Sanders, Clinton, and the Big Lie of the “Possible”

[Triana]

Lately, several mainstream liberal commentators have taken to siding with the pragmatist, painstakingly explaining to their readers the importance of preserving existing gains in a time of partisan warfare, and dismissing Sanders’s ambitious platform as misplaced and foolish. Incrementalism is a reasonable ideological preference. But the hot rhetoric and the need for Manichean imperatives that characterizes campaign season has intensified the attacks on Sanders, painting him as a political dilettante who doesn’t understand how Washington works—and, by extension, suggesting that anyone in government with big ideas is doomed to failure and would be better off going along to get along.

That’s where this otherwise typical campaign back-and-forth strays into dangerous territory. When you saw off every policy to what falls into the immediate range of possibility at the present moment, you give supporters little reason to organize behind your ideas. More important, you neglect the creative ways in which those seemingly unrealizable goals can be realized, no matter the situation in Congress.

Maybe you’ve heard the one about the community health centers.

Originated in 1965 as a Great Society reform from the Office of Economic Opportunity, these neighborhood medical clinics provide integrated medical treatment and dental care to low-income and rural patients nationwide, regardless of the ability to pay. No two community health centers look exactly alike. But in general terms, they look more like the socialized medicine of Great Britain’s National Health Service than a single-payer program like those of Canada or France. Federal, state, and local grants fund the doctors and clinic personnel; the clinics refuse nobody for insufficient funds or lack of insurance; some even pick up and drop off patients at their residences.

From two demonstration projects, community health centers have grown to 1,300 networks in 9,200 locations, serving 23 million patients in 2014. As the National Association of Community Health Centers puts it, “In communities fortunate enough to have a health center, fewer babies die, emergency room lines are shorter and people live longer, healthier lives.”

And why do community health centers represent such a robust part of the health safety net today? Bernie Sanders

.

THE REST:
https://newrepublic.com/article/128464/sanders-clinton-big-lie-possible

[GoneFishin]

1. Yeah. But how do community health centers generate profits for Wall Street? Hillary can fix that

little problem.

[ViseGrip]

2. Without the community health centers where I live, we don't have doctors in Obamacare.

For the first year, a government subsidy was given for my hubby and me, who runs a business, and just earns a living, we could not find a doctor. Every doctors group in my county opted out of the ACA. If not for those centers, we would have no were to go for a darn well visit, all we needed as we are healthy.

Bernie knew it would be slow go, and this would happen in states that resisted. Like those who still won't expand medicaid. We don't qualify for any of that, and purchased healthcare all of our married life. One third of our salary! My hubby's job makes him a contractor, and we go to the ACA. We didn't have to pay that much anymore, but all our doctors groups bailed. They are building two more CHS in my county for a total of 11! THANK YOU BERNIE. It's about those who pay and have paid, not being able to get a doctor, simply because we chose an ACA SILVER PLAN!

The treatment of Bernie Sanders by our nation, via the media, the party he made a deal with, that they...did not keep. This is just awful. as soon as I vote in our primary, for Alan Grayson, and not the former republican the dem party is supporting for Marco Rubio's seat, I'll be an independent too. Almost have the country gets it, but is locked out of the process almost everywhere.

Today, bernie thought an auditorium in Indiana that holds 3000 would be good, as hillary is so far ahead? well, there is 3200 inside and 5000 outside. Oh, but hillary has the 'enthusiasm'. Right....let's open the source code on the voting machines.....in every primary race so far.

[Buzz cook]

3. So a program started when democrats controlled congress and

republicans were not knee jerk regressives is meant to show us what is possible?

I agree. That's why I support Clinton.

[Faux pas]

4. Kick!!!

[JSup]

5. Without the CHC...

...I don't know how my (now ex) bf would have gotten insulin or the orange pen I have to stab him with when he has a seizure because he's in a depressive or manic phase and forgot to eat after taking his insulin.

While I thank Bernie for his work in the Senate, and we both have similar end goals, I disagree with how we get there.

I believe that that harder we push, the harder we get pushed back; while we might move a step or two forward with Bernie, in the end we would be pushed back 10 steps because the backlash would be overwhelming. And please note the previous statement begins with "I believe".

[Hortensis]

6. Bernie Sanders worked to integrate them properly into the ACA.

Claiming that they "represent such a robust part of the health safety net today" because of Bernie Sanders, though, is a profound insult to all those who, long before Sanders, were involved in setting up and funding these centers, as well as all those who run and and contribute to them now.

It is entirely appropriate to give Bernie credit for his real contribution to their current wellbeing. But that is all. When he was elected to the Senate, he was elected to do a job, and in this case he did his part. Good for Bernie Sanders.

[pat_k]

7. "suggesting that anyone in government with big ideas is doomed to failure..."

A post in another thread that includes thoughts on the group think behind the "Can't win, so don't fight" rationalization and ways to challenge it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=188164