These were the guys who refused medicaid expansion on principle.

man i ****ing hate sanders.

So CNN is going to help them normalize it.

Why?

Because people who would not pass the voter competency test that he opposes are also apt to judge the wrong side the winner in a debate that Sanders agreed to be a party to.

(And if we have indeed reached the point, as many of you are suggesting, that people are unwittingly voting against their own interests, than at least in theory, a test that culls out these people shouldn't even be opposed by those culled.)

I would think the Alaska purchase would run into trouble, along with the opt-out. Block granting it seems like it would be okay, but I suppose it's a matter of wording in the bill... If you say "We're sending them $X per resident for healthcare," then they can do whatever they want... which would include keeping the current system in place by setting it up at the state level.

Also, while discussing what can or cannot be done via reconciliation, it's important to note that the process was NOT created for what it is currently being used for. In fact, President Clinton wanted to try to pass healthcare reform through reconciliation in '94 and Byrd basically told him he couldn't.

Although the opt-out made it through the Byrd bath last time, right? If it isn't worded the same, who knows. I guess the GOP is capable of messing that up. I am correct in assuming that the Byrd bath happens BEFORE the vote, right? Like, they can't buy Murkowski's vote, strip the Alaska Purchase on the Byrd bath and say, "Sorry, the vote is over, better luck next time Lisa," ...right?

They'd need 60 votes, which they can't get, until next year... It's reasonable to assume that they won't try again until there is a change in the Senate, either due to Menendez or McCain retiring/being expelled.

My understanding is that they can do one on spending and one on revenue per year (also one on debt limit). They're behaving as though they only get one though, so maybe I'm wrong?

How should he handle it, in your opinion?

I don't understand why people are opposed to Sanders making the single payer argument (although I expect him to temper it and try to defend ACA more). It's the better argument and looks/sounds so much better than the bull**** Graham/Cassidy are going to be saying.

If it comes off poorly that's on his presentation. Graham/Cassidy are both not very good speakers, too.

Its because the threat of a single-payer system gives the Republicans ammunition to better defend their own flawed health-care plan. Defending the GOP plan on its own merits is challenging. What the Republicans prefer is to say "if we don't adopt this plan, then single-payer will be thrust upon you". Single-payer isn't on the table, so it may be counter-productive to make an argument for it at this time.

Meanwhile, Scott Walker and the state legislature is waiving state environmental protections, handing out billions in tax breaks, and granting insane protections from legal challenges to noted champion of labor Foxcon so it will build a factory in Wisconsin. I'm sure letting states handle the whole healthcare situation will work out just fine.

So put it on the ****ing table. Dozens of other wealthy nations have it. Why can't the US?

I think the argument is that the threat of single payer has given this new ass**** of a Republican bill the momentum it seems to have gathered. So (the argument continues), it's not that Sanders et al shouldn't be putting it on the table at all, but rather that it may have been more productive to do it after Sep. 30, when the Repubs would have 'officially' blown their last real chance at a healthcare bill this year and something like "Medicare For All" might seem like a big idea contra the Repubs' lack of ideas, ability to effect change, etc.

Sanders has already done one of these 'debates' on cable TV against Cruz. Sanders never mentions socialism or single payer. He only talks about every American's right to healthcare.

There is no THREAT of single payer. It has like 50% more support than the Republican bill. There is no valid argument between the two--one is vastly better and vastly more popular.

I have no issue with Bernie talking about the virtues of single payer vs. this bull****.

Worst case scenario: Murkowski is a coward and takes the Alaska carve out, the House Reps in NY and CA vote against their constituents and approve the bill. The entire health care system collapses, Dems crush in 2018/2020, and we have single payer by ~2025 at the latest.

I’m pretty sure every pro-GOP Wisconsinian, while falling to their death after having leapt off a Foxconn building, will be content knowing that they stuck it to the stupid libtards with their fancy ideas of 40-hour work weeks, unions, and other nonsensical labor protections.

I guess I'm beyond cynical at this point, but the Dems crushing and single payer by 2025 seems optimistic instead of worse case scenario.

If Obamacare gets got, next democrat president is going single payer at first opportunity. It's not really a debate at this point. Exchanges wouldn't come back.

What’s to prevent the next Republican President in that case from destroying single payer?

seems that if single payer did pass, it would be political suicide to remove it (see SS/Medicare) but i'm sure they would try.

Dems best case is winning house back in 2018. Senate is impossible.

with gerrymandering, voter suppression, state run media outlets, and the possibility of actual vote tampering, the democrats will never win the house, senate or presidency.

anyone else considering moving to a republican district because of this?

More like this, IMO.

MAVERICK is out.

Gotta say I'm prettay surprised at McCain going no.