Clinton Reaffirms Support For Public Option In Bid For Sanders Supporters

[PatrickforO]

In a HuffPo article, "Hillary Clinton reaffirmed her support on Saturday for creating a “public option” within Obamacare and allowing people to enroll in Medicare at age 55.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee also called for a substantial increase in funding in medical clinics that serve low-income Americans, fully embracing a proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

While Clinton has long supported the creation of new government-run insurance options and reiterated that support several times this year, Saturday’s statement comes three days before she is scheduled to make her first joint campaign appearance with Sanders ― who has championed government-run insurance and federally financed clinics throughout his career and during his own bid for the presidency."

NOW you're talking! I can sure get behind this!

[NCTraveler]

1. Additional discussion can be found here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512246740

[CrowCityDem]

2. If she's 'reaffirming', how is it a bid for Bernie voters? Did they not know she was already for it?

[PatrickforO]

3. You've gotta be fair here, though.

Bernie was unequivocally for it, but Clinton said it isn't practical and we need to 'fix' the ACA. I know that back in the 90s she started off for single payer, but unfortunately that changed (remember her "tell me something real" statement?).

So, for me that is a big deal that now she's saying, yes, let's extend the public option down to age 55 and kick up funding for Medicaid for the poor. Here's a link to how I really feel: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2246908

For me, single payer is THE main issue. The fact we spend 51% of our discretionary funds on 'defense' is reprehensible to me. I want MY tax dollars that I pay in used by MY government, that is supposedly OF, BY and FOR me, and the rest of the people in this nation, to be used for programs that actually benefit us.

War spending doesn't help me a bit. War doesn't help me a bit. All that does is enrich some stupid fucks that think we people are little more than bovine cannon fodder. Fuck them. Let's take back our own government and force it to use our tax monies for the actual public good instead of to line the pockets of war profiteers.

And we need to deprivatize prisons as well. That whole thing is just so wrong on so many levels it's hard not to vomit when contemplating.

[CrowCityDem]

4. But she was always open to the public option, and the public option isn't the same as single-payer.

[PatrickforO]

5. Ok, I hear what you're saying, but I don't want to split hairs.

Here's what I want:

I want to be able to make an appointment to see a doctor and have that appointment be in a reasonable amount of time - not six months down the road.

When I go in, I don't want to have to fill out a massive number of forms to make sure I can pay.

I don't want to be bothered with a copay and having to stop on the way in or out and write a check. Or, failing that, I want a predictable 'it's always gonna be this' copay.

And, when I go to the pharmacy, I want either no copay or a predictable and low copay.

If I have to have surgery to keep from being crippled, I don't want to be financially crippled by the cost of the surgery when I emerge. I don't want to see any American have to go bankrupt because of medical bills. Ever.

Recently, I sustained a serious injury at work. This injury required surgery, lots of doctor visits and physical therapy. I've never had to worry about a copay. I've had good doctors and they got me in quickly. The anesthesiologist called me the night before surgery, and the hospital included an icing machine for me as well as crutches and a leg brace.

They didn't try and cut costs on the care - I actually got what I needed. The doctors, especially my workers comp guy, actually spends more than 10 minutes with me. I feel like I've gotten to know him.

OK? THAT is what an adequate healthcare system looks like for me. That is what I call single payer and that is what is in my mind, 'what it looks like' when I advocate single payer. I don't care what anyone calls it.

What we have right now is morally reprehensible. Anytime profit or retained earnings are held above human life, the situation is morally reprehensible.

[CrowCityDem]

6. That's fine, but single-payer has a specific meaning. We can't discuss the issue...

... if we don't agree on what we're talking about. A single-payer system is not necessary for any of the things you're talking about there, all of which are admirable goals. Confusing the terminology doesn't help. That's how we wind up with half of our own side believing the other half doesn't agree on the same goals, when we clearly do.