|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
MooselanderII posted: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. So we should only do good things if they'll win us votes? Ummm....
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
Pachakuti posted:So we should only do good things if they'll win us votes? Ummm.... No, it is a matter of not doing enough good causing you to lose, while going further and doing more good causing you to win?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:No, it is a matter of not doing enough good causing you to lose, while going further and doing more good causing you to win? What? I said that these proposals can help people survive in the interim between Dem takeover and implementation of UHC, which implies they aren't mutually exclusive. Are you reading my posts at all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:What? I said that these proposals can help people survive in the interim between Dem takeover and implementation of UHC, which implies they aren't mutually exclusive. Are you reading my posts at all? How do you expect to even get a Democratic takeover without these big promises? I agree that they aren't mutually exclusive, but the point is that the CAP proposal left them out. We won't get there with tiny incremental changes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
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. Sure, if the ACA lasts past next month and the Democrats plan on running on nothing sweeps them into office The other real problem on this that nobody has mentioned is that it ties the Democrats to this bill as well. So when poo poo predictably goes south it gives the GOP even more leverage to blame the dems on what happened and continue to propose even worse changes. All for a couple minor things that likely won't save many people and will likely be worked around by a GOP administration implementing it. Yay!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:How do you expect to even get a Democratic takeover without these big promises? I agree that they aren't mutually exclusive, but the point is that the CAP proposal left them out. We won't get there with tiny incremental changes. This proposal is not the totality of the Democratic Party platform and insisting it is is really bizarre. It's almost as if you're grasping for things to complain about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Jethro posted: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). Over the next four years, sure. Over the next year and a half? Not in the slightest. As I said earlier, the slight improvements to the ACA that the CAP suggests here are just as unlikely in the near future as UHC. They may as well have actually advocated for something progressive, God forbid. Pachakuti posted:This proposal is not the totality of the Democratic Party platform and insisting it is is really bizarre. It's almost as if you're grasping for things to complain about. This is a disingenuous argument. The CAP represents the Democratic leadership's positions on issues much more closely than more left-wing think tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:What? I said that these proposals can help people survive in the interim between Dem takeover and implementation of UHC, which implies they aren't mutually exclusive. Are you reading my posts at all? Your talking like the democrats are actually supporting the UHC, which they are not. The push against band aid solutions is because the (very real) fear that it as far as the democrats will go with the policies. They will get power and then NOT push to implement UHC, because they are not left, but centrists cowards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Your talking like the democrats are actually supporting the UHC, which they are not. The push against band aid solutions is because the (very real) fear that it as far as the democrats will go with the policies. They will get power and then NOT push to implement UHC, because they are not left, but centrists cowards. On the contrary, a number of sitting Democratic legislators already support single-payer and this is likely to increase both from pressure from lay members and the fact that the Republican Party is normalizing single-payer by presenting its murder bills as the alternative to inevitable single-payer. And you, too, can work to push for single-payer instead of laying around in a depressive spiral, which has led you to the conclusion that anything short of 100% advocacy for single-payer and nothing else is a guarantee that nothing matters and we're all gonna die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:On the contrary, a number of sitting Democratic legislators already support single-payer ...and face lots and lots of concern-trolling resistance from the party leadership and centrist commentators. quote:And you, too, can work to push for single-payer instead of laying around in a depressive spiral, which has led you to the conclusion that anything short of 100% advocacy for single-payer and nothing else is a guarantee that nothing matters and we're all gonna die. One can push for it, and also call conservative Democrats spineless cowards online. There are enough hours in the day, praise be to Allah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:...and face lots and lots of concern-trolling resistance from the party leadership and centrist commentators. Nah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:Nah. Well that's a relief - I'm pleased to hear that Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Paul Krugman, Anthony Rendon, etc, have all made about-faces on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well that's a relief - I'm pleased to hear that Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Paul Krugman, Anthony Rendon, etc, have all made about-faces on the issue. Nancy Pelosi has supported incremental approach to single-payer for decades, and citing her as an implacable opponent to direct implementation on the basis of rage-fodder clickbait smacks of an effort to accommodate the reactionaries by agreeing to purge people for their sake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:Nancy Pelosi has supported incremental approach to single-payer for decades, and citing her as an implacable opponent to direct implementation on the basis of rage-fodder clickbait smacks of an effort to accommodate the reactionaries by agreeing to purge people for their sake. Oh really? quote:At a briefing with reporters last month, the House minority leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, replied with a flat “no” when asked if Democrats should make single-payer a central theme in 2018. She said state-level action was more appropriate, though she said she supported the idea in concept.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Why would you own yourself like this by posting her saying "single-payer is not at the right level of normality" as evidence for her believing in single-payer never?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:Why would you own yourself like this by posting her saying "single-payer is not at the right level of normality" as evidence for her believing in single-payer never? Because it's pretty clear that she will never think it's the "right time" to pursue single payer in earnest. Thanks for playing, though, Effectronica! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Because taking back some form of power is the only way they can accomplish positive legislative goals? Democrats don't want power; they want "consensus and bipartisan solutions". The consensus being that their base is tired of voting for them anymore, and the bipartisan solution being letting the Republican candidate win instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Because it's pretty clear that she will never think it's the "right time" to pursue single payer in earnest. That's not clear at all. You need more evidence to prove that Nancy Pelosi is immune to any kind of pressure on the matter, or lying. Note that your gut feelings don't count as evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
I feel like single payer support should be a requirement for all current and future democrat reps. If you don’t like it, bow out or prepare for a primary challenge. It’s too important to dawdle with getting new legislation passed every 8-12 years as ‘we incrementally get closer to single payer.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Why is this rear end in a top hat allowed to evade probes/bans
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:That's not clear at all. You need more evidence to prove that Nancy Pelosi is immune to any kind of pressure on the matter, or lying. Note that your gut feelings don't count as evidence. The beef with Pelosi in my book has nothing to do with her own personal stance on single payer (she acknowledged on Pod Save America that it is objectively the best and most obvious system) but with her resistance to making it the center of the"Retake the house in 2018" campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
call to action posted:Why is this rear end in a top hat allowed to evade probes/bans He got perma-ed, home ex just hasn't been on today I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
"What do we want? Incremental changes to Obamacare!" "When do we want it! In the next 4 to 6 years!" ... "Why is the base through with us?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:The beef with Pelosi in my book has nothing to do with her own personal stance on single payer (she acknowledged on Pod Save America that it is objectively the best and most obvious system) but with her resistance to making it the center of the"Retake the house in 2018" campaign. Why does it matter what she said in a podcast interview when her actions don't advance that cause at all? Majorian posted:He got perma-ed, home ex just hasn't been on today I think. Thank goodness
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:The beef with Pelosi in my book has nothing to do with her own personal stance on single payer (she acknowledged on Pod Save America that it is objectively the best and most obvious system) but with her resistance to making it the center of the"Retake the house in 2018" campaign. That's fair, but the cool thing is that the more public pressure that emerges for single-payer, the more those objections shrink away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
call to action posted:Why does it matter what she said in a podcast interview when her actions don't advance that cause at all? I don't give a gently caress what her personal opinion is, I care what she does for it as a politician, which is the distinction I and Majorian were making to B5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:I don't give a gently caress what her personal opinion is, I care what she does for it as a politician, which is the distinction I and Majorian were making to B5. So she does nothing and is for it in some venues and not in others. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
call to action posted:So she does nothing and is for it in some venues and not in others. Got it. He seems to be agreeing with you about the necessity of purges, friend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Jethro posted: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). so basically it's like an idiotic proto-singlepayer where the sickest are given more aid by the government (good idea) by paying insurers more to cover them (why?!) if the insurance cos are so inefficient they can't handle this poo poo themselves even when they have near monopolies in a state, why not get them out of the way and let the fed gov do the job it's already paying tons to get done?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/timeforallofus/status/880494748020158464
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Both incremental change and UHC are equally unlikely or likely to pass today or within the next 2 years. Republicans are not going to work across the table with democrats when that's half their identity. We can do the former while we write up the latter if we have a working majority, but until then there is absolutely 0 reason to talk incremental change when it doesn't excite the base, appeal to new voters, or present a strong alternative to the opposition. UHC does all of the above.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
I think it's pretty clear that she did, and I'm heartened to hear her language and her passion in doing so. I hope she will acknowledge the importance and the timeliness of the party getting fully behind UHC now, as opposed to some indeterminate time in the future, because that's an important distinction in all of this. It's great that Pelosi and other party leaders aren't categorically against Medicare For All "sometime in the future," but the Democrats need to be demanding that it happen sooner rather than later. They need to spur the demand among voters for universal health care. They can't just keep treating it as a pie-in-the-sky dream. But yes, again, I'm really glad to hear Gillibrand say this. It sounds like she understands the "fierce urgency of now," as it were, and I hope she follows up on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
bedpan posted:That's what he is. The loving rear end in a top hat is a date rapist. I don't loath this piece of poo poo because he is a center-of-right politician or because he panders or because he doesn't support my interests. Anyone with any sort of power in this worthless country would slice my throat and my interests to get ahead. They don't give a poo poo about truth or fairness or equality. So in this respect Obama is nothing special. So that's not why I loathe him. This is a beautiful post. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:This is a beautiful post. Holy poo poo. Never forget Paradol Ex. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:you're doing a "Republicans think that breathing air is good? Well, I'll show them!" thing So you're still keeping up this gimmick of castigating Bernie Sanders for supporting worthless half-measures and not being pure enough to call for full communism now, and then turning around and saying everyone who doesn't support the latest corporate Democrat proposal from the center-right is a totally unreasonable dreamer, eh
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
paradol ex's posting getting celebrated in D&D in 2017 is a stark motherfucking indicator of how far SA done fell
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
you are like a little baby. watch this: *links to the post histories of randbrick and red 'dead' ken"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:paradol ex's posting getting celebrated in D&D in 2017 is a stark motherfucking indicator of how far SA done fell I think most of it might not be 100% sincere...
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:paradol ex's posting getting celebrated in D&D in 2017 is a stark motherfucking indicator of how far SA done fell I don't think the people celebrating that quote realize that he posted that during the 2008 primary and was also 100% sure that Hillary Clinton was going to win the primary and that Mitt Romney was going to beat her in the general. Also that he was a legit nutcase. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3002017 https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2427176 Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jun 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
Majorian posted:I think most of it might not be 100% sincere... it was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 05:13
|
|