|
sat on my keys! posted:I'm not an expert on Ontario's system, but my family had supplemental private coverage on top of Ohip. It covered prescription drugs with a small copay - our single payor doesn't, so I had a friend whose wisdom tooth extraction was covered but whose post operative painkillers were not - and you could get a private room at the hospital as opposed to semi private. Ontario is rolling out prescription drug coverage for people under 26 (iirc) which is good but not enough. My family's insurance also covered vision and dental which aren't in the provincial plan. Just as an example of what might be covered or not by supplemental insurance. Sorry for the late reply, but this is really interesting! You changed my perspective today, thank you.  Is there a reason why your single payer system doesn't have drug coverage, or vision and dental? That's really unfortunate.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Condiv posted:and you're wrong, cause it's pretty clear what role the dem party being against something will play with dem voters. If that’s true then the obvious thing to do would be to either convince that opposition or to neutralize it, but whatever the Prop 69 people did didn’t work, and it’s incumbent upon supporters to find answers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:If that’s true then the obvious thing to do would be to either convince that opposition or to neutralize it Which is what people have been saying, and what you're arguing against.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Which is what people have been saying, and what you're arguing against. Where have I argued against doing that? Point it out to me, please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Where have I argued against doing that? Point it out to me, please. remember back when it was necessary that working to make single payer happen not include anyone complaining about the people actively working against making single payer happen in the Democratic Party good times
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Where have I argued against doing that? Point it out to me, please. Throughout this entire discussion, you've been responding to people bringing up the Democratic establishments' sabotage of Amendment 69 with, "Oh yeah? Well, if people supported it, they would have VOTED for it!  " Your mindset places responsibility for its failure squarely at the feet of the people on the ground, and takes it away from those who claimed to be on its side but then spread misinformation about it. What you're doing is blatant concern trolling, and it's not fooling anyone here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:You can be in favor of single payer while realizing that proponents still have work to do to make it widely supported. We should be doing that work instead of complaining when things don’t go our way. you can do all the advocacy of single payer you want. as long as you don't -dare- suggest that Democrats actively working against it is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Throughout this entire discussion, you've been responding to people bringing up the Democratic establishments' sabotage of Amendment 69 with, "Oh yeah? Well, if people supported it, they would have VOTED for it! If people did support it, they would have voted for it. I don’t understand how you can disagree with that. The point is almost self-evident. I also do think it’s the responsibility for people who support a measure see that it passes. When it doesn’t, they should examine ways to make sure that it passes. I certainly don’t think it’s the responsibility of people who oppose single payer to fight for it. That’s a sure fire way to make sure that it never happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:If that’s true then the obvious thing to do would be to either convince that opposition or to neutralize it, but whatever the Prop 69 people did didn’t work, and it’s incumbent upon supporters to find answers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Democrats overwhelmingly support single-payer and you're defending a party establishment that doesn't. gently caress off. If they did in Colorado, you’d think that 79% of voters wouldn’t have voted no!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton is the greatest tool the Democrats have, she just needs to be used for reverse psychology. Imagine if she became a gun nut or went pro-gamer gate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:If people did support it, they would have voted for it. Except again, you're dismissing the fact that the Democratic establishment helped mislead them about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:If they did in Colorado, you’d think that 79% of voters wouldn’t have voted no! What was the turnout?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
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. Like I was mentioning earlier, this doesn't reflect some "genuine" opinion on the part of voters. Voters' opinions are largely influenced by what they see and hear from their political leadership (and the media). The Democratic mainstream being against something is automatically going to make a significant portion of voters also go against it, simply because they assume that whatever Democratic politicians is supporting is "what a Democrat is supposed to support." If you change the actions of Democratic officials/politicians, it will in turn change the opinions of (some of) the electorate. Vice versa is also true, but it's important to consider both vectors, rather than assuming that the only relevant one is "voter opinion -> politician action." Democrazy posted:If people did support it, they would have voted for it. I don’t understand how you can disagree with that. The point is almost self-evident. I also do think it’s the responsibility for people who support a measure see that it passes. When it doesn’t, they should examine ways to make sure that it passes. I certainly don’t think it’s the responsibility of people who oppose single payer to fight for it. That’s a sure fire way to make sure that it never happens. This is like people complaining about Republicans being bad and then you coming into the discussion and saying "IT'S NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE REPUBLICANS TO NOT BE RACIST AND DO EVIL THINGS." edit: Like, these are human beings. They have agency. It is okay to condemn them for doing bad things, they are not a force of nature. edit2: I mean, "it's not the responsibility of bad people to not be bad" has to be one of the more bizarre opinions I've seen on these forums Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Jan 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Sorry for the late reply, but this is really interesting! You changed my perspective today, thank you. It's not late at all, the thread is moving fast. I'm glad you got something out of it. I think it's mostly for historical inertia reasons, much like private insurance in the United States being split into medical / dental / vision despite your mouth and eyes being part of your body. But dentists to through a different training process than MDs/DOs for historical accident reasons and so we're stuck. I guess some people feel a lot of dentistry is cosmetic as well. There's a movement to get the Canadian system to cover drug, dental, and vision and I hope it succeeds. Ontario's plan also doesn't cover psychological therapy, at least for outpatients, which is also very unfortunate. Even at the inpatient level it can be difficult to get needed mental health care. For example, a lot of people with eating disorders have to go to the US for treatment in a private facility (which Ontario reimburses for) because there just aren't enough beds in the province.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Except again, you're dismissing the fact that the Democratic establishment helped mislead them about it. You haven’t actually shown that opposition materially affected the outcome at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:You haven’t actually shown that opposition materially affected the outcome at all. You're running a god drat marathon with these goalposts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
"It is true that democrats actively worked against single payer, but if you can't provide me with exact statistics of how much that harmed the chances of it passing, I'm afraid we're going to have to treat this situation as though nothing happened at all!" - a smart person definitely arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:You haven’t actually shown that opposition materially affected the outcome at all.  i think you need to demonstrate that such opposition does not materially affect the outcome instead of trying to push the burden of proving your insanity wrong on us. clearly the world is convinced that it does materially affect the outcome or money wouldn't have been thrown at said opposition and effort would not have been wasted if you want to claim what every sane person in the world thinks is untrue you need to provide some evidence of it democrazy
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:You're running a god drat marathon with these goalposts. If anything, I am moving it in favor of Majorian, who takes some exception with the notion that voting is an accurate representation of support.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:You haven’t actually shown that opposition materially affected the outcome at all. Isn't this literally impossible to prove without going back in time, removing the opposition, and redoing the vote? The only data that could really suggest anything here would be something showing Colorado support for single-payer over time, and I can't find any data on that. Absent any data, it should be patently obvious and assumed by default that Democratic officials and progressive organizations being against or not supporting the plan would have an impact. Would it have passed without that impact? I don't know. Probably not, given the margins, but it almost certainly had an influence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
A majority of people believing an assertion doesn’t make it fact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
if you truly think superpacs that spread lies and deceit have no effect on election and voters, then you need to prove it because the entirety of our political system is convinced it does democrazy
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Isn't this literally impossible to prove without going back in time, removing the opposition, and redoing the vote? But that’s the whole problem. If that opposition didn’t actually decide the outcome, if it wouldn’t have passed anyway, then that assumes that something more needs to be done than simply neutralizing that opposition. I am not saying I have an answer, I am just saying that asserting an answer without evidence isn’t enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:A majority of people believing an assertion doesn’t make it fact. no of course not. but you're making a wholly unsupported counter-assertion, and demanding us prove information that is clearly agreed upon by everyone in this world to disprove you. that's not how things work. if you want your assertion to be anything other than the ramblings of a lone nut, you need to provide evidence backing it up. until then, we have the stronger position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:If anything, I am moving it in favor of Majorian, who takes some exception with the notion that voting is an accurate representation of support. If the voting public is misled about what's being voted on, then no, it is not an accurate representation of support.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I've donated to her campaign and will continue to do so. Others should do the same if they have the funds. Manchin should be priority #1 in the Senate for progressives: he does not belong in the Democratic party and needs to go. Establishment thumbs are tiny and weak - the thumbs of the people are fearsome and all-powerful. https://www.paulajean2018.com/ Swearengin is the person Kilroy and I are talking about, if you're curious. She's part of the new congress / Justice dem coalition that formed after Sanders lost the 2016 primary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
sat on my keys! posted:It's not late at all, the thread is moving fast. I'm glad you got something out of it. I think it's mostly for historical inertia reasons, much like private insurance in the United States being split into medical / dental / vision despite your mouth and eyes being part of your body. But dentists to through a different training process than MDs/DOs for historical accident reasons and so we're stuck. I guess some people feel a lot of dentistry is cosmetic as well. There's a movement to get the Canadian system to cover drug, dental, and vision and I hope it succeeds. Ontario's plan also doesn't cover psychological therapy, at least for outpatients, which is also very unfortunate. Even at the inpatient level it can be difficult to get needed mental health care. For example, a lot of people with eating disorders have to go to the US for treatment in a private facility (which Ontario reimburses for) because there just aren't enough beds in the province. Man, that sucks. I'm glad you guys are moving towards fixing that though. Thanks for sharing that, I didn't know any of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:If anything, I am moving it in favor of Majorian, who takes some exception with the notion that voting is an accurate representation of support. the best part of this exercise is what you are currently doing, in a defense against who you literally could not find a person on this forum who sees through the pathetic charade of "well it's not about what -I- think, heaven forbid, I'm just Extremely Concerned about what someone else might think" any faster than the guy whose account was synonymous with it back in the early Obama years right down to the fearful assumption at the heart of the argument: if politicians can change the minds of voters, that would mean my heroes' inaction is not wisdom, but an active choice to be cowardly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:If the voting public is misled about what's being voted on, then no, it is not an accurate representation of support. That’s only true commensurate to the opposition’s effect. And the supporters’ ability to counter those arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Man, that sucks. I'm glad you guys are moving towards fixing that though. The Canadian system isn't perfect by any means, but having experienced both it and the American model, I'd pick the Canadian one every time. I have a sibling with a chronic condition which sometimes escalates into a crisis and my family would've been completely bankrupted (or my sibling would just be dead) if we'd lived in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:You're running a god drat marathon with these goalposts. Wasn’t the original point he was arguing against not “MFA would have won” but “Democrats are poo poo and actively sabotage progress”? It’s been like 20 pages now but I’m pretty sure he only brought up the polling in the first place as a distraction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:No one is being an accelerationist. But the only way to move from Obamacare to single payer is to not only defeat the republicans who want to tear the whole thing down, but also the democrats who think Obamacare is the ideal end goal. If you miscalculate, it's a lot easier to defeat the latter than the former, and end up with things even worse than before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
the journey fromquote:Would you care to elaborate on that first point?Did the Colorado Democratic Party coerce or trick voters into voting no? to explaining that yes, sure, the Colorado Democratic Party actively engaged in an effort to coerce and trick voters into voting no, but since there's no way to measure precisely how effective that effort was it must not have actually meant anything has been an exhilarating one i am glad to have been with you all on this journey
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Shot. https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/949002938965544960?s=17 Shot. https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/949027581013188609 Shot...
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:If you miscalculate, it's a lot easier to defeat the latter than the former, and end up with things even worse than before. as opposed to the current situation, where the democrats who thought Obamacare was the limits of possibility greivously miscalculated, and lost pretty much all political power to a senile used car salesman. if only there was some policy that tested really well with voters democrats could advocate for...
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
800,000 deported kids and you would still have sycophants lining up for piss in their eye.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:the journey from I mean, if you want to hold that a measure[that lost by 59 points is secretly popular and that it’s supporters could not have done anything different or that could do nothing different in the future, that’s on you. But that’s an article of faith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:A majority of people believing an assertion doesn’t make it fact. Just look at the moon landings!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Democrazy posted:I mean, if you want to hold that a measure[that lost by 59 points is secretly popular and that it’s supporters could not have done anything different or that could do nothing different in the future, that’s on you. But that’s an article of faith. It's not "secretly" popular; national polls show that single payer is popular.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:21
|
|