|
As long as you're making excuses for elected Democrats opposing single-payer, stating outright lies about single-payer, or blaming activists for failing to sway voters on single-payer you're my enemy, not my ally.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
The way to move to single payer is via expansion of Medicare and Medicaid until they swallow up all but the dregs of the private market. Bold New Programs won't do it because they're scary and change things. Just expand (and reform and improve) what's already working.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Has it ever occurred to you that as of right now, there simply aren’t enough people who support single payer to make it happen? It has to me, and we should work to change that. A lack of support from the voting public is not the problem; it's a lack of support from the Democratic establishment. Willa Rogers posted:As long as you're making excuses for elected Democrats opposing single-payer, stating outright lies about single-payer, or blaming activists for failing to sway voters on single-payer you're my enemy, not my ally. Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The way to move to single payer is via expansion of Medicare and Medicaid until they swallow up all but the dregs of the private market. Bold New Programs won't do it because they're scary and change things. Just expand (and reform and improve) what's already working. but that would mean people wouldn't have skin in the game, and dems hate that!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I don’t know how that makes me, a supporter of single payer, the enemy. "I'm an ally, I'm an ally!" I insist as I slowly shrink into a Democratic consultant group that lobbies against single payer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, what I said is that the hypothetical NBA player would still have access to private insurance for extra money, learn 2 context please. You don't need to get upset, it was just a funny juxtaposition. Maybe Americans are more eager to gently caress insurance companies up than you realize. Besides, it most certainly what you posted: WampaLord posted:This is all total bullshit, not just "playing Devil's Advocate." You have a right winger's idea of how single payer healthcare works, no one is talking about eliminating private insurance, even the UK has private insurance available.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is there a particular method you think needs to change? I don't think anyone is arguing against the concept that getting more people who support you and less people who oppose you is good electoral strategy. I simply said that ColoradoCare lost by a wide margin and that perhaps that means that there was a failure in some sense to win majority support. How you change tactics I think is open for thoughtful discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You don't need to get upset, it was just a funny juxtaposition. Maybe Americans are more eager to gently caress insurance companies up than you realize. Besides, it most certainly what you posted: huh? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
It's weird how lack of popular support is always used for why good things can't be done "right now" but never a reason for not doing unpopular bad things like lovely tax plans, military adventures, bailing out the financial industry and not the average home owner, continuing the drug war, etc, etc as quickly as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. Why is it so goddamn hard? Even in this allegedly left leaning thread single payer is such a controversial topic. Why is this a debate?. Enact single payer on the federal level, end of discussion. No more defending ACA or debating if it was helpful or not because ACA is now in the dustbin of history and was always a bandaid half measure anyway. How about creating a shitlist of bad Dems who sabotage single payer so we can shame them and primary them out of office. This problem will never be fixed at the ballot box. It has to be fixed at the primary level. Leftist democrats need to hold their party accountable and use every lever available to them to get their people into place. Mimic the success of Jeremy Corbyn’s momentum movement. Primary anyone who opposes single payer through negligence or open intent. This is not a Democrat vs republican fight. It’s a right vs left fight and until all right wing influence from the demcorat party is excised there will be no change. If this is not done, all the Democrat party serves is to be a heatsink for any left wing and progressive calls for change so they can be diffused, co-opted and rendered ineffectual. It should be easier to do a New Deal 2.0. Not harder. Kraftwerk fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jan 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I simply said that ColoradoCare lost by a wide margin and that perhaps that means that there was a failure in some sense to win majority support. How you change tactics I think is open for thoughtful discussion. people have already been discussing it and you have been telling them they're wrong. it lost by a wide margin cause the dems torpedoed it how is it that you have amnesia wrt a discussion i thought you were actively taking part in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I simply said that ColoradoCare lost by a wide margin and that perhaps that means that there was a failure in some sense to win majority support. How you change tactics I think is open for thoughtful discussion. Others have pointed out that a big part of why it lost by such a wide margin is because parts of the Democratic establishment actively sabotaged it, and you got all huffy and defensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You don't need to get upset, it was just a funny juxtaposition. Maybe Americans are more eager to gently caress insurance companies up than you realize. Besides, it most certainly what you posted: Take another pass on that, chief, I was merely pointing out that other countries with nationalized healthcare still have private insurance available as an option for those well off enough to afford it. And I'm totally fine with private insurance dying, it's just extremely unlikely to happen, even if we did pass Medicare For All.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Radish posted:It's weird how lack of popular support is always used for why good things can't be done "right now" but never a reason for not doing unpopular bad things like lovely tax plans, military adventures, bailing out the financial industry and not the average home owner, continuing the drug war, etc, etc. It's almost as if our system is biased towards making it easier to do those bad things and harder to do those good things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A lack of support from the voting public is not the problem; it's a lack of support from the Democratic establishment. That would require these things called "leadership" and "having a vision". Unfortunately, you won't find much in establishment figures who give more shits about their paychecks than people dying in the streets or sliding into poverty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It's almost as if our system is biased towards making it easier to do those bad things and harder to do those good things. Or, perhaps it's that Democratic elected officials and consultants just aren't as motivated to get poo poo that their base wants passed, as Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The way to move to single payer is via expansion of Medicare and Medicaid until they swallow up all but the dregs of the private market. Bold New Programs won't do it because they're scary and change things. Just expand (and reform and improve) what's already working. That's fine and good until expansion means slightly increasing the Medicaid income threshold, or means-testing Medicare expansion and having "buy-ins," both of which are in vogue among Dem pols. I do like Pritzker's proposal to open up Medicaid to all and have subsidies now going to private insurers be applicable toward Medicaid, but we'd still face the wrath of voters subject to mean-testing, same as is the case under the ACA. But sure: Remove the income threshold to Medicaid entirely, have the government fund 100 percent the cost of anyone who wants Medicaid, and allow anyone who still wants to purchase private insurance to do so, and then you're cooking with gas!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It's almost as if our system is biased towards making it easier to do those bad things and harder to do those good things. What made it easier to bail out financial companies but not home owners who were taken advantage of by those financial interests. What's so hard about decriminalizing pot, especially when the majority of people want that? "It's hard to do good things, unlike bad things that are super easy like going to war for almost two decades under false pretenses at the cost of trillions of dollars!!" is always the excuse but it seems to me they don't really try to do those good things so maybe it's about lack of effort rather than being unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Or, perhaps it's that Democratic elected officials and consultants just aren't as motivated to get poo poo that their base wants passed, as Republicans. Sure and a systemic view would look to why those motivations are as they are. I'm just pointing out that America, as a country, a society, a culture, we are biased towards all those lovely things and it takes extra work to do good. Until we change ourselves (more work), it will always be easier to go to war than feed the poor. It isn't fair or just, but is the uphill battle to be fought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A lack of support from the voting public is not the problem; it's a lack of support from the Democratic establishment. Actually, a lack of support from the voting public was exactly at stake in Colorado, because the voters had the ability to vote on it, and they overwhelmingly rejected it. If they supported it then we would be having an extremely different discussion!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:That's fine and good until expansion means slightly increasing the Medicaid income threshold, or means-testing Medicare expansion and having "buy-ins," both of which are in vogue among Dem pols. Even then you'd need to make all the "optional" Medicaid services, like dental etc., "mandatory" like they are for under-21s, in order to have complete coverage. My personal take is that anything that expands the medicaid rolls is good because the more medicaid enrollees there are the more people have a stake in the program, the more doctors will accept Medicaid, etc., and hopefully we get a virtuous cycle forming where increased medicaid enrollment encourages better medicaid programs and vice-versa. Basically I support any policy that maintains Medicaid/Care coverage at current levels and also adds any additional amount of further enrollees, as incremental steps towards universal coverage. Each person who gets medicare/medicaid is a vote to expand and improve the programs, so anything that adds to the rolls without kicking people off in the process is a positive step. I'm open to persuasion on why that's a bad approach or what the drawbacks are but it seems like the most (& perhaps only) practical path forward to true universal coverage to me. Government healthcare coverage is a ratchet, so we just need to keep ratcheting forward. edit: I'm not really closely familiar with the ColoradoCare proposal but it looks like it would have sabotaged the state Medicaid program so I'd probably be agin it. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jan 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Radish posted:What made it easier to bail out financial companies but not home owners who were taken advantage of by those financial interests. What's so hard about decriminalizing pot, especially when the majority of people want that? Because the banks can scream about the end of the world if they lose their millions but the homeowners have to live their lives and can't all fly to D.C. to lobby? Dont confuse descriptive statements for prescriptive ones. I'm saying it will be hard as gently caress, and thus we should plan accordingly, not that we shouldn't try.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Sure and a systemic view would look to why those motivations are as they are. we already know why these motivations are as they are. dems are in the pocket of big donors and those things align with the interests of their donors
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Actually, a lack of support from the voting public was exactly at stake in Colorado, because the voters had the ability to vote on it, and they overwhelmingly rejected it. If they supported it then we would be having an extremely different discussion! Do you understand why this is essentially a "nothing matters" argument?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Manchin is going to be replaced by Swear Engine. https://patrickmorrisey.com/ His opponent this year is a dumbass. I doubt he's going to win though, polls favor Manchin pretty heavily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Has it ever occurred to you that as of right now, there simply aren’t enough people who support single payer to make it happen? It has to me, and we should work to change that. It's like you're trying to play 5D chess without bothering to learn the rules of the 2D version or score some easy wins there, first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:https://patrickmorrisey.com/
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Actually, a lack of support from the voting public was exactly at stake in Colorado  Going back to the "Democratic establishment opposition couldn't possibly have affected the way people voted!" mindset, are we?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Manchin isn't going to make it to the general election. god willing. too bad the establishment is already putting their thumbs on the scale for him
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
I don’t know what supporting a policy is if not voting for it. There is no purer way to support or reject a policy than that. The majority of Coloradans rejecting single payer is a statement of fact. That’s all. No causations, correlations, support or opposition implied.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I don’t know what supporting a policy is if not voting for it. There is no purer way to support or reject a policy than that. it's also fairly well accepted in the thread so i dunno why you think repeating it means anything
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I don’t know what supporting a policy is if not voting for it. There is no purer way to support or reject a policy than that. Except that you then throw a shitfit when people bring up that Democratic establishment opposition to it probably played a role in it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:god willing. too bad the establishment is already putting their thumbs on the scale for him
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
I mean, their record isn't that great in that area lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Except that you then throw a shitfit when people bring up that Democratic establishment opposition to it probably played a role in it. I’m merely saying that we don’t know what kind of role. And that it’s clear that a majority of people didn’t support it. And that if a majority of people did support it, then it would have won, and that the proponents should work to make sure a majority do next time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I mean, their record isn't that great in that area lol They're pretty good at convincing people not to vote for Democrats and Democratic bills, so... Democrazy posted:I’m merely saying that we don’t know what kind of role. It's not terribly hard to suss out what kind of role they played. You should actually read the Intercept piece, and the pieces it links to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I’m merely saying that we don’t know what kind of role. And that it’s clear that a majority of people didn’t support it. And that if a majority of people did support it, then it would have won, and that the proponents should work to make sure a majority do next time. what the gently caress are you doing on this forum?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They're pretty good at convincing people not to vote for Democrats and Democratic bills, so... So it would have won without a campaign? Can you prove that? Or is it a belief?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I’m merely saying that we don’t know what kind of role. And that it’s clear that a majority of people didn’t support it. And that if a majority of people did support it, then it would have won, and that the proponents should work to make sure a majority do next time. and you're wrong, cause it's pretty clear what role the dem party being against something will play with dem voters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Democrazy posted:So it would have won without a campaign? Can you prove that? he didn't claim that try reading next time
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:57
|
|