|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Do you guys think medicare-for-all is a saleable idea for the American people? It's saleable but a bad idea for other reasons, not least because it runs up against people with company or union insurance being basically satisfied with that, the difficulty of funding it, the presumption that universalizing it won't be an enormous expenditure, etc. etc.
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
tekz posted:lmao Yeah I hope that guy dies too. Hopefully it's a long, torturous death so that his buddy realizes he was wrong and slits his wrists.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I, uh, sincerely hope that this is not an earnest response (to a lovely low effort drive by post, no less). Oh you better believe I am in favor of gloating over death and suffering to the fullest possible extent. After all, Emma Goldman was well-known for visiting victims of gas attacks in the hospital to sneer at them for refusing to be conscientious objectors, Abbie Hoffman wrote over a million words about how Vietnam veterans deserved all the health effects linked to Agent Orange exposure, it's more or less a consistently leftist position to exult in bloodshed. Frankly, if you don't believe people should die in agony for being born in an imperialist country, you're the lowest kind of reactionary.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
tekz posted:
Wow, looks like someone was only exulting in death and suffering ironically.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 15:00
|
|
Jesus christ dude
|
Ze Pollack posted:And so we arrive at the feeble, quivering organ that serves as the technocratic argument's heart: that a government that represents the will of its constituents is not only an impossible, magical dream, the very concept is a monstrosity that must be opposed wherever it presents itself. So, uh, Brown v. Board was wrong, given that it was imposing desegregation against the desires of a majority of the population? I think you should probably back off a little.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Goon #1: Democrats should fight for UHC today. He said that government must represent the popular will. I know that you are incapable of thinking in terms of ideas and of applying a principle to different situations, but there are lurkers whose minds you might poison with your stupidity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Except he didn't say that, you illiterate Ze Pollack posted:You're the one who said a party actively ignoring the will of its constituents, as repeatedly expressed was the correct approach, on the grounds that popular opinion, and I quote, "doesn't actually mean a goddamned thing." This is a democracy. The Democratic Party has lost over a thousand seats in the last decade, and is currently the weakest it has been since Reagan, thanks to the horrifying discovery that popular opinion does, in fact, mean a goddamned thing. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement's popularity, only 40% of the population supported it. If we go by Ze Pollack's argument that ignoring the will of the constituency is wrong, then it was wrong for politicians to support the Civil Rights Movement at all. This is why "populism" is inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.- because if the majority actually, genuinely, supported equal rights for a minority group then equal rights would already exist. Most leftists nowadays are two-faced- they say that they really care about the gays, about black people, but their reflexive statements show otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:These are two different claims: Ah, you're starting to retreat. Why don't you elaborate on when it's okay to ignore the popular will and when it's not? I'm sure it won't be obviously ex post facto and ad hoc.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:You think that change happens instantly? The Democrats were all ready to enshrine protections for Trans people into law. Who stopped them? Their own doubts? Or the Republicans? I'm afraid I can't quite see how this relates to my post, would you mind elaborating so I can make a meaningful reply?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:When values dictate as much, such as egalitarianism or promoting public health. Okay, so why exactly are we talking about popular will when it's totally loving irrelevant then? It's almost as if you guys are either 1) really loving stupid or 2) desperately want to be able to ditch "identity politics".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Don't ask me. You made a post so lovely I couldn't help but post post post. Also, it's vaguely offensive that you're trying to link opposition to IDPol to support for UHC. No, I'm not, because I support UHC but also don't believe that my fellow LGBT people are bourgeois degenerates, so I obviously am aware that the greasy Strasserites who whine about "identity politics" and call it "IDPol" are representative of nothing but people's desire to reconcile bigotry with the little bits of morality their parents managed to beat into them. Anyways, if values are sufficient, then Ze Pollack's post is still inane garbage and is counter-revolutionary opposition to anti-racism, feminism, and LGBT liberation. Accretionist posted:Edit: It's also so odd that I just looked at your rap sheet and now I feel like an idiot for taking the bait. The personal attacks should've been a hint. [MISSION ACCOMPLISHED] People who squall like the 400-pound babies they are about "personal attacks" are liberal as heck, certainly lacking in the necessary moral courage to be a democratic socialist, let alone a real one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:You never actually propose anything, you just insult people who do. Gulags. Nothing but gulags as far as the eye can see.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:So shut the gently caress up and get out of the thread if you're not going to contribute anything meaningful. You should take your own advice, but for life in general instead of just "the thread". I mean, I have no desire to talk about idealized healthcare systems because the vast majority of people who would be actively disagreeing with me don't know that UHC and single-payer aren't synonyms.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:So, to be one hundred percent clear, you are in agreement that the Democratic Party's philosophy on the ACA was to, wherever possible, defer to health insurance companies over the american people wherever the interests of the two did not coincide ("needed as many stakeholders on board as possible-" excellent euphemism!) but object to that acknowledged reality being presented as a thing that hurt the Democratic party. I appreciate your abandonment of materialism in favor of the Triumph of the Will being coupled with these half-assed supervillain speeches.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:If I thought the acolytes of pragmatic centrism were moved by materialist analysis, I'd try to speak to them in that language. If I thought we disagreed on anything more substantial than the motivations that should drive the tactics we agree on, with goals we agree on, with concerns we agree on, I'd talk materialism with you! Oh for sure dude. For sure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Look, if only people would agree with me on everything, then I'd stop saying stupid poo poo, guys.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
Why does all this poo poo focus entirely on single-payer, which a) has historically been a massive initial expenditure, destroying the entire sovereign wealth fund of the UK when the NHS was established, and this with highly inadequate levels of care (very limited dental and optical options, for one thing), b) is by no means the only option to deliver universal healthcare, nor is it noticeably better at doing so than various multipayer healthcare systems c) runs up against the issue that the majority of insured Americans are satisfied with the insurance they receive through their employer, d) doesn't even deal with two-thirds of the reasons why healthcare costs have been spiraling, and e) is an extremely liberal policy. Multipayer systems, which would be easier to integrate than single-payer, would be an obvious endgoal to adopt as they would incorporate the high-quality private insurance people already have and wouldn't as obviously risk its destruction, and advocating for the nationalization of healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies would deal with other major sources of spiraling healthcare costs and would allow for substantially better outcomes by redistributing care providers to serve disadvantaged areas and by prioritizing areas of pharmaceutical research that aren't inventing microvariants of existing drugs and finding reasons for them to exist and extend patent profitability.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 03:06
|
|