The democrats are a waste

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed.
B	77	25.50%
K	160	52.98%
M	65	21.52%
Total:	229 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Neon Belly: Feb 12, 2008; I need something stronger.

joepinetree posted:

That's what has been an eye opener when i listened to pod save America. Every single person they interview from the Obama administration had the same story: student at expensive private University takes unpaid internship with up and coming politician.

Even if the internships were paid, it's not like the permanent staff positions pay very well either. A good salary for a Congressional staffer is $45k/yr in one of the most expensive cities in the country and most of them can't rely on their parents to bankroll their existence.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 15:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 15:36

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Ardennes posted:

The issue is obviously a massive lack of trust (they will simply sell out) and simply the issue of identity politics in the US itself (will the "natural leader" happen to check enough boxes?).

Everyone shits on OWS and I don't think it is the future but it was also absolutely necessary...a primordal pool for a new form of politics to form in the US and guess what I think our politics has changed since 2011. We simply need to go further.

, and I don't mean to be unfair to OWS. It absolutely was a step in the right direction of the left mobilizing and cleaning the rust off its gears. There are just important lessons to learn from it, and some of the answers (ie: would a centralized or decentralized movement be most effective going forward?) aren't 100% clear quite yet.

In the meantime, the Center for American Progress apparently felt it necessary to remind us how out-of-touch and awful it is:

quote:

The most influential center-left think tank in DC has a new plan to fix Obamacare � and, perhaps surprisingly, it includes some of the same provisions as the Republican health bill in the Senate.

On Thursday, the Center for American Progress released new legislative text that proposes repairing Obamacare�s exchanges through a mixture of new subsidies to help insurance companies cover their most expensive patients, and lower taxes to encourage insurers to set up shop in under-served markets.

quote:

The CAP plan has three main components � two of which are already included in Senate Republicans� Better Care Reconciliation Act. (All three components have been floating around health policy circles for a number of years.)

The first involves guaranteeing Obamacare�s cost-sharing reductions, which help make copays and deductibles cheaper for lower-income people who get insurance through Obamacare. Trump threatened to stop making Obamacare�s CSR payments � a move that �destabilized� the markets by making it unclear to insurers if they could count on the payments being there. Both Senate Republicans� BCRA and the CAP plan would guarantee the CSRs.

The second component is a $15 billion �reinsurance� fund. It calls for giving states federal money to give insurers funding for their most expensive, high-cost enrollees � which Spiro says would in turn reduce premium payments for everyone else on the exchanges. (Spiro also notes that Maine and Alaska � two states with moderate Republican senators � have already adopted similar approaches in their states that have shown signs of success.) Because the reinsurance fund would reduce premium costs, and thus the amount of tax credits the government would have to pay out, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association says the $15 billion fund would only cost the federal government $4 billion.

�It�s pretty well known that a very small percentage of patients drive the vast majority of health care costs. That�s the reasoning behind this solution: If you subsidize those high costs, it will bring premiums down for everyone,� Spiro said.

�And it's plucked straight from the Senate Republican bill."

These Republican ideas were put into BCRA in order to ease the blow created by the GOP plan to eliminate the individual mandate, which would cause instability in the Obamacare exchanges. CAP is proposing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on these proposals � without the tax cuts for the rich and gutting of Medicaid also envisioned by McConnell�s team.

The third proposal in the CAP plan isn�t in the GOP plan. It involves giving tax incentives to insurance companies who agree to cover patients in parts of the country where there is only one insurer (or fewer). One idea is to encourage insurers by eliminating the health insurance tax for plans that enter these markets, though Spiro said he�s open to other suggestions and tweaks. The plan also says that CAP would support a public option to make sure that everyone is covered.

Seriously, are they loving kidding us? :psyduck:

# ? Jun 29, 2017 17:25

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

Majorian posted:

, and I don't mean to be unfair to OWS. It absolutely was a step in the right direction of the left mobilizing and cleaning the rust off its gears. There are just important lessons to learn from it, and some of the answers (ie: would a centralized or decentralized movement be most effective going forward?) aren't 100% clear quite yet.

In the meantime, the Center for American Progress apparently felt it necessary to remind us how out-of-touch and awful it is:

Seriously, are they loving kidding us?

It reeks of desperation. ACA is unpopular when not compared to AHCA, and people are clamoring for european style healthcare. They're trying to find some sort of compromise to undercut the popular will's desire for UHC.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 17:29

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Majorian posted:

, and I don't mean to be unfair to OWS. It absolutely was a step in the right direction of the left mobilizing and cleaning the rust off its gears. There are just important lessons to learn from it, and some of the answers (ie: would a centralized or decentralized movement be most effective going forward?) aren't 100% clear quite yet.

In the meantime, the Center for American Progress apparently felt it necessary to remind us how out-of-touch and awful it is:

Seriously, are they loving kidding us?

this is some dumb false equivalence bullshit tho

"these plans are both written in english, so they're largely the same"

# ? Jun 29, 2017 17:38

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

this is some dumb false equivalence bullshit tho

"these plans are both written in english, so they're largely the same"

That may be the case with how the article is worded, but my objection is that it shows that somehow, at this moment in history, after everything that's happened over the past several months, after a week of dissecting the Senate health care bill and seeing how it harms Americans...the CAP's natural inclination is still to give ground. It's still to compromise, accept the premise of the Republican criticism of Obamacare, and shift to the right. I'm not sure how this could be characterized as anything but appallingly tone-deaf.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 17:45

Falstaff: Apr 27, 2008; I have a kind of alacrity in sinking.

Helsing posted:

In 2011 the North American left was a ghost that had struggled from one defeat to another since it peaked in the late 1960s. They were also still facing off against a popular reformist President who many liberals still believed was going to exercise a transformative impact on politics. Furthermore, the actual crowd that showed up at Occupy may have been energetic but they ran the gamut from mainstream liberals to anarchists to socialists to even a handful of right-wing Ron Paul loving libertarians. I don't think it's clear that any of this was particularly conducive to creating a strongly organized and ideologically coherent national movement overnight. What we got was pretty good considering the circumstances: everything from the Sanders campaign to the Chicago Teachers' Strike to the campaign of Seattle's socialist city councilor Kashame Sawant have cited OWS as an important moment in launching their projects (anecdotally, so have plenty of local lefty organizations I'm familiar with). What more do you really think was likely to come out of OWS in the short term?

The left also looks a hell of a lot better organized than it did in 2011 so I'm not sure how you can argue that nothing has been learned. The Sanders campaign, or at least organizers associated with it, seem to be intent on forcing their way into the Democratic party and pushing it to the left. Whether that succeeds is an open question and it will certainly take more than one cycle, but that's a huge organizational jump from what anyone believed to be possible half a decade ago.

I agree with this, and I also think it's important to remember that in many ways OWS was babbys first protest. The part of the populace that activists draw from have spent decades being taught all the wrong lessons about effective protesting: Don't be disruptive, always be presentable, be respectful, don't be threatening, etc. The popular conception of the civil rights movement was whitewashed long ago, such that you have MLK asking the powers that be for more rights, doing some peaceful marches, and bam - progress!

If OWS was less effective than it could have been, it's because all these bad lessons had to be unlearned. I can't bring myself to blame the protesters for that, and as you argue, I'm also not willing to handwave away all the real progress on the level of political consciousness that OWS at the very least contributed to.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 17:55

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Majorian posted:

That may be the case with how the article is worded, but my objection is that it shows that somehow, at this moment in history, after everything that's happened over the past several months, after a week of dissecting the Senate health care bill and seeing how it harms Americans...the CAP's natural inclination is still to give ground. It's still to compromise, accept the premise of the Republican criticism of Obamacare, and shift to the right. I'm not sure how this could be characterized as anything but appallingly tone-deaf.

the similarities between the CAP plan and BCRA are guaranteeing cost-sharing and reinsurance pools, neither of which are shifts to the right in any meaningful sense

e: "guaranteeing cost-sharing" is "prevent Donald Trump from purposefully loving up people's health insurance" and "reinsurance pools" are "the government should pay for this guy"

# ? Jun 29, 2017 18:03

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

the similarities between the CAP plan and BCRA are guaranteeing cost-sharing and reinsurance pools, neither of which are shifts to the right in any meaningful sense

The fact that the CAP is already trying to meet Senate Republicans halfway in and of itself shifts the debate to the right. See, there's this thing called the "Overton Window" that apparently the CAP hasn't heard of...

# ? Jun 29, 2017 18:08

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Majorian posted:

The fact that the CAP is already trying to meet Senate Republicans halfway in and of itself shifts the debate to the right. See, there's this thing called the "Overton Window" that apparently the CAP hasn't heard of...

you're doing a "Republicans think that breathing air is good? Well, I'll show them!" thing

# ? Jun 29, 2017 18:09

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

you're doing a "Republicans think that breathing air is good? Well, I'll show them!" thing

It seems to me that you're arguing that meeting Senate Republicans halfway is necessary for survival, not unlike breathing air.

This was a good opportunity for the CAP to at least call for a public option, if not Medicare for all. They have badly, badly misread the political landscape in letting that opportunity pass them by.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 18:26

Pachakuti: Jun 25, 2017; by Nyc_Tattoo

Majorian posted:

It seems to me that you're arguing that meeting Senate Republicans halfway is necessary for survival, not unlike breathing air.

This was a good opportunity for the CAP to at least call for a public option, if not Medicare for all. They have badly, badly misread the political landscape in letting that opportunity pass them by.

So now we have the rhetorical shift from "implementing fixes and improvements to the ACA is meeting Republicans halfway" to "not advocating for single-payer is meeting Republicans halfway". It seems like you're looking for reasons to be angry, from the outside.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 18:33

Dirk Pitt: Sep 14, 2007; haha yes, this feels good; Toilet Rascal

Majorian posted:

The fact that the CAP is already trying to meet Senate Republicans halfway in and of itself shifts the debate to the right. See, there's this thing called the "Overton Window" that apparently the CAP hasn't heard of...

Democrats only base their policy on being agreeable to the Right. Being shamed rightwards is all the democrat knows.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 18:36

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Pachakuti posted:

So now we have the rhetorical shift from "implementing fixes and improvements to the ACA is meeting Republicans halfway"

Nope. Implementing fixes and improvements to the ACA is not on the table. You know it, I know it, and the CAP knows it. Given that we know the Republicans in Congress are not interested in implementing fixes/improvements to the ACA, it makes no sense to present something this watered-down. Now is not the time to pathetically beg Republicans for compromise. Now is the time to be bold, and demand single payer. We probably won't get that anytime soon either, but at least it will help shift the debate to the left, and remind Americans that a workable health care system is possible, if they get organized and demand it.

PS: Hi Effectronica.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 18:40

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

Pachakuti posted:

So now we have the rhetorical shift from "implementing fixes and improvements to the ACA is meeting Republicans halfway" to "not advocating for single-payer is meeting Republicans halfway". It seems like you're looking for reasons to be angry, from the outside.

I wouldn't call those mutually exclusive. It's possible to be mad that they're not advocating single-payer, AND that they're trying to do the political equivalent of shoving gum in ACA's leaking holes. I'm not confident that tax incentives won't be exploited to pocket the savings while not actually covering people.

It's extra frustrating because a party sympathetic to single-payer could effectively merge the "UHC NOW!" fervor with that of the disdain for ACA to put forth a bill that transitions ACA to a single-payer system. None of these bills will pass without extreme compromises to republicans, so why hedge their bets? It smells of either kowtowing to insurance companies, or an obsession with preserving Obama's legacy.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 18:44

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

you're doing a "Republicans think that breathing air is good? Well, I'll show them!" thing

How about "the ACA was a Republican plan to hand over tax money to the insurance industry from the start and no organization with "progressive" in the name has any reason to defend it in any way." It's not what the Republicans want anymore, it's never been what progressives want and there aren't enough centrist Democrats voters left to win with this strategy.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 18:50

Pachakuti: Jun 25, 2017; by Nyc_Tattoo

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

How about "the ACA was a Republican plan to hand over tax money to the insurance industry from the start and no organization with "progressive" in the name has any reason to defend it in any way." It's not what the Republicans want anymore, it's never been what progressives want and there aren't enough centrist Democrats voters left to win with this strategy.

This is a lie. The ACA is not a Republican proposal. Claiming that it was was primarily a failed bit of propaganda attempting to soften opposition among Republican voters, and is now a Republican piece of propaganda to peel progressives away from defending existing healthcare programs so that they can be defunded.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-affordable-care-act-is-not-remotely-similar-to-the-heritage-plan

Majorian posted:

Nope. Implementing fixes and improvements to the ACA is not on the table. You know it, I know it, and the CAP knows it. Given that we know the Republicans in Congress are not interested in implementing fixes/improvements to the ACA, it makes no sense to present something this watered-down. Now is not the time to pathetically beg Republicans for compromise. Now is the time to be bold, and demand single payer. We probably won't get that anytime soon either, but at least it will help shift the debate to the left, and remind Americans that a workable health care system is possible, if they get organized and demand it.

PS: Hi Effectronica.

On the contrary, countering propaganda about the inherent failure of the ACA is important in and of itself as part of revealing that Republicans are pathological liars, which is necessary for defending any progressive policy in the future, so that in a decade we're not facing a Republican effort to defund UHC and blame it on the Democrats.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:01

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

I'm gonna be a devil's advocate here and say that, in theory, I don't really see the problem with Democrats attempting to soften the blow of whatever terrible health care legislation the Republicans put out in a situation where they lack anywhere near the power to pass anything themselves. The Republicans are having enough trouble passing their own bill that it's not completely inconceivable that they might make some minor compromise to get some Democratic votes (though it's still highly unlikely).

I would be more upset that they don't simultaneously say "but ideally we want X" alongside compromises like this. The "moment of truth", so to speak, is what the Democrats do when they have the power to actually pass something on their own. I'm certainly not optimistic, but I consider that a separate issue from CAP trying to present some sort of less lovely version of what the Republicans are considering.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:25

MooselanderII: Feb 18, 2004

While I don't think this proposal borrows from any of the bad parts of the BRCA, its fixes all seem to be in the same ineffective vein as the ACA at heart: it is an incomprehensible to the public, market based solution that subsidizes the health insurance industry and ultimately relies on the good behavior of health insurers to succeed.

I do not think it is a rightward shift, but hooboy, is it basically incrementalism.txt to an almost satirical extent.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:27

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

Pachakuti posted:

This is a lie. The ACA is not a Republican proposal. Claiming that it was was primarily a failed bit of propaganda attempting to soften opposition among Republican voters, and is now a Republican piece of propaganda to peel progressives away from defending existing healthcare programs so that they can be defunded.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-affordable-care-act-is-not-remotely-similar-to-the-heritage-plan

As much as I want to trust an article posted on lawyers guns money blog dot com in 2013, Obama himself, on more than one occasion quoted Heritage Foundation as the source for the basic structure of the ACA, which is verifiable if you are able to read and compare documents that were written in English. It was also first implemented in the United States by one Mitt "Mitt" Romney, who I'm reasonably sure was a Republican at the time.

"when you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas. I mean a lot of commentators have said this is sort of similar to the bill that Mitt Romney, the Republican governor and now presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts. A lot of the ideas in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market, that originated from the Heritage Foundation. ..."

-- the actual words of Barack Obama that he said on television to Matt Lauer.

Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jun 29, 2017

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:29

Pachakuti: Jun 25, 2017; by Nyc_Tattoo

MooselanderII posted:

While I don't think this proposal borrows from any of the bad parts of the BRCA, its fixes all seem to be in the same ineffective vein as the ACA at heart: it is an incomprehensible to the public, market based solution that subsidizes the health insurance industry and ultimately relies on the good behavior of health insurers to succeed.

I do not think it is a rightward shift, but hooboy, is it basically incrementalism.txt to an almost satirical extent.

Medicare is itself incomprehensible to the public, given that only a small fraction of its recipients understand it's administered by the government. Arguably all healthcare policy will be incomprehensible to the public in some fashion if it's to be effective at all, since it involves regulating decisions by trained experts. Unless we're proposing some futurist fantasyland where healthcare is about as scarce as food is currently thanks to robot doctors or whatever.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:31

MooselanderII: Feb 18, 2004

I don't see how anything in the CAP proposal helps the Democrats advance their message to non voters the 2018 election.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:32

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Ytlaya posted:

I'm gonna be a devil's advocate here and say that, in theory, I don't really see the problem with Democrats attempting to soften the blow of whatever terrible health care legislation the Republicans put out in a situation where they lack anywhere near the power to pass anything themselves.

I'd agree with this, if we were talking about Democratic legislators. But it's a think tank, and they have more room to maneuver on this. Given that it's the CAP, its simultaneously shocking and not-shocking that they didn't use that room.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:33

Pachakuti: Jun 25, 2017; by Nyc_Tattoo

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

As much as I want to trust an article posted on lawyers guns money blog dot com in 2013, Obama himself, on more than one occasion quoted Heritage Foundation as the source for the basic structure of the ACA, which is verifiable if you are able to read and compare documents that were written in English. It was also first implemented in the United States by one Mitt "Mitt" Romney, who I'm reasonably sure was a Republican at the time.

The Massachusetts bill was passed by supermajorities of Democrats in both houses of the Massachusetts legislature.

The Heritage Foundation proposal would have eliminated Medicare, chopped Medicaid to shreds, eliminated employer-provided insurance, would have eliminated regulation of insurers, and its mandate was for high-deductible catastrophe coverage. So, sure, it's like the ACA, if you're a mean-spirited caricature of a strict social constructionist.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:35

Pachakuti: Jun 25, 2017; by Nyc_Tattoo

MooselanderII posted:

I don't see how anything in the CAP proposal helps the Democrats advance their message to non voters the 2018 election.

Why is that the only thing that Democrats should be doing?

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:36

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Majorian posted:

, and I don't mean to be unfair to OWS. It absolutely was a step in the right direction of the left mobilizing and cleaning the rust off its gears. There are just important lessons to learn from it, and some of the answers (ie: would a centralized or decentralized movement be most effective going forward?) aren't 100% clear quite yet.

In the meantime, the Center for American Progress apparently felt it necessary to remind us how out-of-touch and awful it is:

Seriously, are they loving kidding us?

how does this $15 billion subsidize high-risk people money end up costing the fed only $4 billion. they say "cause it will reduce tax credits necessary to help premium costs", but aren't those offset costs immediately put back onto the fed government with the subsidies? all i'm seeing here is the solution to fixing the ACA is to offload more of the responsibility for funding to the government, while still forcing us to give money to private corps

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:37

MooselanderII: Feb 18, 2004

Pachakuti posted:

Medicare is itself incomprehensible to the public, given that only a small fraction of its recipients understand it's administered by the government. Arguably all healthcare policy will be incomprehensible to the public in some fashion if it's to be effective at all, since it involves regulating decisions by trained experts. Unless we're proposing some futurist fantasyland where healthcare is about as scarce as food is currently thanks to robot doctors or whatever.

Uh, most people understand Medicare is government run. I'd like to see something to the contrary.

Government covers your health care past 65 (or for single payer, universally) = easy to understand.

Incentivizing health insurers to serve more markets = relies on the good behavior of health insurers and recipients don't give a poo poo as premiums will still be absurdly high.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:37

MooselanderII: Feb 18, 2004

Pachakuti posted:

Why is that the only thing that Democrats should be doing?

Because taking back some form of power is the only way they can accomplish positive legislative goals?

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:39

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

MooselanderII posted:

Uh, most people understand Medicare is government run. I'd like to see something to the contrary.

Government covers your health care past 65 (or for single payer, universally) = easy to understand.

Incentivizing health insurers to serve more markets = relies on the good behavior of health insurers and recipients don't give a poo poo as premiums will still be absurdly high.

no see they're gonna lower costs by making the government pay more for the sickest people.

i just dunno why when we've got the government on the hook for so much money, why we don't just go for singlepayer instead of shoveling that money into insurance execs' olympic pools?

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:41

Pachakuti: Jun 25, 2017; by Nyc_Tattoo

MooselanderII posted:

Uh, most people understand Medicare is government run. I'd like to see something to the contrary.

Government covers your health care past 65 (or for single payer, universally) = easy to understand.

Incentivizing health insurers to serve more markets = relies on the good behavior of health insurers and recipients don't give a poo poo as premiums will still be absurdly high.

I misremembered, it's only 40% of Medicare recipients and 30% of Medicaid recipients.

https://assets.goodstatic.com/s3/magazine/assets/366974/original/1310161733programbeneficiaries.jpg=s500x1300

Anyways, it's amazing how the AHCA can raise premiums if the ACA does nothing to rein them in.

MooselanderII posted:

Because taking back some form of power is the only way they can accomplish positive legislative goals?

So they should do nothing but target nonvoters. I see. Maybe you missed the word "only" in my post?

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:45

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

Pachakuti posted:

I misremembered, it's only 40% of Medicare recipients and 30% of Medicaid recipients.

https://assets.goodstatic.com/s3/magazine/assets/366974/original/1310161733programbeneficiaries.jpg=s500x1300

Anyways, it's amazing how the AHCA can raise premiums if the ACA does nothing to rein them in.

So they should do nothing but target nonvoters. I see. Maybe you missed the word "only" in my post?

It doesn't do enough to lower them, you disingenuous prick.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:49

Pachakuti: Jun 25, 2017; by Nyc_Tattoo

Fiction posted:

It doesn't do enough to lower them, you disingenuous prick.

Part of why it doesn't do enough to lower them is due to the Supreme Court allowing Republicans to block Medicaid expansion, forcing more people on the individual group markets than was planned. So just blaming that on evil Obama is still a lie.

Furthermore, significantly reducing premiums/taxes would require some unpopular programs like reducing doctor salaries and establishing nationalized hospitals, clinics, and pharmaceutical/medical device companies. Which is well outside the scope of even socialist discourse in the USA. Perhaps instead of blaming people for having misjudged the potential for UHC in the past, we could focus on pressuring for it now, even if it leaves people liking Obama instead of hating him.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:55

MooselanderII: Feb 18, 2004

Pachakuti posted:

So they should do nothing but target nonvoters. I see. Maybe you missed the word "only" in my post?

I don't know what you're trying to get at here, but there have been 3 house elections under the current district models and the Democrats have been unable to retake the house in all three of them, even when riding on Obama's 2012 coattails. In order to overcome the gerrymandered difficulties posed by these seats, Democrats have to make a pitch that gets people who usually sit out these elections to come out and vote. I would love to hear an alternative that could result in a 2018 house majority.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:57

Pachakuti: Jun 25, 2017; by Nyc_Tattoo

MooselanderII posted:

I don't know what you're trying to get at here, but there have been 3 house elections under the current district models and the Democrats have been unable to retake the house in all three of them, even when riding on Obama's 2012 coattails. In order to overcome the gerrymandered difficulties posed by these seats, Democrats have to make a pitch that gets people who usually sit out these elections to come out and vote. I would love to hear an alternative that could result in a 2018 house majority.

I am arguing that there are more things they need to be doing than just that. So the arguments around defending the initial hot takes about the Center for American Progress which revolve around what they're doing being a waste of time are wrongheaded.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 19:59

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

Majorian posted:

Nope. Implementing fixes and improvements to the ACA is not on the table. You know it, I know it, and the CAP knows it. Given that we know the Republicans in Congress are not interested in implementing fixes/improvements to the ACA, it makes no sense to present something this watered-down. Now is not the time to pathetically beg Republicans for compromise. Now is the time to be bold, and demand single payer. We probably won't get that anytime soon either, but at least it will help shift the debate to the left, and remind Americans that a workable health care system is possible, if they get organized and demand it.

ACA fixes and improvements are a drat sight more likely in the next four years than any kind of true UHC (though I admit that they are still less likely than doing nothing and probably less likely than some sort of horrible Trumpcare). I know bipartisanship is a dirty word nowadays, and for good loving reason, but if the Republicans have accidentally included a good provision or two in their bill that otherwise fucks everyone over, then suggesting "maybe we only do this part" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 20:02

MooselanderII: Feb 18, 2004

Pachakuti posted:

I am arguing that there are more things they need to be doing than just that. So the arguments around defending the initial hot takes about the Center for American Progress which revolve around what they're doing being a waste of time are wrongheaded.

Like what? Offering a digestible and meaningful alternative to the GOP abomination presents a great opportunity to win in 2018, which makes the CAP proposal all the more disappointing.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 20:03

Pachakuti: Jun 25, 2017; by Nyc_Tattoo

ACA fixes could also be rammed through in 2021 where UHC legislation would take time to write and negotiate, especially a single-payer bill that would need to bribe doctors and nurses and build support from the public against the insurance companies that would be essentially annihilated by it and the medical supplies companies that would be squeezed by it.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 20:05

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

Pachakuti posted:

ACA fixes could also be rammed through in 2021 where UHC legislation would take time to write and negotiate, especially a single-payer bill that would need to bribe doctors and nurses and build support from the public against the insurance companies that would be essentially annihilated by it and the medical supplies companies that would be squeezed by it.

or we could just pass a better bill people actually want instead of the lovely one people only like because the alternative to it is dying

# ? Jun 29, 2017 20:12

Pachakuti: Jun 25, 2017; by Nyc_Tattoo

Fiction posted:

or we could just pass a better bill people actually want instead of the lovely one people only like because the alternative to it is dying

So we should do nothing to correct reactionary sabotage in the interim while we implement UHC? Or did you not read the post before responding?

# ? Jun 29, 2017 20:18

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

Condiv posted:

how does this $15 billion subsidize high-risk people money end up costing the fed only $4 billion. they say "cause it will reduce tax credits necessary to help premium costs", but aren't those offset costs immediately put back onto the fed government with the subsidies?

Yes, that's the point. Right now the ACA calls for $X billion in premium subsidies. If they spend $15 billion on high-risk subsidies, that will keep premiums lower, meaning they will only need to pay $(X-11) billion in premium subsidies, for a net spending increase of only $4 billion (while also saving money for any actual people who are on an ACA plan but don't qualify for subsidies).

# ? Jun 29, 2017 20:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 15:36

MooselanderII: Feb 18, 2004

Pachakuti posted:

So we should do nothing to correct reactionary sabotage in the interim while we implement UHC? Or did you not read the post before responding?

The problem with these tiny fixes is that people don't recognize or care about them and then they go and elect Republicans who pledge to undo them anyways. Better to aim big if it can result in electoral success that can lead to sustained and deep rooted reform.

# ? Jun 29, 2017 20:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

«‹›483 »