Thread by @kurteichenwald

1. I don't care what you support, what you believe, what you want. Protest voters and non-voters in 2016 made Sanders' version of single payer an impossibility. If more people understood we do not have a monarchy, but a three branch government, they would have voted for a....

2...step forward that potentially would have led to this kind of coverage (whether it is the right option or not - there are many forms of this.) It goes to show that people who refuse to vote responsibly because they don't get their pony immediately flush away future ponies....

3...here's why. A system that bans a form of private contract - that is, an agreement between an individual and a provider of health insurance - raises enormous Constitutional issues, some dating back to the time of the Founders. These Constitutional issues, detailed below...

4...will be reviewed by an extremely conservative SCOTUS. Had Clinton won, there would be a liberal majority on the court. Now, the reality is a deeply conservative one for another generation. And there is no way in hell it will support government intervention in private...

5...contracts. Look at Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution. It forbids states from passing laws "impairing the obligation of contract." Combined with extensive writings by the Founders on property rights - and yes, a contract is property - as well as the 9th Amendment....

6...about expressed powers of the government, there is a VERY strong Constitutional argument that government cannot interfere with private contracts between individuals and insurance companies. Madison argued in Federalist Papers that the Constitution would protect property...

7...from usurpation of government. In other words, ALL a litigant against the Sanders proposal has to do is prove a contract is property - which it is - and that the Constitution's statements on limiting state interference in contracts contains the expressed intent of Founders...

8...that government should not interfere with private contracts. Throw in 9th Amendment along with that, and Sanders proposal goes into the toilet.

Why am I saying this? Because this underscores the idiocy of protest voting or not voting because the guy you want didn't win....

9...the nomination. Successful progress almost never bursts through in one giant leap outside of national crisis - like the Depression. Progress entails making sure all EQUAL POWER branches of government are established in ways favorable to progress. Had Clinton won, there is...

10..no doubt there would be a significant liberal majority on the court right now. There is no doubt they would review the Constitution through the jurisprudential thought of folks like Ronald Dworkin, which would allow for more than just a straight contextual reading, but more..

11...on intent values of the Founders, expressed in innumerable writings.

But, as often happens, too many Democrats decided to "punish" - umm, somebody, I don't know - by protest voting, throwing away the court for the rest of my life....

12...and in the process, not only failing to get their pony now, but ever.

Single payer is off the table. Thanks, protest voters! The only viable option if Medicare buy-in as supplement to a private insurance market. 2016 made anything else impossible.