They won't even support a public option if they get in. Means tested programs always get shot down. It get set up to fail.
The insurance companies don't want to even lose a dime to a public option. And then you will run into a two tier price system. [/QUOTE]
We are back to the conspiracy theories, I see.
And no Sanders believes all in, don't be disingenuous.
I wasn't being disingenuous, I was being sarcastic. You are the one who said that an endorsement that specifically said it was endorsing a public option with strong regulation was clearly supporting Sanders because he was the only one who really meant it.
But Warren is wishy washy. She backtracked on all in and said it would be public option first. When the Clinton staffers joined her campaign.
Gotcha. Nobody who really believes in single payer would say we may need to do a public option as part of the way forward.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/sanders-adamant-on-public-option
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/845671102345039872
Yup. Sounds wishy-washy to me.
The rest will make promises, have a few Dems balk, and do nothing. Then blame those damn GOPers. Just like Obama.
And Bernie would solve this how? Let's get away from your mind-reading skills where only Sanders is pure and true and means it.
Since the problem is the Democrats who would balk, how does Sanders handle that? He is impotent in your scenario.
In fact, it is worse. He is on the record that he is against getting rid of the filibuster. So he needs 60 votes in the Senate, which will mean many Republicans in a best case scenario.
Looks like he is planning to have it fail and then blame the GOP, by your logic. He's pretty much guaranteed it.
I mean, Sanders never changes his mind, he is consistent on everything. If he says it would be bad to get rid of the filibuster it is because he means it on principle. Therefore he is planning to make sure M4A fails.
Or, you know, your entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.