|
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. 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.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:09 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 10:38 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:34 |
|
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. My plan is a cadillac plan
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:33 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:36 |
|
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. 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 Boon fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Mar 29, 2017 |
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:39 |
|
Amused to Death posted:My plan is a cadillac plan Your company subsidizes your plan more than $29,500 a calendar year?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:39 |
|
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. Goon #1: Democrats should fight for UHC today. Goon #2: What's that? You're calling for race war???
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:41 |
|
Accretionist posted:Goon #1: Democrats should fight for UHC today. 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.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:43 |
|
Xae posted:Your company subsidizes your plan more than $29,500 a calendar year? 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.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:51 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:52 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:54 |
|
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. Except he didn't say that, you illiterate
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:57 |
|
Xae posted:It is right abound 10k right now for a single plan. 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.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:58 |
|
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. that's hosed up man.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:02 |
|
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that a system where you have to let your medical issues pile up is pretty hosed.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:02 |
|
Ze Pollack posted:Who said anything about a lock-step, united party? 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 Boon fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Mar 29, 2017 |
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:02 |
|
Xae posted:It is right abound 10k right now for a single plan. "Low" deductible health plans are likely to hit the mins for high deductibles from what I've seen. A HDHP is "only" $1300 for a single person, $2600 for a family.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:05 |
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 Popular *outrage* has clearly influenced policy over the past couple months. I think it takes wave-election style mass movements to start mattering, though.
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:05 |
|
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. The initial year is pretty lovely. But once you get a nice cushion in your HSA it works pretty well. I've been on them for so long I have my out of pocket maximum in savings just from socking away $50 a pay period.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:05 |
|
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 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.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:12 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:17 |
|
https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/847205235466625024
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:19 |
|
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. The party's basically dissolving, leaving the GOP at record-setting levels of control. Article: Republicans Now Control Record Number of State Legislative Chambers From: CBS News Date: November 16, 2016 quote:... Article: Have Democrats lost 900 seats in state legislatures since Obama has been president? | [True] From: Politifact Date: January 25, 2015 quote:...
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:19 |
|
These are two different claims:
He asserted the former. You're respond to the latter.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:23 |
|
Accretionist posted:These are two different claims: Ah, you're starting to retreat. 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.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:24 |
|
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. 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?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:24 |
|
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? I'm afraid I can't quite see how this relates to my post, would you mind elaborating so I can make a meaningful reply?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:27 |
|
Brainiac Five posted:Ah, you're starting to retreat. Ah, you're making poo poo up (again) 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. When values dictate as much, such as egalitarianism or promoting public health. What values are met by losing elections and opposing UHC?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:29 |
|
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, 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
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:31 |
|
Accretionist posted:When values dictate as much, such as egalitarianism or promoting public health. 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".
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:31 |
|
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". Don't ask me. You just 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. 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] Accretionist fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Mar 29, 2017 |
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:34 |
|
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. 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. 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] 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.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:37 |
|
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 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. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Mar 29, 2017 |
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:44 |
|
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. I feel like Obamacare is actually a good example of why it's sometimes a good idea just to push through large, difficult to repeal legislation, even if it might be unpopular with a significant portion (if not most) of the population. The responses to Obamacare were generally pretty negative after it was passed from what I can recall (especially after the website issue), but it was still obviously a good thing, and it's size means that it can't be repealed without pretty devastating consequences (which leads to the sort of paralysis you saw when the Republicans were trying to repeal and replace it). One of the downsides to small, incremental improvements is that they can be rolled back far more easily, but larger scale legislation is much more difficult to get rid of after the fact. One other element that's difficult to quantify but is still important is the fact that simply having the support of a major political party will earn the support of a significant portion of voters. Many Democratic voters currently do not support UHC because it isn't seen as part of the Democratic Party platform. But if it was something openly supported by the party, they would begin to mentally associate UHC with "a Democratic policy" and a bunch of people who vote among party lines might develop a more favorable view as a result.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:51 |
|
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. You never actually propose anything, you just insult people who do. What's your master plan for making healthcare available for everyone?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:51 |
|
SimonCat posted:You never actually propose anything, you just insult people who do. Gulags. Nothing but gulags as far as the eye can see.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:52 |
|
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. Max Baucus was able to dictate what could not be in the bill because he was one of the necessary votes. No Max Baucus, no 60 votes, same as with Liberman. To get 60 votes, you need red state senators. Liberman existing was intolerable because there's no reason a blue state should have a shithole senator, but when you're talking Montana, you take what you can get. I mean, you even had all the fact in front of you when you said there was a reason that the bill Baucus worked on is the one that emerged from committee: because Baucus was one of the wavering votes that had to be kept in line to get to 60. Like I said before, you have a real problem separating out any problem from just declaring Good and Evil in extremely broad strokes. You have no real conception that Democrats are not a monolithic entity - or really, any interest in thinking about it. A coalition requires working with people who don't share your goals 100%, and you get done what you can all agree on. The Democratic Party's philosophy on the ACA was very simple: get as much done as possible in a bill that will become law. To do that, they needed as many stakeholders on board as possible, and pretty much nailed exactly the outer limits of what could get passed. You are fundamentally incapable of thinking about things in that way because it's complex thinking instead of just trying to declare Good and Evil in some way that lets you comfortably feel like you've explained the world in simple terms and no ambiguity is left.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:56 |
|
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. The "Strasserites" make up a pretty negligible proportion of the Sanders coalition, and have basically no chance of affecting Democratic Party politics. You can and probably should ignore them. Most people who want more of a focus on economic justice in the Dems than currently exists still think racial/sexual/gender equality are all extremely important principles to strive for. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Mar 29, 2017 |
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:57 |
|
Brainiac Five posted:Gulags. Nothing but gulags as far as the eye can see. So shut the gently caress up and get out of the thread if you're not going to contribute anything meaningful.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:57 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 10:38 |
|
SimonCat posted:So shut the gently caress up and get out of the thread if you're not going to contribute anything meaningful. You should take your own advice, but for life in general instead of just "the thread". I mean, I have no desire to talk about idealized healthcare systems because the vast majority of people who would be actively disagreeing with me don't know that UHC and single-payer aren't synonyms.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 23:59 |