Boon posted:

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 posted:

That's great! Except htat's still not good enough because, and this is the thing that might blow your mind, popular opinion doesn't actually mean a goddamn thing. If you think Congress does anything in this country, now or at any time in the past based soley on popular opinion, then you should perhaps take a break from these threads. Moreover, it's not clear that popular opinion SHOULD form policy, after all, it's popular opinion that is leading the UK to shoot itself in the economic face.

Bueno Papi posted:

If there's one principled stand I wish the democrats would take is letting the Cadillac tax go into effect. That would make the nibbling into employer-based insurance easier down the road.

Ze Pollack posted:

And so we arrive at the feeble, quivering organ that serves as the technocratic argument's heart: that a government that represents the will of its constituents is not only an impossible, magical dream, the very concept is a monstrosity that must be opposed wherever it presents itself.

"Popular opinion doesn't actually mean a goddamn thing."

One hell of a democratic party slogan you've got there, my man.

Ze Pollack posted:

And so we arrive at the feeble, quivering organ that serves as the technocratic argument's heart: that a government that represents the will of its constituents is not only an impossible, magical dream, the very concept is a monstrosity that must be opposed wherever it presents itself.

"Popular opinion doesn't actually mean a goddamn thing."

One hell of a democratic party slogan you've got there, my man.

Amused to Death posted:

My plan is a cadillac plan

Brainiac Five posted:

So, uh, Brown v. Board was wrong, given that it was imposing desegregation against the desires of a majority of the population? I think you should probably back off a little.

Accretionist posted:

Goon #1: Democrats should fight for UHC today.

Goon #2: What's that? You're calling for race war???

Xae posted:

Your company subsidizes your plan more than $29,500 a calendar year?

Boon posted:

I love that you think your idea of a singular, lock-step united party is possible when the very fact we are arguing about how to accomplish a common goal lies in opposition to the idea. Have you ever worked in an organization, any organization, where you have had to 'herd the cats' to get something done? Magnify that by multiple orders of magnitude and you have the Democratic party. For gently caress's sake.

It's like you've never cracked a history book but spent your entire life in philosophy 101

Amused to Death posted:

I thought for an individual plan the line was $8000?(which even then it like just cracked it) We have crazy good health insurance for an otherwise poo poo paying job that we only pay $13 a week on for premiums with a $300 in network deductible which by most accounts seems way lower than the norm.

Brainiac Five posted:

He said that government must represent the popular will. I know that you are incapable of thinking in terms of ideas and of applying a principle to different situations, but there are lurkers whose minds you might poison with your stupidity.

Xae posted:

It is right abound 10k right now for a single plan.

If they change it you'll probably end up in a High Deductable plan since those are all the rage these days.

Twerk from Home posted:

I kinda like high deductible plans, because you try and scrimp and avoid doing any healthcare stuff, and then on a year when you have a baby or break a leg or get a hernia fixed, you've hit the deductible and can go hog wild and take care of all the medical issues that you've been letting pile up over the last couple years.

I might have Stockholm syndrome for the US healthcare system.

Ze Pollack posted:

Who said anything about a lock-step, united party?

You're the one who said a party actively ignoring the will of its constituents, as repeatedly expressed was the correct approach, on the grounds that popular opinion, and I quote, "doesn't actually mean a goddamned thing." This is a democracy. The Democratic Party has lost over a thousand seats in the last decade, and is currently the weakest it has been since Reagan, thanks to the horrifying discovery that popular opinion does, in fact, mean a goddamned thing.

You will never structure a healthcare proposal such that everyone supports it, sure, given. The most you can hope to do is structure things such that the largest number of people support it.

In the Democratic Party's previous shot at a healthcare bill, they explicitly rejected that philosophy, in favor of making sure the largest number of health insurance companies supported it, on the grounds that popular opinion didn't actually mean a goddamn thing. At minimum, this strategy is part of the reason why we are currently discussing precisely how Republican total dominance over government will sabotage this healthcare policy going forward.

This strategic error is avoidable in the future. You just have to remember that in democracies popular opinion does things.

Xae posted:

It is right abound 10k right now for a single plan.

If they change it you'll probably end up in a High Deductable plan since those are all the rage these days.

Boon posted:

You refuse to do any critical thought on this eh? I guess it's my fault because I just assumed that these things are common knowledge. I'll do the work for you
http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Unless you can offer any, ANY, evidence to support your claim that popular opinion influences policy (which was my point, that you predictably misconstrued) this conversation is over

Twerk from Home posted:

I kinda like high deductible plans, because you try and scrimp and avoid doing any healthcare stuff, and then on a year when you have a baby or break a leg or get a hernia fixed, you've hit the deductible and can go hog wild and take care of all the medical issues that you've been letting pile up over the last couple years.

I might have Stockholm syndrome for the US healthcare system.

Boon posted:

You refuse to do any critical thought on this eh? I guess it's my fault because I just assumed that these things are common knowledge. I'll do the work for you - here's a recent study on it. I have seen no work to significant contradict these findings, but I'll welcome any that you are aware of
http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Unless you can offer any, ANY, evidence to support your claim that popular opinion influences policy (which was my point, that you predictably misconstrued) this conversation is over

Accretionist posted:

Except he didn't say that, you illiterate

Ze Pollack posted:

You're the one who said a party actively ignoring the will of its constituents, as repeatedly expressed was the correct approach, on the grounds that popular opinion, and I quote, "doesn't actually mean a goddamned thing." This is a democracy. The Democratic Party has lost over a thousand seats in the last decade, and is currently the weakest it has been since Reagan, thanks to the horrifying discovery that popular opinion does, in fact, mean a goddamned thing.

Ze Pollack posted:

The Democratic Party that based its healthcare strategy- the sole major policy achievement of said party in the last eight years, through not entirely their own fault- around the premise popular opinion would have no influence on policy going forward has lost over one thousand seats in the last ten years, and as a result has zero voice in healthcare policy for at least the next eighteen months, more likely the next forty-two.

Evidence provided.

quote:

...

Republicans are now in control of a record 67 (68 percent) of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the nation, more than twice the number (31) in which Democrats have a majority, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

“That’s more than at any other time in the history of the Republican Party,” according to NCSL. “They also hold more total seats, well over 4,100 of the 7,383, than they have since 1920.”

Next year, the GOP will control both legislative chambers in 32 states - an all-time high, according to NCSL - while Democrats will have total control of just 13 state legislatures.

In 24 of the 32 states with Republican-controlled legislatures, voters have also elected Republican governors. In contrast, Democrats have a “political trifecta” in just six states.

...

quote:

...

Overall, Sabato wrote, Democrats during Obama’s presidency lost 11 governorships, 13 U.S. Senate seats, 69 House seats, and 913 state legislative seats and 30 state legislative chambers. (Our analysis of legislative seats is off from Sabato’s by three. The small discrepancy is likely due to run-offs and recounts.)

...

Brainiac Five posted:

Accretionist posted:

These are two different claims:

• Ignoring your constituents as a matter of course is bad.
• Never ignore the will of your constituents.

He asserted the former. You're respond to the latter.

Brainiac Five posted:

At the height of the Civil Rights Movement's popularity, only 40% of the population supported it. If we go by Ze Pollack's argument that ignoring the will of the constituency is wrong, then it was wrong for politicians to support the Civil Rights Movement at all. This is why "populism" is inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.- because if the majority actually, genuinely, supported equal rights for a minority group then equal rights would already exist. Most leftists nowadays are two-faced- they say that they really care about the gays, about black people, but their reflexive statements show otherwise.

BarbarianElephant posted:

You think that change happens instantly? The Democrats were all ready to enshrine protections for Trans people into law. Who stopped them? Their own doubts? Or the Republicans?

Brainiac Five posted:

Ah, you're starting to retreat.

quote:

Why don't you elaborate on when it's okay to ignore the popular will and when it's not? I'm sure it won't be obviously ex post facto and ad hoc.

Ze Pollack posted:

In the Democratic Party's previous shot at a healthcare bill, they explicitly rejected that philosophy, in favor of making sure the largest number of health insurance companies supported it,

Accretionist posted:

When values dictate as much, such as egalitarianism or promoting public health.

What values are met by losing elections and opposing UHC?

Brainiac Five posted:

Okay, so why exactly are we talking about popular will when it's totally loving irrelevant then? It's almost as if you guys are either 1) really loving stupid or 2) desperately want to be able to ditch "identity politics".

Accretionist posted:

Don't ask me. You made a post so lovely I couldn't help but post post post. Also, it's vaguely offensive that you're trying to link opposition to IDPol to support for UHC.

Accretionist posted:

Edit: It's also so odd that I just looked at your rap sheet and now I feel like an idiot for taking the bait. The personal attacks should've been a hint. [MISSION ACCOMPLISHED]

evilweasel posted:

this is a wrong and stupid thing to say, it's at the foundation of all of the things you believe, and it is wrong, and stupid

Xae posted:

UHC is the same way. It polls really well when it is vague. It polls really poorly when you start looking at potential policies.

Brainiac Five posted:

No, I'm not, because I support UHC but also don't believe that my fellow LGBT people are bourgeois degenerates, so I obviously am aware that the greasy Strasserites who whine about "identity politics" and call it "IDPol" are representative of nothing but people's desire to reconcile bigotry with the little bits of morality their parents managed to beat into them.

Anyways, if values are sufficient, then Ze Pollack's post is still inane garbage and is counter-revolutionary opposition to anti-racism, feminism, and LGBT liberation.


People who squall like the 400-pound babies they are about "personal attacks" are liberal as heck, certainly lacking in the necessary moral courage to be a democratic socialist, let alone a real one.

SimonCat posted:

You never actually propose anything, you just insult people who do.

What's your master plan for making healthcare available for everyone?

Ze Pollack posted:

Max "Single payer was never even on the table" "The public option will hold back meaningful reform" "two point five million in donations from the insurance industry" Baucus might disagree, but hey, what would he know, he's just the guy who wrote it.

I will leave the accusation of counterrevolutionary behavior for saying that popular will has an impact on ability to enact policy in a democracy where it lies, as I believe it speaks for itself.

Brainiac Five posted:

so I obviously am aware that the greasy Strasserites who whine about "identity politics" and call it "IDPol" are representative of nothing but people's desire to reconcile bigotry with the little bits of morality their parents managed to beat into them.

Brainiac Five posted:

Gulags. Nothing but gulags as far as the eye can see.

SimonCat posted:

So shut the gently caress up and get out of the thread if you're not going to contribute anything meaningful.