Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Single Payer is Dead in California (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I wasn't involved at all in the phone calls (3+ / 0-)

    since I haven't lived in CA in about 20 years, but it seems this was the wrong lesson these people took from the passionate callers. Maybe some were abusive, but what I would have wanted them to take from this is that there are lots of very committed and enthusiastic supporters of single payer and seeing that they exist, they would be valuable to have on the legislator's side and would make allies who could walk precincts for and mail letters for their future election campaigns. If the intensity of voters surprised them, perhaps they might want to revisit what has made them that passionate - being screwed over by big business and calculated decisions to make profits rather than to provide health care, resulting in thousands of deaths in California, year after year (at least extrapolated from the national numbers saying something like 45K lives lost/year due to lack of health care).

    I have no problem with people challenging incumbents in primaries by candidates who are willing to make a stand for Californians rather than being people intimidated by a couple of days of phone call lobbying. Yes, having an updated study showing fiscal impacts would be great, but why is this now being brought up as an issue rather than ten days ago?

    •  Re-read her letter (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, ToeJamFootball, fcvaguy

      "having an updated study showing fiscal impacts would be great, but why is this now being brought up as an issue rather than ten days ago?"

      The need for an updated study was brought up two years ago.

      Passion crosses over into anger all too frequently. Don't expect people who've been verbally abused to see the best in human nature.

      •  Not what I was asking. I was instead asking, why (3+ / 0-)

        weren't the politicians who were holding out and not voting for this saying "We might, if we have a study that shows updated funding consequences. We don't, so we won't commit California to this without that important information". I admit I only read the diaries here on DKos, and most of them were action diaries to drum up votes, but I didn't notice a single comment explaining why those politicians were hold-outs. The supposition was, they were being bought off by the Health Insurers or Big Pharma, was not contradicted by anyone saying "so and so said the reason they weren't voting for this was because the funding data was a decade old". It's only now, ten days after the vote, that it is being floated as a reason/excuse.

        I freely acknowledge that I not just might have, but probably missed some of the information on this issue. Still, I'd like to know if the candidates were saying this reason before they chose not to vote for single payer, and why they have a problem with single payer this year and not last, given that the data would have been just one year less stale (still nearly a decade old). Did they abstain or vote against it last year when Arnold was still governor?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site