|
Ytlaya posted:This is an important point. There is value to pushing for policy even if it is unlikely that it will be passable during your administration. It basically increases the policy's perception as being "mainstream" and helps make it more palatable in the future (it's harder to call something "extreme/radical" if it was openly supported by the President). And, as you mentioned, there's nothing stopping you from still accepting beneficial compromises in the meanwhile (if anything, starting from a more radical position gives you more leeway to choose something relatively left-wing and still claim you made a big compromise). unless your base drinks the koolaid and you end up with the HFC/heritage action situation. There is absolutely a risk in promising the world and failing to deliver. Promising to work towards delivering the world is good, though.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
naive Overton theory being pushed itt
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
^^^ Could you elaborate? I'm not particular committed to the truth of what I posted; it just seemed to make sense. I realize that advocating for a radical position doesn't always magically move the Overton window in that direction, but at the same time I imagine it must help an idea become more mainstream if it's supported by more public figures.awesmoe posted:unless your base drinks the koolaid and you end up with the HFC/heritage action situation. There is absolutely a risk in promising the world and failing to deliver. Promising to work towards delivering the world is good, though. Well, I think the details matter. It's probably a bad idea to promise something you are unlikely to be able to deliver, but it's a little different to say you want X, make an earnest attempt to accomplish it, and then compromise from there. There will still be people upset with you, but I think the downsides probably outweigh the benefits. I also think Democrats are probably a little more willing to tolerate "I'll do my best to accomplish X" (as opposed to "I'll definitely do X no matter what") than Republicans are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/emmaroller/status/846752448605798400 This is a dumb viewpoint to have. If we're ever gonna get anywhere close to a single payer or truly universal healthcare system we have to actually start moving in that direction rather than just play defense forever around a flawed status quo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/emmaroller/status/846752448605798400 Yes, I agree, this thing a random person tweeted about a thing Congress people definitely actually say is a dumb thing. Bad Congress people! (Ignore that there have been multiple single payer bills proposed this session!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
tekz posted:lmao It's mindboggling that anyone at all is willing to go to bat for the US health industry's profits. They will leave you to die in a second to save a buck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Yes, I agree, this thing a random person tweeted about a thing Congress people definitely actually say is a dumb thing. Bad Congress people! also ignore the democrats haven't had the ability to enact legislation since about 1 year after their last major go at it so the possibility is not so much less than 100% and more like 0%
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:^^^ Could you elaborate? I'm not particular committed to the truth of what I posted; it just seemed to make sense. I realize that advocating for a radical position doesn't always magically move the Overton window in that direction, but at the same time I imagine it must help an idea become more mainstream if it's supported by more public figures. evilweasel's got it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Yes, I agree, this thing a random person tweeted about a thing Congress people definitely actually say is a dumb thing. Bad Congress people! Yeah. There have been multiple single-payer bills proposed since the 1920's. Six major pushes including four after cataclysmic world events - turns out it's really loving hard!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
In a surprise shocker no one knows anything about how the legislature actually operates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
So I'm trying to figure out what the current Medicare expansion bill in the House would do to employer-provided plans. That seems like the critical sticking point for any attempt at UHC, no matter how popular it polls in the abstract.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:In a surprise shocker no one knows anything about how the legislature actually operates. nah, in this particular case it's quite clear: the history of single-payer health proposals in California is particularly instructive. While Republicans are in power, Democrats will produce a dozen single-payer requests monthly. The split second they get the power to actually pass one, they will immediately return to whining about how it is ~haaaaard~ to make health insurance companies unhappy, and how their constituents are so ~unreasonable.~ You may recognize elements of this dynamic from recent history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:nah, in this particular case it's quite clear: the history of single-payer health proposals in California is particularly instructive. I feel like you're taking the wrong lesson from recent history though. Are you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:nah, in this particular case it's quite clear: the history of single-payer health proposals in California is particularly instructive. That's the joy of being in the minority, you can produce pie in the sky magic wand legislation that maybe isn't exactly practical, or you know, CBO-scored. It is literally harder to frame legislation when you think it might be able to pass, as perhaps a certain party has recently learned. That said, ACA was meant to serve as a base for continued reform, and indeed to contain a public option until it got sabotaged by Lieberman and seat fuckery. But as you may have noticed, Republicans have held the legislature (or at least the power to stop things from happening) since 2010. Whelp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Boon posted:I feel like you're taking the wrong lesson from recent history though. Are you? Your feelings re: asking politicians to do things for their constituents being morally suspect behavior are a matter of record, yes. Quorum posted:That's the joy of being in the minority, you can produce pie in the sky magic wand legislation that maybe isn't exactly practical, or you know, CBO-scored. It is literally harder to frame legislation when you think it might be able to pass, as perhaps a certain party has recently learned. Yes, yes, the bill explicitly designed from moment one by its architects to gently caress over the average american voter in the name of keeping health insurance companies from sinking it was Sabotaged By Lieberman. Whatever you need the origin story to be. The moral of this story remains that "elect democrats if you want single-payer" is at best a facile elision of the whole truth, and at its worst a self-serving lie. Electing democrats is not sufficient; you also need to put the fear of god into them that if they do not help their constituents out, they are going to lose the next election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Your feelings re: asking politicians to do things for their constituents being morally suspect behavior are a matter of record, yes. The GOP got it's face smashed recently because they promised their constituents a repeal of a law that they didn't necessarily disagree with and they could not deliver on for purely political reasons. So if I'm following you, you want the Democrats to do the same thing but somehow magically deliver? You're being incredibly naive if you think the Democrats could push a single-payer if they just wanted it bad enough. Single-payer will not happen as a matter of short-term process. It just won't. The system has developed over the course of a century and is so entrenched that big shifts or even small ones are so incredibly complex as to be politically infeasible. It's going to take a catalyzing event on the scale of WWI/WWII, Depression, or Recession. Except even when it was tried during those periods it didn't succeed. But you think it'll be totally doable normally? The only real path towards a more equitable system is to continuously nibble at the edges and move legislation here and there which produces results years down the road - expansion of medicare/medicaid, refinement in insurance markets, expansion and revitalization of the VA system. A shift of the type you want could take decades, but because that's so slow you'd probably argue and fight against it despite achieving the results you want. Boon fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Hmm, yes the GOP backing off of a lovely bill with 17% support proves the Dems could never pass good policy with widespread support and shouldn't try. Are you literally Hillary in real life?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Hmm, yes the GOP backing off of a lovely bill with 17% support proves the Dems could never pass good policy with widespread support and shouldn't try. Are you literally Hillary in real life? You clearly do not understand what happened with the GOP and the ACA because I'm not talking about the AHCA. Also, you are not understanding my argument in any way. Go read a book on healthcare in the US. Paul Starr's, The Social Transformation of American Medicine is a good start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Boon posted:The GOP got it's face smashed recently because they promised their constituents something that they could not deliver for purely political reasons. So if I'm following you, you want the Democrats to do the same thing but somehow magically deliver? That you consider the idea of a political party representing the will of its constituents to be a work of incomprehensible sorcery is remarkably illustrative of the rot in the democratic party, to my mind. Understand: we got tremendously lucky that Paul Ryan is a wet-behind the ears nobody as far as the House Republicans are concerned, and that the Trump administration hasn't gotten around to purging the CBO yet. A Speaker who has any kind of alliances among the disparate factions of these caucuses could have produced a bill that would pass the House and Senate both. An even remotely functional Republican party would be celebrating the ACA's repeal now. Fortunately for us the ruling party is currently a tremendously dysfunctional mess. If a political party actually wants to do something with popular support, it takes a colossal gently caress-up to make it not happen. If you argue that the Democratic Party cannot be made to do an unambiguously good thing with popular support, I have to ask what your rationale for supporting them even is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Yes, yes, the bill explicitly designed from moment one by its architects to gently caress over the average american voter in the name of keeping health insurance companies from sinking it was Sabotaged By Lieberman. Whatever you need the origin story to be. There is not much more to say besides you have stupid opinions that are not borne out by the facts, and when faced with facts that conflict with your preconceived notions of reality you will disregard the facts. You are massively, massively ignorant, the things you say are based on misunderstandings of the relevant facts/flat out incorrect beliefs, and you generally are unable to conceive of the concept that moving towards, but not getting to, a goal is a positive step or the idea that sometimes you can't get everything you want. Anything more complex than Good and Evil gets rejected by your brain and you produce dumb poo poo like this. Ze Pollack posted:That you consider the idea of a political party representing the will of its constituents to be a work of incomprehensible sorcery is remarkably illustrative of the rot in the democratic party, to my mind. Also, you can't read.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
It's quite the coincidence that the posters who have all the "facts" and are citing obscure journals and books for others to read were the ones most wrong about the last election
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
If anyone purges the cbo it will be Ryan, not Trump, because the cbo is literally the Congressional Budget Office. More to the point: one of the reasons the GOP is failing miserably here (among a lot of reasons) is that they're trying to change a lot with just one bill, which is ridiculous. They're doing it because of a quirk in our legislative procedures, when practically speaking big changes require many bills, some addressing flaws in earlier ones. Ultimately ensuring universal health care (whether or not it is single payer in the end!) will be, and was always going to be, that way as well. Even most Medicare For All proposals do not create universal single payer, but rather the public option that ACA should have contained, which can gradually grow until it becomes effectively a single payer system. And yes, Lieberman is literally the reason there is no public option. The option was removed from the proposal primarily because he made clear he would not vote for cloture on any bill with a public option. To this day, anyone who had a personal stake in the passage of the ACA reflexively spits when you mention Lieberman's name, but when it came down to it, it was considered better to get something than a big public fight ultimately leading to failure. call to action posted:It's quite the coincidence that the posters who have all the "facts" and are citing obscure journals and books for others to read were the ones most wrong about the last election You're right, that is a total non sequitur. Trump would love it if we lived in a world in which facts were not objective and measurable but sadly for him we do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Quorum posted:More to the point: one of the reasons the GOP is failing miserably here (among a lot of reasons) is that they're trying to change a lot with just one bill, which is ridiculous. I don't think that's true. What the GOP promised to do has to be done with one or two bills. It's a necessary product of all of the things that made it such a terrible idea in the first place, it's a symptom and not a cause.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There is not much more to say besides you have stupid opinions that are not borne out by the facts, and when faced with facts that conflict with your preconceived notions of reality you will disregard the facts. You are massively, massively ignorant, the things you say are based on misunderstandings of the relevant facts/flat out incorrect beliefs, and you generally are unable to conceive of the concept that moving towards, but not getting to, a goal is a positive step or the idea that sometimes you can't get everything you want. Anything more complex than Good and Evil gets rejected by your brain and you produce dumb poo poo like this. That you interpret any steps toward the common goal more dramatic than the ones you, personally, are comfortable with at the moment as a personal attack is a strange pathology, but fortunately irrelevant! You're an important part of the process: you are a reliable defender of progress achieved. When you are whipped and cajoled into leaving your comfort zone to defend an actual advance towards a common goal, you will only try to trade it away in a Grand Reasonable Bargain two or three times per decade. We're both believers in incrementalism, evilweasel. You just find the idea of increments larger than your own morally suspect, for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:nah, in this particular case it's quite clear: the history of single-payer health proposals in California is particularly instructive. no i meant that no one has any clue how legislation actually proceeds through Congress. anything and everything the democrats propose in the house will be killed with zero fanfare
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Quorum posted:If anyone purges the cbo it will be Ryan, not Trump, because the cbo is literally the Congressional Budget Office. That's what I thought, prior to reading that Trump replaced the director but not anyone underneath that. Maybe someone got confused between the CBO and the OMB. Odd. quote:More to the point: one of the reasons the GOP is failing miserably here (among a lot of reasons) is that they're trying to change a lot with just one bill, which is ridiculous. They're doing it because of a quirk in our legislative procedures, when practically speaking big changes require many bills, some addressing flaws in earlier ones. Ultimately ensuring universal health care (whether or not it is single payer in the end!) will be, and was always going to be, that way as well. Even most Medicare For All proposals do not create universal single payer, but rather the public option that ACA should have contained, which can gradually grow until it becomes effectively a single payer system. Lieberman is -a- reason. Not, unfortunately, -the-. The strategic vision that brought you Obamacare was in its entirety predicated on bringing health insurance onside from moment one, and that meant they got an awful lot of veto power. There's a reason the Max "A Wholly Owned And Operated Subsidiary Of Blue Cross/Blue Shield" Baucus's version of the bill was the one that finally saw daylight, and it sure as hell wasn't the involved parties thinking it was the best of the available bills. The public option was dead from the moment that the opening strategic decision was made, Lieberman's existence just provides a convenient cover for that fact going forward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Did you ever try to buy health insurance pre-ACA? It was SUPER lovely. Any plan that was decent wasn't able to tell you what actual plan you qualified for upfront, you sometimes had to go through a physical, and there might be some weird restriction or thing not covered that you didn't know about because you didn't read all 600 pages. The ACA covering pre-existing conditions simpified everything in one swoop, the "Bronze, Silver, Gold" ratings meant it was a lot harder to just outright lie to you, and the bare minimum requirements for all plans also made life much easier. The Medicaid expansion was also really important. Pre-2009 Medicaid was a much bigger joke than it is today, and medicaid covering portions of your insurance works pretty well. If you are a low earner, try comparing shopping in states that took the expansion vs those that didn't. ACA isn't perfect, but your assertion that the only thing it did was screw people over is flatly wrong. I'd prefer a single-payer system, but the ACA was objectively an improvement in coverage and making purchasing insurance easier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Lockback posted:ACA isn't perfect, but your assertion that the only thing it did was screw people over is flatly wrong. I'd prefer a single-payer system, but the ACA was objectively an improvement in coverage and making purchasing insurance easier. I haven't seen this assertion made by anyone posting recently
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Lockback posted:Did you ever try to buy health insurance pre-ACA? It was SUPER lovely. Any plan that was decent wasn't able to tell you what actual plan you qualified for upfront, you sometimes had to go through a physical, and there might be some weird restriction or thing not covered that you didn't know about because you didn't read all 600 pages. The ACA covering pre-existing conditions simpified everything in one swoop, the "Bronze, Silver, Gold" ratings meant it was a lot harder to just outright lie to you, and the bare minimum requirements for all plans also made life much easier. Yeah. My husband and I are self-employed. Before ACA there was precisely one insurance provider who would insure a person for less than a ridiculous amount. Now we have some choice, and for the most part, it's better. Unfortunately, for those who were not subsidized, such as us, the prices for plans go up crazy amounts per year. Within 5 years it's going to be more than our mortgage unless something is done. And I doubt if the Republicans give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
call to action posted:I haven't seen this assertion made by anyone posting recently Ze Pollack posted:Yes, yes, the bill explicitly designed from moment one by its architects to gently caress over the average american voter in the name of keeping health insurance companies from sinking it was Sabotaged By Lieberman. Whatever you need the origin story to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Yeah. My husband and I are self-employed. Before ACA there was precisely one insurance provider who would insure a person for less than a ridiculous amount. Now we have some choice, and for the most part, it's better. Those prices are going up for employers too, employees may or may not be seeing this trickling down to them too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Those prices are going up for employers too, employees may or may not be seeing this trickling down to them too. My job has been increasing our premiums but then also increasing our pay by an equal amount to make up for it (in addition to whatever other increases they give us). I assume there's some tax thing that makes this pencil out for them but I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Yeah, the bill was designed to do that, though. It was also slightly better than what came before it, which you'd see the poster in question also said if you actually read his or her posts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Understand: we got tremendously lucky that Paul Ryan is a wet-behind the ears nobody as far as the House Republicans are concerned, and that the Trump administration hasn't gotten around to purging the CBO yet. A Speaker who has any kind of alliances among the disparate factions of these caucuses could have produced a bill that would pass the House and Senate both. An even remotely functional Republican party would be celebrating the ACA's repeal now. Fortunately for us the ruling party is currently a tremendously dysfunctional mess. Did you become politically conscious in November? Do you know who John Boehner is or Ted Cruz or how stupid this statement sounds? quote:If a political party actually wants to do something with popular support, it takes a colossal gently caress-up to make it not happen. The world isn't that simple. Like, full stop. This 'popular support' that you think is some kind of universal, single-issue block quickly fragments the moment you go, "Alright, let's look at the various details of this extremely broad and ill-defined talking point of a policy" Boon fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Those prices are going up for employers too, employees may or may not be seeing this trickling down to them too. It may well be hidden in lower wages/slower raises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Dude, these are completely different ideas:
The GOP channeled PP money into CHCs. Does that mean they didn't gently caress over women/poors? Of course not. Because loving them over is distinct from only loving them over. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
To elaborate, the explicit strategic decision was to, wherever the interests of the average american voter and the interests of health insurance companies conflicted, to privilege the interests of health insurance companies, on the assumption that one of the two was a more reliable ally going forward. This is Sound Centrist Logic. Insurance companies have an immediate impact on your reelection prospects. The average voter has a much more abstract one. There was still plenty of good done for the average american voter! Health insurance companies have no issue whatsoever with the government promising to give them money they otherwise would not get from poor people! It's just on issues like "do literally anything about rising premiums" where they produced a great deal of friction. Whiiiiich brings us to now, and that strategic decision coming back to bite in a big fuckin' way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
call to action posted:I haven't seen this assertion made by anyone posting recently I literally used his terminology Ze Pollack posted:Yes, yes, the bill explicitly designed from moment one by its architects to gently caress over the average american voter in the name of keeping health insurance companies from sinking it was Sabotaged By Lieberman. Whatever you need the origin story to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Boon posted:Did you become politically conscious in November? Do you know who John Boehner is or Ted Cruz or how stupid this statement sounds? Medicare Part D. Just as transparent a shitshow, just as transparently a horrible waste of money, just as transparently a blatant handout to private industry, just as abominably stupid an idea. The Republican Party passed it without so much as blinking. I understand if you became politically aware in the last four years, but I'm afraid your vision of it being impossible for a party to make broad changes to the American health care system is a lie you tell yourself to feel better. quote:The world isn't that simple. Like, full stop. This 'popular support' that you think is some kind of universal, single-issue block quickly fragments the moment you go, "Alright, let's look at the various details of this extremely broad and ill-defined talking point of a policy" You support a political party which you gladly accept is unwilling at best and incapable at worst of representing its constituents. While your support of anything with a -D on the end of its name makes the recipe for getting your support for progressive policy pretty simple, I really do have to ask what you think you're getting out of this arrangement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Lockback posted:I literally used his terminology Yeah, imprecise wording, my bad. Better to have said wherever a choice had to be made between loving you and loving insurance companies, the architects of the ACA made the explicit strategic decision that option 1 is the default.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:17
|
|