Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
B | 77 | 25.50% | |
K | 160 | 52.98% | |
M | 65 | 21.52% | |
Total: | 229 votes |
|
Cross-posting this from C-SPAM:gradenko_2000 posted:Let's talk about who leftists distrust — and why In response to the original article - http://theweek.com/articles/715955/why-leftists-dont-trust-kamala-harris-cory-booker-deval-patrick
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 15:24 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2024 01:34 |
|
matt bruenig's website is livequote:Safety net. Safety net. Safety net. It is apparently the only metaphor there is to describe the welfare state, at least in American political discourse. Every liberal politician, think tank, and pundit seems to never tire of the euphemism, even as it so readily avails itself to the equally obnoxious conservative metaphor of the welfare hammock.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 16:35 |
|
https://twitter.com/sarahlerner/status/894572241865760768
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 16:44 |
|
she's not wrong but who cares
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 16:51 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:she's not wrong but who cares It's from Paul Krugman. Paul Krugman posted:A far more important consideration is minimizing disruption to the 156 million people who currently get insurance through their employers, and are largely satisfied with their coverage. Moving to single-payer would mean taking away this coverage and imposing new taxes; to make it fly politically you’d have to convince most of these people both that they would save more in premiums than they pay in additional taxes, and that their new coverage would be just as good as the old. YES! Also the article is disingenuous as gently caress: quote:Look at the latest report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, comparing health care performance among advanced nations. America is at the bottom; the top three performers are Britain, Australia, and the Netherlands. And the thing is, these three leaders have very different systems. So 2/3 of those systems are single payer, but he goes on to rant about how great the Dutch system is. gently caress Paul Krugman.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 16:54 |
|
frankly what krugman misses is we could do the dutch system and call it single payer and like 99% of people wouldn't know the difference or give a poo poo
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:00 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:frankly what krugman misses is we could do the dutch system and call it single payer and like 99% of people wouldn't know the difference or give a poo poo My argument is that we're the loving richest country on earth, we should have the best version of healthcare. Our whole thing was breaking off from England cause we thought we could do it better than them, let's loving hold ourselves up to that ideal.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:02 |
|
I would think that if there's anything that we've learned from the Trump administration it is that political capital is real and actually exist, and given the huge number of priorities that the left will have if it ever gains power again, spending the entirely of it on single payer versus any other universal healthcare really seems quixotic at best
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:16 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I would think that if there's anything that we've learned from the Trump administration it is that political capital is real and actually exist How in the hell did you leap to that conclusion?
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:16 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I would think that if there's anything that we've learned from the Trump administration it is that political capital is real and actually exist, and given the huge number of priorities that the left will have if it ever gains power again, spending the entirely of it on single payer versus any other universal healthcare really seems quixotic at best I guess you would think that, given your long and storied history of being dead wrong about things.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:18 |
|
I do think that the Democrats should run on a strong principle: Financial means should have no bearing on a persons' access to healthcare. The actual process by which that gets put into action is fairly unimportant. The problem with the ACA isn't that it is not single payer, it is that it doesn't achieve the goal
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:19 |
|
Trump's is a lesson that the only thing that matters in politics is a majority - and a will. The thing stopping the GOP isn't "political capital", it is arithmetics.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:20 |
|
WampaLord posted:How in the hell did you leap to that conclusion? Because Republicans are apparently giving up on any plan of touching healthcare
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:20 |
|
steinrokkan posted:Trump's is a lesson that the only thing that matters in politics is a majority - and a will. The thing stopping the GOP isn't "political capital", it is arithmetics. Political capital is more a function of a calendar. Republicans probably could manage to pass a healthcare bill eventually over the next two years, but would like glee be unable to get anything else of note accomplished aside from that given the time and attention it would require to reach a consensus
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:22 |
|
And what does it have to do with capital. Their dice fell short of an actionable threshold, that's all. No amount of "capital building" will change the balance.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:22 |
|
steinrokkan posted:And what does it have to do with capital. Given enough time, you could get some hilarious carveouts for the holdouts that would bring them on board
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:23 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I do think that the Democrats should run on a strong principle: Financial means should have no bearing on a persons' access to healthcare. The actual process by which that gets put into action is fairly unimportant. The problem with the ACA isn't that it is not single payer, it is that it doesn't achieve the goal I agree with this in a short term sense, insofar as it should be more important that no one dies from lack of healthcare access, or is permanently/severely financially impacted by receiving treatment, than the ideological structure of how that healthcare is delivered. I'd argue that in the long term the profit motive necessarily must be removed from healthcare because it creates perverse incentives, however. The opiate epidemic is a good example of the problems with moral hazards in capitalist healthcare.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:34 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQSMIyBhMh4
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:46 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Given enough time, you could get some hilarious carveouts for the holdouts that would bring them on board This isn't what's generally meant by political capital, though. There's no goodwill with the public that can be "spent" to make this happen, it's just a matter of finding the right incentives to buy off politicians who either don't care about reelection or who are convinced that they're safe either way. The healthcare reforms that the GOP wants to make are all poo poo and everyone knows that they're poo poo. There's nothing they can do to buy their way out of it that with the public.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:54 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I would think that if there's anything that we've learned from the Trump administration it is that political capital is real and actually exist, and given the huge number of priorities that the left will have if it ever gains power again, spending the entirely of it on single payer versus any other universal healthcare really seems quixotic at best Yeah if we blow all our presidency points on single payer we won't have the currency to mobilize our military and we will be sitting ducks for when the Canadians invade
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:59 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Because Republicans are apparently giving up on any plan of touching healthcare 15 minutes after McCain succumbs to his brain tumor AHCA will pass the Senate.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:02 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:I agree with this in a short term sense, insofar as it should be more important that no one dies from lack of healthcare access, or is permanently/severely financially impacted by receiving treatment, than the ideological structure of how that healthcare is delivered. a) non-single payer uhc insurance plans can be required to be non-profit b) single payer doesn't solve perverse incentives as it doesn't remove profit from health care, only health insurance
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:04 |
|
Feldegast42 posted:15 minutes after McCain succumbs to his brain tumor AHCA will pass the Senate. actually debatable; the reason they tried to pass it first thing is everyone wants to maximize the amount of time between passing this hopelessly unpopular bill and 2018 reelection campaigning. expect a lot more people to get cold feet on motions to proceed if they try this poo poo again next year, everyone is loving terrified of a redo
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:20 |
|
if they still control all branches after 2018 elections you can expect it coming down the pipe real fuckin' hot in 2019, but nobody wants to have to run on that stinker next year.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:22 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I would think that if there's anything that we've learned from the Trump administration it is that political capital is real and actually exist, and given the huge number of priorities that the left will have if it ever gains power again, spending the entirely of it on single payer versus any other universal healthcare really seems quixotic at best This is a really really bad post. Like embarrassingly bad.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:24 |
|
This is what I'm talking about when I rant about the need to develop the leftist ecosystem of leftward institutions, leftward cultures, and leftward artifacts. For all the discussion on universal healthcare, how many well articulated plans do we have to advocate? We need more institutions like PPP pushing the policy dialog.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:29 |
|
Majorian posted:All probably true, but there's a converse to that standard line of hedging that you mention. There's a good chance that politicians like Harris could be pressured into taking stronger left-populist stances, given the right mix of pressure and political incentives from an organized left. Part of what made Obama's presidency such a dud, was that there really wasn't much focused, directed left-wing pressure on him, to any meaningful degree. If lefties can keep getting organized, and maintain their energy, though, I think pols like Harris could be smart enough to ride that wave into power, regardless of whether or not they actually believe in left-wing principles in their hearts. I think you're being too optimistic. While it's not literally impossible that someone like Obama or Harris could be pressured to do something left-wing, they're still not even remotely left-wing themselves and I see no reason not to attack them in favor of someone better. Also, one of the biggest threats in my mind is a Democrat using leftist-sounding rhetoric and pushing for policy that sounds good to relatively uninformed voters (which is the vast majority of voters, including leftist ones). Or even worse, making some plausible-sounding excuse for not being able to pass (or at least aggressively push for) good policy. While people would come around to the deception eventually (since they'd notice the status quo hasn't really changed much), it would be another 4-8+ years wasted. It doesn't really make sense to attack (insert almost any other mainstream Democrat) and not attack someone like Harris. edit: To put it another way, someone like Tulsi Gabbard is probably a more reliable vector for left-wing politics than Harris, and that's pretty pathetic.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:39 |
|
Ytlaya posted:Also, one of the biggest threats in my mind is a Democrat using leftist-sounding rhetoric and pushing for policy that sounds good to relatively uninformed voters (which is the vast majority of voters, including leftist ones). Or even worse, making some plausible-sounding excuse for not being able to pass (or at least aggressively push for) good policy. While people would come around to the deception eventually (since they'd notice the status quo hasn't really changed much), it would be another 4-8+ years wasted. Yes, I agree. Another Obama would be bad for the Democrats.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:41 |
|
Ardennes posted:Btw, Obama didn't really run as hard left, it was vaguer center-left populism but he certainly played up the hope for something more to the full hilt. His second election was more muted, and seemed to generally rely on coasting on his popularity and the fact that Romney was ridiculously easy to pigeon hole. I think the issue is most voters, including a large portion of (if not most) leftists, don't really know how to distinguish between the sort of rhetoric Obama espoused and actual leftist policy. Like, your average voter is going to assume (barring any preconceptions about the politician in question) that a politician saying "income inequality in our country is unacceptable" is going to be good on that issue. They won't think to actually check the specific policy being pushed by that candidate, and even if they do they won't necessary know how to judge the policy (since a lot of Democratic policy sounds good on paper, and often is technically a good thing, despite not coming close to addressing the problem in question).
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:49 |
|
God drat I hate Kreugman so loving much. I swear to God if the Democrats try to use this logic weasel out of single payer I will vote Trump myself out of raw spite just to see these fuckers cry about it. No Paul, were not buying it anymore. We're not going to accept another bullshit half measure that's just going to be compromised into oblivion anyway. The party needs to get behind full single payer now or gently caress off and let someone else take over.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:56 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:This is what I'm talking about when I rant about the need to develop the leftist ecosystem of leftward institutions, leftward cultures, and leftward artifacts. For all the discussion on universal healthcare, how many well articulated plans do we have to advocate? We need more institutions like PPP pushing the policy dialog. the answer to "where's the bill" should be "reintroduce kennedy-griffiths" probably - we've lost so much of our own history
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:11 |
|
Huzanko posted:You're real dumb and people like you are, too.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:27 |
|
WampaLord posted:It's from Paul Krugman. Kraul Pugman
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:28 |
|
Sneakster posted:Some center-left suit saying unions are good because they still get donations from them, while saying BlueCross Blushield has my interests in mind and should be a key player in in bribing politicians who own stock in them for managing healthcare, is still, in the most basic sense, my enemy. Short of the eradication of a class based society, there is never going to be an environment in which capital doesn't have organized representation, and the idea that unions are an anachronism but capitalism itself isn't is a contradiction that should be an air raid siren about the motives and intent of anyone who would even appear sympathetic to such a claim.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:31 |
|
Kilroy posted:Capitalism is an anachronism.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:36 |
|
Ytlaya posted:I think the issue is most voters, including a large portion of (if not most) leftists, don't really know how to distinguish between the sort of rhetoric Obama espoused and actual leftist policy. Like, your average voter is going to assume (barring any preconceptions about the politician in question) that a politician saying "income inequality in our country is unacceptable" is going to be good on that issue. They won't think to actually check the specific policy being pushed by that candidate, and even if they do they won't necessary know how to judge the policy (since a lot of Democratic policy sounds good on paper, and often is technically a good thing, despite not coming close to addressing the problem in question). Then there is also the issue that the average American democrat is entirely provincial. Supporting a coup in Honduras, blocking efforts to increase minimum wage in Haiti, supporting the bombing of Yemen, or deporting record numbers of people only matter in so far as they can be used to boost the democrats' hawkish credentials.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:43 |
|
Sneakster posted:There won't be prisons after the revolution. Only graves.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:44 |
|
The thing is, even if Krugman is technically correct about there being options other than single payer, his solution is "incremental changes to Obamacare", when a reasonable solution would be something along the lines of "making all health insurance* companies non-profits while also implementing a variety of price controls, etc." Incremental changes to Obamacare could take decades to result in meaningful change. Like, we'd be talking maybe one incremental change for each Democratic presidency, ignoring the possibility of Republican changes/repeals, and god only knows how long it would take for that to result in something remotely approaching actual UHC. I think stuff like the above really reveals something important about the perspective of people like Paul Krugman. I'm sure he genuinely wants to achieve some of these goals, but he doesn't really care how long it takes. To him, there's no difference between it taking 5 years and 50 years to achieve UHC, since he'll be fine regardless. Liberals (or at least the ones who dictate the direction of the Democratic Party) generally feel no pressure to accomplish goals in a timely manner, since they're not actually the ones being harmed by the status quo. *and ideally also other healthcare-related industries
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:47 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Because Republicans are apparently giving up on any plan of touching healthcare How would that change if he had oodles of 'political capital', though? The suicide caucus would still refuse any plan without their amendments, and the medicaid-voter republicans would still refuse any plan from the suicide caucus.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 20:01 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2024 01:34 |
|
Kilroy posted:Says the guy who's on record as saying he's happy to leave the US behind in favor of some other neoliberal wet dream of it means he can advance to the upper middle class. I was being silly There will be no revolution. The future of the democratic party is nothing but the finest light skinned attorney or investment banker the DNC can find in the cornfields of Manhattan.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 20:50 |