|
Majorian posted:I think there's a lot of truth to this, but that still leaves a lot of ground for progressive candidates to play around in. "Medicare For All" still needs to have a lot of details hammered out, but it's both aspirational and inspirational, and it's a hell of a lot more believable than most of the poo poo Trump promised. It's also *simple* and we need to be able to sell our ideas to people who couldn't define "single payer" if their lives depended on it.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Hillary would have been a great politician for a different era of politics. she would have been the perfect democratic candidate in 2004. unfortunately for her some young senator from illinois caught the wave and her being bad at campaigning in 2007, and politics did some changing over the next 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Like her or don't like her, it's possible to hate something after being over-exposed to it. I'm just so sick of all these primary chats...
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think there's a lot of truth to this, but that still leaves a lot of ground for progressive candidates to play around in. "Medicare For All" still needs to have a lot of details hammered out, but it's both aspirational and inspirational, and it's a hell of a lot more believable than most of the poo poo Trump promised. Very much so. And really I think the approach would be to not promise it, but make it loud and clear that you will work towards it. Compromise isn't great, it's the nature of compromise, but until the progressive-left wing has a large enough majority of congress, the presidency, and the SCOTUS, that is more likely to happen than not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
axeil posted:I think Hillary Clinton is a great woman+politician and The Tragedy of Hillary will be something we look back on in shame and admit that all the hatred of her was due to sexism. Cool, but I'm not really sure what she has to do with US Politics ityool 2017.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
axeil posted:
When she sent out her daughter to lie and say bernie was going to rip away everyone's healthcare, and she said single payer would never ever happen, and when she said ppaca was fine and just needed a few tweaks but listed nothing that was truly helpful, she poisoned that well on her own. Bernie didn't make her change-allergic by proposing singlepayer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Christ, take it to the bad thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
She literally said that Bernie didn't respect her. She's delusional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Like her or don't like her, it's possible to hate something after being over-exposed to it. Well, you can thank axeil for that gift 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Gort posted:Christ, take it to the bad thread I don't think axeil is interested in that
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
axeil posted:We talking all Americans or just Presidents? See I think this is fascinating and actually a productive way to have "grandpa" chat. One of my reasons for asking is, I think in contempory politics we often get stuck in the moment, and I think Clinton will be an obvious bit of history but I don't see what talking about her will accomplish now, the entire thing rings hollow to me because if she was really interested in helping I would think we'd hear what needs to be done next rather than what is apparently an entire book of navel gazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Very much so. And really I think the approach would be to not promise it, but make it loud and clear that you will work towards it. Compromise isn't great, it's the nature of compromise, but until the progressive-left wing has a large enough majority of congress, the presidency, and the SCOTUS, that is more likely to happen than not. Oh sure, it would be pretty dumb to promise today that single payer will be fully implemented a year from now. It's gonna be a fight, and it won't be a short one. But it's a great thing to tie to elections: "Want Medicare For All? Yeah, drat right you do. So vote these chucklefucks out of power, vote in these candidates, and let's make this happen."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
axeil posted:while yes, she's right that it doesn't influence policy, that isn't why people don't like it. this is a fuckin laugh riot right here bud
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Primary chat has imploded onto itself and we have now reverted to 2006 Connecticut Primary Chat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
axeil posted:
He hardly manufactured that charge out of thin air, nor was he the first to make it. Does she seriously claim that those charges wouldn't have dogged her if Sanders hadn't run? He was a protest candidate who should have been a footnote like O'Malley, except that people were already wary of accepting the original third-way neoliberal ghost of the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Hillary would have been a great politician for a different era of politics. She would have easily extended the neoliberal era for another term or two beyond Obama, even as everything continued to fall apart and with all republicans having gone rabid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Good editorial by Sanders on universal healthcare in the NY Times today https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/907955289239969792
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
axeil posted:Nah mostly in how she (rightfully) really loving hates Bernie and points out all the little insidious things he did that undermined her. To make an analogy he was basically a little kid holding his hand in front of your face saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" and people fell for that excuse/explanation. And also how she points out sexism was a major contributing factor to why she lost even though no one admits it. Oh lol. So him being far less bad then she was to Obama is now the worst thing ever right? Did he tell her that he expected a part in her cabinet unless she didn't want his endorsement? Did he start a rumor that she wasn't born in the USA? No. Although she did all of that to Obama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LailaLalami/status/908001713226899456Phoenix New Times posted:On a hot Wednesday in June, Manuel Rodriguez-Juarez, a 33-year-old landscaper, got into an argument with his live-in girlfriend. While he waited for her to cool down, he decided to check into a $45-a-night room at a nearby Motel 6 on Maryvale’s southern fringe. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Going back a bit, I do think that the National Park Service* does a good job of contextualizing American history and trying to place events and people into the context of the time, celebrating their achievements without forgetting their failings. These discussions are something the Park Service are all very much aware of, and if you go to sites like Mount Vernon or Monticello expecting a whitewashed narrative you're usually going to be very pleasantly surprised. Also, for the record, my top five Presidents (No particular order): LBJ: Had a number of terrible faults, and did the most to get the US stuck in the Vietnam War, but no other president ever had his singular devotion and dedication towards eradicating poverty and embracing civil rights. FDR: Saved the country from the Great Depression and was a capable leader in World War II. Can't get much better than that. Lincoln: Pretend I just quoted the entire Gettysburg Address Washington: It's hard to imagine the US would have succeeded without his leadership, either during the Revolutionary War or in the early days of the Republic. (Also, while he did own slaves, at least he freed them after his death, real sacrifice george unlike Jefferson) TR: Transformed the very fabric of the federal government, putting it to work protecting people through organizations like the FDA and protecting the nation's resources through his vast expansion of the burgeoning National Park System (Though it wouldn't become a real agency until 1916). *Full disclosure, I am currently interning for the Park Service and as such might be marginally biased
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh sure, it would be pretty dumb to promise today that single payer will be fully implemented a year from now. It's gonna be a fight, and it won't be a short one. But it's a great thing to tie to elections: "Want Medicare For All? Yeah, drat right you do. So vote these chucklefucks out of power, vote in these candidates, and let's make this happen." While I certainly agree on one level, I've got a cynical enough view of the general public that if you run on that but don't win enough, they'll blame you for not achieving it even though you couldn't. It's a big part of why I'm not in favor of running on that as a platform in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Good editorial by Sanders on universal healthcare in the NY Times today Hillary Clinton said we would "never have Single Payer" well, the majority of the democrats in the senate including all the top 2020 candidates are signing on to it. The party has passed her by.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
I don't stay at Motel 6's, but I really won't be staying there now. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This is technically correct, but I feel like this argument is always a little bit disingenuous. Canada and Taiwan are the only countries with true, full single-payer systems, but several more developed nations have forms of single-payer hybridized with private insurance. Like it's technically true that the UK doesn't have a 100% single-payer system, but it's a wonky point to make that won't meaningfully matter to most people. A free-at-point-of-care public system that could meet the needs of most people would satisfy just about everyone agitating for some form of UHC, even if the private health insurance industry continued to exist alongside it. Calling it single-payer as a matter of branding is fine, I think. You can't have single payer hybridized with private insurance. Single payer healthcare means that there is one single payer for all heath care. There are no copays, deductibles, coinsurance, premiums or any form of cost sharing. If implemented on a Federal level there can be no State or Local expenditures on health care. if on a State level there can be no Federal expenditures, this is why there is demands to block grant Medicare in the California Single Payer bill. The Minnesota single payer bill goes further and demands VA block grants and Federal divestiture of all VHA facilities in Minnesota. No one really cares how this is going to work with Snowbirds or VISN 23 vets that live outside of Minnesota but receive their care at the Minneapolis or Duluth VA hospitals. Thankfully we don't have a large military population or who knows how MHS would be handled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
And yet somehow every "paranoid about the GUBBERMENT" type will be strangely silent about this. karthun posted:You can't have single payer hybridized with private insurance. Single payer healthcare means that there is one single payer for all heath care. There are no copays, deductibles, coinsurance, premiums or any form of cost sharing. If implemented on a Federal level there can be no State or Local expenditures on health care. if on a State level there can be no Federal expenditures, this is why there is demands to block grant Medicare in the California Single Payer bill. The Minnesota single payer bill goes further and demands VA block grants and Federal divestiture of all VHA facilities in Minnesota. No one really cares how this is going to work with Snowbirds or VISN 23 vets that live outside of Minnesota but receive their care at the Minneapolis or Duluth VA hospitals. Thankfully we don't have a large military population or who knows how MHS would be handled. Most "single payer" countries have nominal bills for services. Many of them also have supplemental insurance from private payers for niceties like cosmetic surgery, private rooms, etc. I don't think there is any country in the world where 100% of all medical services are paid for by the government. Xae fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Someone should sue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton's take on the Standing Rock protesters was that both sides needed to come together and respect each other's safety when one side was peacefully protesting an oil line coming through their territory since the neighboring white town when NIMBY on it and the other was shooting people's arms off with freezing water cannons and using attack dogs. I don't need to consider Hillary's gender to know that's poo poo. I voted for her rear end because gently caress Trump but she sucks and saying the only reason you could have that opinion is because she's a woman is disgusting. If you like Hillary Clinton you are free to do it but don't give me that 2016 primary bullshit that the only reason people have a problem with her is because they are sexist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Carter was actually a pretty terrible president, objectively speaking. Nice guy, but wholely unsuited for the office. Absolutely, but he told America to turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater, which automatically puts him leaps and bounds ahead of nearly every other politician before or since
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Hillary Clinton said we would "never have Single Payer" well, the majority of the democrats in the senate including all the top 2020 candidates are signing on to it. The party has passed her by. Except it is a completely empty thing they are signing on to. It has less than 0% chance of going anywhere no matter how many Democrats sign on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
botany posted:i never understood the "but it's part of our history" argument, or rather i never understood why the counter to it wasn't "okay, then let's just replace them with monuments that accurately portrait that history". i mean, we have holocaust monuments in germany, they just don't, you know, celebrate that the holocaust happened. it's part of our history, it's important to remember, but for the right reasons please. therefore these monuments are somber places, with inscriptions or short movies that inform visitors about what happened. there, best of both worlds. the US still has monuments, but ones that don't celebrate slavery. has this ever been proposed? for many americans history is not a quasiobjective, scientific discipline in the humanities which determines truths about the human condition for many americans history is a political statement and one which articulates a self-identity i'm sure this is true around the world but i can only speak for americans. if you look at any dumb facebook slapfight about confederate statues you'll see plenty of middle aged approaching old age rural white americans aggressively asserting in poorly formed english that the people who disagree with them need to study their history better. plenty of folks who haven't seen a classroom in decades will describe themselves as amateur historians while making just hellishly ignorant arguments. history is among the most political of the humanities and the articulation of racist and incorrect folk history is an essential component of syncretic white american identity
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
also i'm against removing statues of thomas jefferson because we have very few statues of neurodivergent persons and he was definitely on the autism spectrum
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:While I certainly agree on one level, I've got a cynical enough view of the general public that if you run on that but don't win enough, they'll blame you for not achieving it even though you couldn't. That's not the lesson I've learned from observing the far right, though. The House Republicans have voted to repeal Obamacare more than 50 times at this point, and none of those attempts have been successful, but that hasn't dimmed the enthusiasm of their base. Indeed, their continuing to beat the drum has helped put them in control of the entire government. Really the only reason why the ACA has survived the last few months is that Trump is literally the most inept politician this country has ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
bastards boycott Motel 6 and Studio 6 if you're not already
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:Except it is a completely empty thing they are signing on to. It has less than 0% chance of going anywhere no matter how many Democrats sign on. I'd say marginally greater than zero, but only because it's really hard to say that it's impossible Donald Trump will wake up tomorrow morning and [do thing]. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not the lesson I've learned from observing the far right, though. The House Republicans have voted to repeal Obamacare more than 50 times at this point, and none of those attempts have been successful, but that hasn't dimmed the enthusiasm of their base. Indeed, their continuing to beat the drum has helped put them in control of the entire government. Really the only reason why the ACA has survived the last few months is that Trump is literally the most inept politician this country has ever seen. That runs along with the comment I made earlier regarding regressive voters. That and they could blame the Secret Muslim President.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'd say marginally greater than zero, but only because it's really hard to say that it's impossible Donald Trump will wake up tomorrow morning and [do thing]. Has to get past congress first. Which I guess there is probably something like 0.000001% chance that enough GOP senators and representatives could die in some way before the vote on it and have democrats win special elections to replace them, in states where the governors don't just replace them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Condiv posted:one problem is that apparently lieberman used the perks the dems handed to him (during the general election no less) to sell himself to voters. he was campaigning on the fact that he would have more seniority than lamont if he got into office, that he would keep all his influence and would be better able to represent connecticut and bring it more perks and benefits because of it. that very well could've tilted the election away from lamont. as i said, the dems brought lieberman's healthcare treachery upon themselves when they rewarded the first instance of it (and clapped for the slimeball when he came back as an independent) Didn't respond to this earlier because I was looking into it, but as far as I can tell (there are not many examples), seniority is preserved when you switch parties. I don't know if it would have been up to Reid or not, but it looks like that's how it's normally done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Do we not all agree that Hillary Clinton was terrible yet? This book she just released ought to be the final nail in the coffin. Like rationalize it however you want. Hindsight is 20/20 and so on. If you supported her over Sanders in the 2016 primary because you thought she was the better choice at the time then I don't think we should linger on that. But to support her now, in September 2017? With the way she's attacking Sanders (and many others) and blaming him for her loss, even though he rallied behind her after the primary? Even though Sanders has made no such attacks against her and is trying to help unite the democratic party, despite embarrassing setbacks like the DNC Chair Election? Even though these attacks on Sanders are raising the specter of the 2016 primary and further dividing the Democratic base, setting the stage for failure in 2018? It's incomprehensible to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Xae posted:Most "single payer" countries have nominal bills for services. Many of them also have supplemental insurance from private payers for niceties like cosmetic surgery, private rooms, etc. I don't think there is any country in the world where 100% of all medical services are paid for by the government. Here is the line in the Minnesota bill. code:
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
Taerkar posted:That runs along with the comment I made earlier regarding regressive voters. That and they could blame the Secret Muslim President. It makes it easier for the HFC that their constituents are a bunch of smoothbrains, no question, but I don't think Democratic voters are so different that they would punish earnest-but-failed efforts at popular legislation. Plus it's not like Trump isn't as big a target for Democratic voters as Obama was for Republicans.(unfair and loony though their hatred of him was) The bottom line, imo, is that the Dems need promise big, sweeping changes if they get elected, and then make it clear to voters that the Republicans are why we can't have nice things. Right now, that isn't as clear to voters as it needs to be - in the mind of a lot of Democratic voters, prominent Democratic leaders are also why we can't have nice things. See, for example, Pelosi whiffing on the Medicare For All question recently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:37
|
|