes to healthcare. The one time they claimed to have an actual bill, it wasted 10% of it's text to strip government healthcare from people who win the lottery, like that's fucking worth it. But they STILL get elected, because the same electorate who didn't want to lose their healthcare to goons killing it for profits for some reason go right back to them just a few years later, despite republican politicians lying TO THEIR FACES about it from day one. Meanwhile, Democrats can come in with an entire presentation and plan and stats and graphs and all sorts of things and the electorate doesn't care because Fox News didn't tell them to vote for it.

When the Democrats had a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate when Obama was elected, they couldn't even get a public option included in the Affordable Care Act, and the right so successfully demagogued "Obamacare" (their name for it) that the Democrats lost an incredible number of seats in the 2010 midterms. Bernie Sanders campaigned on Medicare for All (essentially what you're suggesting) in 2016 and 2020, and he didn't even win the Democratic primary. Despite how big a problem healthcare is in the US, most voters fear any change that may put their current health coverage at risk. Most people under 65 have (or feel like they have) decent-to-good health insurance through an employer-sponsored plan and don't necessarily see a big benefit to throwing that away. People over 65 are fiercely protective of their Medicare benefits and tend to worry that Medicare for All is going to make their healthcare worse. (Judging by the amount of "shocked Pikachu face" we see lately from Trump voters who expected him to fix the economy, there's a critical group of swing voters who seem unwilling or unable to accurately judge candidates based on their policies vs. their vibes.) I don't agree with those people. I'd love to see our healthcare system dramatically overhauled. But between the polarization and risk aversion of American voters, "a quality National Health Service" has not proven to be a winning platform so far and is unlikely to be in the future.

aSanchezStern 2y ago
"Didn't even win the democratic primary" might be a bit of a misnomer if it's implying that winning the democratic primary should be much easier than winning the general. Bernie has positions that are popular outside of democrats, many people think that if he had won the primary, he would have had a much better chance of winning than Hilary or Biden, since he had less baggage and his policies were broadly popular.
- MattGaiser 2y ago
  Has this idea of Bernie positions being popular outside the Democratic Party gone anywhere? Has it survived an election? I’ve heard it frequently claimed, but where has a progressive Dem won where a moderate didn’t? They seem to lose badly. The Sanders people were all in on Paula Jean Swearengin in WV and even tried to primary Manchin with her. WV has all the supposed demographics Sanders appeals to. White working class people mired in poverty. She was the worst performing Democratic nominee in West Virginia history.
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    There is a huge market for populism in the US electorate. You would be floored by how many Obama 2008 voters are now Trump voters. Obama beat Clinton in the 2008 primaries and people believed he did it by running to left of her. People thought he was going to burn for-profit health care to the ground and deliver a single payer system, and that he'd throw the bankers who triggered the 2008 crisis in prison. The disappointment when he governed like it was a third Clinton term did major damage to the party, and it let Trump pick up the populist mantle. Populism, however, is like candy. You can add it to something wholesome, like Sanders does, and get virtuous results. Or you can add it to antifreeze, like the Musk/Trump regime, and get what we're getting.
    - MattGaiser 2y ago
      The market only seems for the hurting other people part. Obama voters who voted for Trump didn’t vote for better healthcare. They voted to hurt healthcare insurance workers. They then voted to hurt someone else with Trump. As they first seemingly voted for universal healthcare and then voted for abolishing what public healthcare the USA had. That’s not consistent with caring about it as an issue at all. I can accept that politically, the Dems may need an enemy. Shared hating of someone is a potent bonding agent.
      - MajimasEyepatch 2y ago
        That’s true of Trump’s base, but I don’t know if it’s true of swing voters. A lot of them are just frankly ignorant and think they voted for “change” without understanding what that actually means.
hkt 2y ago
In fairness, and NHS didn't get tested at the ballot in 2016. There's a structural problem with parties of the "left", namely that they're hostages of their predominantly centre-right memberships. Labour in the UK has the same problem, as do the Socialist party in France. Pretty much all social democratic parties have been hollowed out by a managerial class (alongside career lawyers and the like) that their traditional bases aren't welcome. This stymies the ability of left wing populists who would challenge the current system and bring about policies like universal healthcare to even run in the first place. What's worse is that they'll inevitably be attacked by those same centrist incumbents while they do run: Jeremy Corbyn was a great example of this. One of his fiercest critics is now a minister for health, another was made a Lord, others are now safely pickled in think tanks which will tide them over nicely until they can return to the fold. The only way to fix this is to do as the right have done across Europe: to accept that it'll be a very long haul indeed until your people get power, and to start insurgent, radical parties. This sidesteps the big incumbent parties as a filter, and makes it clear who one's friends are. That's what needs to happen in the US on the left, but the odds of it paying off in anything less than decades are staggeringly low.
- tormeh 2y ago
  The American voting system only permits two parties. You're welcome to think otherwise but it'll just lose you elections. If you want the left to win elections you need to start a new right-wing party to split the vote for the Republicans. Name it True Patriots or some shit like that.
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  > as do the Socialist party in France I don't agree with you here. On the right of the Socialists, you have Macron's party. These two parties vote together on some things but disagree on others. Also the fact that the socialist were part of the downfall of the previous French government is telling that they are not on the same side and their respective electorate are very different. So to say that the socialists are hostages of their right leaning members is not correct. All the right leaning socialists have already jumped ship to Macron's party a long time ago.
Aloisius 2y ago
> a supermajority in the Senate when Obama was elected Obama wasn't elected with a super-majority. He had 58 votes, but Al Franken's race was contested, then Robert Byrd got sick, then Ted Kennedy died. He did have one briefly for about 20 working days the Senate was in session about 9 months after he took office.

dboreham 2y ago

No group can provide such guarantee (because systemic corruption).

tormeh 2y ago

Let's be real. The Republicans would absolutely ruin any such institution the moment they'd get the chance. Better to keep health care private and instead socialize insurance. A hollowing-out of insurance is far easier to reverse than a hollowing-out of hospitals and clinics. An NHS led by an openly antagonistic government is not long for this world. Look at what the Trump admin is doing to other government services. The German model is far more Republican-proof than the British one.

PaulHoule 2y ago
They’ve been saying they want to repeal Obamacare since Obamacare and they haven’t been able to do it.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  It's better for them to run on it than to actually do it.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  They genuinely tried but enough old dumbasses finally realized that the ACA they loved WAS "Obamacare" to yell at them for it (look at the town hall videos) and McCain was upset enough about the way the party was going (that he had no problems with before mind you) to kill the attempt. The republicans STILL claim to have "A concept of a plan" when it comes to healthcare. The one time they claimed to have an actual bill, it wasted 10% of it's text to strip government healthcare from people who win the lottery, like that's fucking worth it. But they STILL get elected, because the same electorate who didn't want to lose their healthcare to goons killing it for profits for some reason go right back to them just a few years later, despite republican politicians lying TO THEIR FACES about it from day one. Meanwhile, Democrats can come in with an entire presentation and plan and stats and graphs and all sorts of things and the electorate doesn't care because Fox News didn't tell them to vote for it.