|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
I wouldn't say at all that the Democrats are avoiding healthcare as an issue.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:I wouldn't say at all that the Democrats are avoiding healthcare as an issue. They've been quite vocal on the subject of Trumpcare being bad. Now, on the subject of actually doing anything themselves, or even conceding something should be done... there we run into issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:They've been quite vocal on the subject of Trumpcare being bad. I agree with that. I don't believe in "just make it single-payer" as a legislative concept. But campaigning on it? Oh yeah. More please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:I don't believe in "just make it single-payer" as a legislative concept. But campaigning on it? Oh yeah. More please. So we're back to "Lie to the rubes and don't actually try to implement your promises?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:I agree with that. Oh, absolutely, you let yourself get negotiated down to a public option and keep going from there. It is an utter no-brainer. Medicare-for-all, the messaging writes itself. But as Cory Booker reminds us, given the choice between appealing to the vast majority of American voters or a couple of megadonors, well, the modern Democratic party prefers option number two.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:This also feeds back into their narrative that Trump is this unique compromised candidate who is a never-seen-before phenomenon and not the absolutely predictable end-game of our current neoliberal order. Your typical "pragmatic centrists" *needs* the Republican Party to be Principled Opposition Who Plays By The Rules and "he's a puppet of a foreign government, unlike most of our comrades across the aisle" works nicely and is a great out for them. It totally ignores the fact that Mike Pence or Paul Ryan would be trying to do all this poo poo, just without being rude. Yeah, exactly. Trump's "agenda" is just the standard Republican agenda (it's literally just being written by Republican congressmen/aides). The only difference with Trump is that he: 1. Doesn't follow decorum 2. Prefers more obvious dog whistles than his colleagues 3. Super antagonistic against the liberal establishment, and especially the media 4. An actual insane person in charge of the nuclear codes Except #4 isn't even really that different in a world where George W. Bush was president. The Democrats also have very little they can attack Trump on without a unified progressive platform. Trump's foreign policy is basically just Obama/2nd term Bush foreign policy. His treatment of undocumented workers is just an extension of Obama's mass deportations. His "agenda" for the economy (which again, is just the standard republican agenda), isn't so different from what Obama almost implemented with the Grand Bargain. Even Trump's signature policy, "The Wall", was basically a bipartisan project previously (Obama, Clinton, and Schumer all voted in favor of "The Secure Fence Act" in 2006). So now, to avoid going through a painful restructuring similar to the Labour Party in the UK, the Democrats are hoping the can hem and haw about Russia enough to drive the sensible conservatives to vote for them. In short, they're completely hosed in 2018
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So we're back to "Lie to the rubes and don't actually try to implement your promises?" Nah, he's got a point, "just make it single-payer" as a legislative concept is nonexistent, it requires working out a frankly ludicrious amount from scratch, not to mention dismantling most of the current Medicare/Medicaid existence. Could it be done, yes, but you definitely want a worked-out plan before you push it as legislation. Medicare-for-all, by comparison? REALLY easy. And unlike the shitshow of Obamacare, that actually -does- lay the structural foundation for single-payer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Sure, I'm part of that 80%. If there's legit proof Trump colluded with Russia (as there seems to be), it's a big loving deal. That said, if the entire Dem strategy for 2020 is Nobody is suggesting Russia should be the sole focus of the Democratic Party. Democrats haven't stopped supporting a higher minimum wage, and more than half the democratic house members have cosponsored the Medicare for all bill. Chomskyan posted:The problem with a word like "concerned" is that it doesn't really expose how relatively concerned people are with one issue as opposed to another. I'm "concerned" about Russia. I'm also concerned with the corrosive influence of money on politics and media in general. A lot of people might be "concerned" but also think that the Russia story is not as big of a deal as the media/Democrats are making it out to be. There is some polling evidence to support this I don't know what you think this proves. 90% of democrats think trump did something illegal or unethical and 60% of independents agree. quote:Most Americans are much more concerned about issues like the economy, healthcare, which effect them personally (the issues which Democrats are avoiding incidentally). quote:Also note that the Democrats have extremely low favorability ratings, comparable to the GOP and Trump: Democrats are at -19, trump's at -24, and republicans are at -36. Like I guess the difference between Dems and trump is within the MOE but republicans have substantially lower approval.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:33
|
|
"Well, we didn't collude with Russia! Have you seen the other guys?" then they're going to lose.
|
Ze Pollack posted:Nah, he's got a point, "just make it single-payer" as a legislative concept is nonexistent, it requires working out a frankly ludicrious amount from scratch, not to mention dismantling most of the current Medicare/Medicaid existence. Could it be done, yes, but you definitely want a worked-out plan before you push it as legislation. This is pure incrementalism. You even admit it could be done, but you eschew it because "too hard."
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
if only there was some issue Democrats could try to advocate for some goal they could try to achieve to demonstrate they would help people. something deeply and immediately relevant to the vast number of people who refused to vote in the last election. sadly to the knowledge of Cory Booker no such issue exists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is pure incrementalism. You even admit it could be done, but you eschew it because "too hard." Everything is incrementalism then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is pure incrementalism. You even admit it could be done, but you eschew it because "too hard." OK, you be the guy who tells people happy with their employer insurance what happens to it under Instant Single Payer Via Magic
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is pure incrementalism. You even admit it could be done, but you eschew it because "too hard." Oh, absolutely. There's a reason I enjoy ragging on supposedly "pragmatic" centrists so much, I enjoy needling them on how their pragmatism has given way to abject cowardice. I'll put it this way: I will be pleasantly surprised if we get single payer out of a push for single payer first try. I'm willing to settle for a public option. Someone who's not even willing to put that on the table? They are very clearly not serious about winning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:OK, you be the guy who tells people happy with their employer insurance what happens to it under Instant Single Payer. So we might as well never change society in major ways? The ACA disrupted a lot of people as well, did that stop Obama from trying to pass it? Remember the healthcare.gov launch issues? poo poo is going to be hard, but we have to do it at some point or else literally all of the poor people will die or go bankrupt from medical debt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So we might as well never change society in major ways? So you're volunteering to be the guy, then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:So you're volunteering to be the guy, then? I'd be more than happy to explain it to every single worker in America, please line them all up for me and I'll get right on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
There's a grand total of one set of people I've met who I buy are serious about single-payer, and it's the people who are moving beyond that to the issue of health justice; once single-payer is achieved, how can we use its auspices to improve the interrelated problems of society that intersect with health care.D.N. Nation posted:OK, you be the guy who tells people happy with their employer insurance what happens to it under Instant Single Payer Via Magic Government takes it over. That side of it's easy. Now, managing how government takes it over, that's the loving nightmare. It's why I'd like medicare-for-all to be a thing first, gives us a dry run.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Quick single payer aside: What happens to reproductive rights? "We'll just never ever elect Republicans" isn't an answer. (Like, I don't even know how you deal with this honestly, I'm opening it to the floor)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:Quick single payer aside: What happens to reproductive rights? "We'll just never ever elect Republicans" isn't an answer. Why do you think single payer would do anything to reproductive rights? You know the ACA made it so birth control had to be covered, right? If your objection is "Republicans might make it bad after we create it" well then I give zero fucks about that argument as you can use it as an excuse to never do anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
There are actually bills that have already been drafted and introduced in congress for Medicare-for-All. Guess what, none of the democratic leadership is sponsoring itD.N. Nation posted:Quick single payer aside: What happens to reproductive rights? "We'll just never ever elect Republicans" isn't an answer. Abortions are currently considered a constitutional right. Stack the courts with judges that will uphold that ruling and pass a bill through congress forcing states to provide free and easily available access to birth control (funded by the federal govt or medicare). It's actually not so hard when you have two houses of congress and the presidency, as Obama did when he passed his watered down Obamacare bill. Red and Black fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:Quick single payer aside: What happens to reproductive rights? "We'll just never ever elect Republicans" isn't an answer. This is actually where Team Wonk comes in handy: there's ways to tie up money with other money such that you can't cut funding for, say, Planned Parenthood without also cutting funding to Dick Pills Incorporated. If you see the problems coming, there's ways around them! You just have to be willing to try to address them preemptively.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:This is actually where Team Wonk comes in handy: there's ways to tie up money with other money such that you can't cut funding for, say, Planned Parenthood without also cutting funding to Dick Pills Incorporated. Ha, I like that
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
How about passing some legislation for mandatory preference-ranked mail in voting, banning voter id laws, and forcing voting districts to be drawn by independent councils guided by computer algorithms rather than politicians. That would literally spell the end of the Republicans as a party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:There are actually bills that have already been drafted and introduced in congress for Medicare-for-All. Guess what, none of the democratic leadership is sponsoring it It's cosponsored by more than half the democrats in the house, including Jim Clyburn who's in the house dem leadership.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Is medicare for all, or a medicare buy in option at least something that would generate support from leftists? Would it be ho-hummed as not good enough, and those that propose it would be called too centrist? I kinda feel like anything the Democrats do will be labeled as not good enough, which is sort of why they don't try. Not a good excuse, but I feel like this is something that needs to be addressed. Am I completely wrong here, or is there a good faith issue on both sides? How do the Democrats act in order to show good faith, and how can leftists respond to those actions to show good faith? I kinda feel like the past baggage the party carries from loving over leftists is the biggest block to progress. If Obama did a party speech with a mea culpa, admitting his failures, and asking for both sides to come together would it help? I really want to figure out how to bridge this divide.
Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Is medicare for all, or a medicare buy in option at least something that would generate support from leftists, or would it be ho-hummed as not good enough, and those that propose it would be called centrist sellouts? I kinda feel like anything the Democrats do will be labeled as not good enough, which is sort of why they don't try. Not a good excuse, but I feel like this is something that needs to be addressed. Am I completely wrong here, or is there a good faith issue on both sides? I think if that's what we ended up getting, I'd be totally okay with it, but if we start out with that as our negotiating position, all we're going to get is ACA 2.0, this time only slightly improved. We have to start out demanding single payer, don't make the same mistakes Obama did of bargaining away the entire deal before you even sit down at the table. If the Dems made an honest attempt at trying to pass a single payer-style legislation but it got negotiated down to a Medicare buy in, I'd respect that. But you and I know that's not what's going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I think if that's what we ended up getting, I'd be totally okay with it, but if we start out with that as our negotiating position, all we're going to get is ACA 2.0, this time only slightly improved. Do we start at single payer, or medicare for all? I feel like "single payer" is a poisoned topic, and tat a different approach within the confines of the existing structure would be better. Too many people can call single payer something it isn't, and cause too much confusion. Medicare is a known system, and people like it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Do we start at single payer, or medicare for all? I feel like "single payer" is a poisoned topic, and tat a different approach within the confines of the existing structure would be better. Too many people can call single payer something it isn't, and cause too much confusion. Medicare is a known system, and people like it. It depends on what the actual "Medicare for all" legislation looks like. One of the major problem I have with the idea is that it doesn't solve our more major issues with things like pharmaceutical marketing, for example. A single payer system like the NHS would do much better at resolving those issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Would it be ho-hummed as not good enough People would loving love it. The centrist routine of, "we need to start negotiations from a position of deep compromise and suppress enthusiasm," is them failing on purpose, even though they pitch it as 'incrementalism' and 'compromise' Half of Sanders appeal was shouting, 'We're going to mobilize the public and slam our heads against the wall and see if it helps' You just need someone who doesn't seem like a con job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It depends on what the actual "Medicare for all" legislation looks like. I worry that trying to do too much in one fell swoop will doom any chances of major changes. Yes, cost control is a major issue, but there can be things done outside of the medicare for all fight that can address those. I think specific goals with specific actions are better than broad general proposals. Medicare for all as a starting point, don't touch existing private insurance, make medicare payments faster and better than they currently are, and allow medicare to negotiate drug prices. Those I think are good starting points, but even that will require a D house and Senate, which is not looking very good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I worry that trying to do too much in one fell swoop will doom any chances of major changes. Pure incrementalism strikes again. Seriously, if you were alive in the 40s, you'd be going "Well, not sure about all this New Deal stuff, seems like too much too fast..." Do you not get that people are dying and being bankrupted from medical debt literally every day? How many preventable deaths is enough for us to realize that healthcare is a human right? WampaLord fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Pure incrementalism strikes again. I get that you don't like having a step by step process of improvement, but just because some want nuanced detailed steps doesn't mean it is ineffective. Saying we need to do A then B then C is not bad. it is called detailed planning. I think we can agree that C is the endpoint, but we can just assume will get to C without starting at A, moving to B, and then arriving at C.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I get that you don't like having a step by step process of improvement, but just because some want nuanced detailed steps doesn't mean it is ineffective. Saying we need to do A then B then C is not bad. it is called detailed planning. I think we can agree that C is the endpoint, but we can just assume will get to C without starting at A, moving to B, and then arriving at C. But I'm not a politician. You can expect me to produce a fully crafted, competent bill that explains how we would legally enact single payer. I vote for people to do that poo poo for me. Don't hold me to an unfair standard, I don't need to plan out the details, I just need to express my preference. It's up to me to judge who will best implement my ideals, not to come up with a 900 page bill that explains how A, B, and C happen legally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I worry that trying to do too much in one fell swoop will doom any chances of major changes. Yes, cost control is a major issue, but there can be things done outside of the medicare for all fight that can address those. I think specific goals with specific actions are better than broad general proposals. This is a legitimate concern, but not one that is realistic in political terms. The ACA is as incremental as you can be in health reform matters without being a straight care package to PHrMA like Bush's 2003 bill, and it was still pounced upon like it was the Khmer Rouge's brainchild. Making it so measures have powerful, noticeable positive impacts upon people's lives and actually solve their problems is pretty much the only way to assure their survival. If someone needs a horse to plow their field, they won't be mollified if you go "See, I wanted to give you a horse, but it might be too much too fast. So here's a poodle and some horseshoes."
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Yeah it's notable that the ACA was least popular right after passage before most of it took effect and it's risen in popularity as people have actually experienced the effects of the legislation. Incrementalism can work but not if it's so incremental as to be intangible. On the other hand, "start negotiating with a huge ask so you'll get more once you get a deal" isn't how politics works. Like if the ACA was first pitched as Medicare for all it wouldn't have made Joe Lieberman magically stop opposing a public option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Is medicare for all now a centrist position? If so somebody better purge this sellout hill folk shill: https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall/
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's cosponsored by more than half the democrats in the house, including Jim Clyburn who's in the house dem leadership. Ok, so only one relatively low ranking Democratic leader is cosponsoring it. Thanks for more or less proving my point JeffersonClay posted:Yeah it's notable that the ACA was least popular right after passage before most of it took effect and it's risen in popularity as people have actually experienced the effects of the legislation. Incrementalism can work but not if it's so incremental as to be intangible. Or, you know. Just pass a good bill without negotiating because you literally control two houses of congress and the presidency Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Is medicare for all, or a medicare buy in option at least something that would generate support from leftists? Yes, and if you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I get that you don't like having a step by step process of improvement, but just because some want nuanced detailed steps doesn't mean it is ineffective. Saying we need to do A then B then C is not bad. it is called detailed planning. I think we can agree that C is the endpoint, but we can just assume will get to C without starting at A, moving to B, and then arriving at C. You're forgetting steps like, "build public pressure," and, "coerce the opposition." You've mistaken politicians dragging their feel while moaning, "it's haaard," for politicians doing their job. Now, when people demand politicians actually do their job, you think we're asking for the moon (and now!). Imagine what it would look like if a Democrat hustled for UHC like a Republican hustles for guns or abortion
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Ok, so only one relatively low ranking Democratic leader is cosponsoring it. Thanks for more or less proving my point quote:Or, you know. Just pass a good bill without negotiating because you literally control two houses of congress and the presidency Consider a hypothetical where republicans control the house and presidency, and the senate is controlled by 51 bernie sanders clones. The republicans want a 10 percent tax cut, and the Bernies keep voting it down. If the republicans instead demanded a 30% tax cut, would the Bernies somehow be forced to accept 10%, or 5%? No. They'd just keep voting it down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Consider a hypothetical where republicans control the house and presidency, and the senate is controlled by 51 bernie sanders clones. The republicans want a 10 percent tax cut, and the Bernies keep voting it down. If the republicans instead demanded a 30% tax cut, would the Bernies somehow be forced to accept 10%, or 5%? No. They'd just keep voting it down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 21:07
|
|