|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 23 2017 11:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 11:35 ticklishmusic wrote:
gotta love when euros show up and act like they understand the legislative dynamics and intricacies of healthcare in america better than people who live here despite signs to the contrary I'm not acting like that. I clearly don't. Can't say I'm surprised that would be your reaction though.
then stop saying that because single payer is incredibly popular with the average man that it's legislatively or functionally a thing that we could get to. we couldn't even get the fucking public option in the ACA, and it's not because of joe lieberman or one other democratic or supposedly moderate republican senator who couldn't stomach it. it's because approximately half the country and their elected representatives didn't want it. some of them may have been against it because they were misinformed or partisan, but net net they weren't going to vote for a public option. obama ran his majority, which was the legislative equivalent of seabiscuit plus secretariat into the ground just to get the ACA as it was.
the point i am making and i believe p6 is making is that progress is really fucking hard, and to ask "well why they didn't do more?" is somewhat naive and quite frankly insulting to those who gave us the ACA - ted kennedy (despite his many flaws) dragging his corpse as far as he could, as well as the dozens of dem reps who knew that they would spend no more than 2 years in washington if they voted for the ACA.
|
On June 23 2017 12:01 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 11:42 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 11:26 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 11:21 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 11:05 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 10:43 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 10:34 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 08:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Because I dont get what your saying...
Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't
It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws
Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help.
Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes?
In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement.
You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand. So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate. Yeah, probably. They should have used the fact that single payer health care is popular in America (and already was at the time). That's a great electoral argument too. Hey people from this district / state, you see your representative, republican or democrat? He's the reason why you don't get this popular policy that you want. And then you watch what happens. Instead you get this lame thing, and the opposition gets to attack you with it in the elections, and you lose a zillion seats everywhere (yeah I know, that wasn't the only reason, but still). What part of Joe Lieberman confuses you? He would kill the bill through the filibuster and nothing would happen. He was an independent and would beat any (and did) democrat tried challenge him. Congrats, no healthcare reform and there is no one to punish for it. Single payer was politically dead, there was no path to getting it. Approval polls do not directly translate to 60 votes in the senate. Edit: and the fact that people hate congress, except for their congress members. Polls do not instantly translate into political reality. This criticism would convince me much more if your plan had actually worked. Instead all the moderate progress that you have made is likely to get reversed anyway (unless it isn't? I'm just assuming the republicans are getting what they want, maybe I'm wrong), and we lost a bunch of ground in the process. Welcome to the reality of politics. You don't always win and sometimes there are huge set backs. Obama ran on healthcare reform and then the democrats put their nose to the grind stone to make a bill that could pass. The democrats are a dysfunctional mess of a party that is losing left and right. But they are also the only ones that have passed substantive legislation in the last 8-10 years. The far left things they could have done more, but for my entire life they have been voting for third parties and yelling at the democrats for not being good enough. See the problem with your condescension is that you assume that because other people have larger plans than you, they must think it's going to be easy to accomplish them. Nobody thinks it's easy. Some of us just think it's worth it. And in the case of getting a single payer health care system, I think we're pretty clearly right. The "far left" (lolz) might be yelling, but they're yelling for legitimate reasons. You haven't been very honest with them as a party. I'm not a Democrat. I only donated to Obama twice and I'm not a member of their party. I'm registered as unaffiliated. The only reason I got involved was because I was tired of Bush and liked Obama. I had no time for a party that lost to George Bush twice. I will fully admit that Obama might be the only highlight in this dying husk of a party. But lets not kid ourselves, the "far left' in the US has done nothing in the last 20 years. The Democrats suck. Sure. Are they stupid and resistant to change. Yep. But endlessly voting for third parties in presidential elections in some misguided hope to "send a message" will go down as one of the stupidest plans in history. Especially when it consistently fucked over what the left wanted. And then comes the smug self satisfaction as things go badly under the GOP and we all get to hear the "I told you so, you should have done what we wanted." I'm fully convinced that if the DNC cleaned house, put Bernie in charge tomorrow and gave people everything they wanted they would still heckle and say it wasn't enough. Or to little to late. They wouldn't know what to with victory once they got it. Or would be to scared to run with ball because they might fail. https://twitter.com/i/moments/819598653778182145All the while stuff like this is happening. It's not very surprising that when one side is given no power, they don't accomplish anything. See the communists haven't done a whole lot in my country, either. The communists in my country aren't given power because they don't represent enough people to be given power (except in Renens but whatever  ). The progressives in your country aren't given power because the system is not built in to accept it. You poll all of the progressive ideas and you get over 50% support in America. When you're trying to get elected in the primary, suddenly Hillary is super duper progressive and you have kwiz saying on the forum that there's almost no difference between her and Sanders. Trump parrots some leftwing talking points in his bullshit potion to get elected. By all accounts, if the democratic party was a coalition, the dominant force in it would be the progressives today. They have the most popular politician in the country, while the direction by the liberals has made it so that the party polls lower than Trump. Clearly there's something that doesn't work strategically, and a coalition would be able to figure that out. Some people within it are, Schumer attempted to do so for example. But as a body, the democrats aren't going to change, and whenever they can they're going to get the Perez instead of the Ellison. So to sum up, you have this part of your party that is a) responsible every time things go to shit and b) won't be given a chance to lead even when it would appear to make sense. And you sit there wondering why they might have a problem with liberals. I don't, I can see why.
ok, since you wanted the response:
You can poll a lot of things that get 50%+ it changes if you actually start getting into the details of paying for it (and other necessary things). the difference between hillary and sanders isn't large, it is there and of moderate size though. I'm not sure at what point kwiz made his remark and exactly how close their points were at that time. that trump used some leftwing talking points doesn't really help your case, given that trump mostly peddles bs, so it would tend to mean some of the talking points were therefore bs.
The democratic party is a coalition, the groups just line up differently than you think they do. There's a lot of center-left people for whom the progressive ideas are too far, and/or not feasible. (and a number of the actual progressive proposals indeed don't add up math-wise)
having a popular politician is easy when you don't try to govern, and have avoided being a target. It's very different when you have to actually be responsible and your numbers have to actually add up in the budget. Bernie has avoided being targetted by republicans so far. If he was actually targetted, his numbers would go down quite a bit. America tends to like people who are "outsiders", and bernie gets lots of outsider cred, and that's intentional on his part. He chose to not be a Democrat for a long time, and he's chosen to be so again. If he stayed a Democrat, rather than being in/out when it suits him, he'd lose some outsider cred, and he'd be attacked more by republicans. He'd also have alot more influence in the party if he was actually IN the party. that's kinda how parties work, people who aren't in them have less influence. also, if he'd actually been the nominee, he'd have been subject to a lot of attack ads; hard to say what the net effect would've been, but one thing is very clear: high approval ratings are much easier to get when nobody is attacking you. bernie's policies often simply don't add up well or work as actual policy; they make nice talking points, and are common things to rail against, but they're not actually sound plans for dealing with the real issues. it's a mild form of demagoguery (fairly common in politics of course at the mild level)
the party polls low because it's a party; the parties in general poll lower than individual members or individuals in general. just as with congress.
in your sum up part: i'm a bit confused, the wording implies that conditions a) and b) would be apply to the same group, yet it doesn't make sense talking that way; also in condition a) do you mean that they act responsible when things are bad, or that they are responsible for things being bad?
|
Ticklish : Thanks for the illuminating talk. It had never occurred to me that progress was hard. Now that I know it, I can totally see why arguing from a position of weakness makes sense.
I mean, surely even you at this point know that presenting the progressives as people who think progress is easy is a talking point, right?
Zlefin: «You can poll a lot of things that get 50%+ it changes if you actually start getting into the details of paying for it (and other necessary things).»
- I’d imagine that’s true of any policy, so I don’t think that really impacts where the US stands in terms of their politics. If you frame the policy with a republican talking point, it’s going to be less popular, republican talking points have a lot of weight in your country. That makes sense.
« that trump used some leftwing talking points doesn't really help your case, given that trump mostly peddles bs, so it would tend to mean some of the talking points were therefore bs. »
- No it doesn’t, it just means he was lying about doing them. Draining the swamp is a good example (it’s kind of amazing that this policy position has a political etiquette in the US btw).
« The democratic party is a coalition, the groups just line up differently than you think they do. There's a lot of center-left people for whom the progressive ideas are too far, and/or not feasible. »
- Care to provide evidence for those claims?
« having a popular politician is easy when you don't try to govern, and have avoided being a target. »
- The question isn’t how hard it was to obtain. It’s there now. So if you were an actual coalition, you would benefit from it, cause you know, it’s pretty good to have the most popular politician on your side as long as it lasts. In reality, the party will do all it can to benefit from it, but only as long as it doesn’t enable him or his ideas, cause it doesn’t perceive Sanders as really being on their side.
« Bernie has avoided being targetted by republicans so far. If he was actually targetted, his numbers would go down quite a bit. » […] « also, if he'd actually been the nominee, he'd have been subject to a lot of attack ads »
- I mean, consider the logic of your argument. Because Sanders wasn’t attacked and attacks are bad for popularity, we should instead choose the people from the side of the party who has already been under fire from these attacks for many years. That doesn’t make any sense.
« the party polls low because it's a party; the parties in general poll lower than individual members or individuals in general. just as with congress. »
- Nope that’s not going to be enough to justify those numbers. Especially not when the Republican Party polls about the same while trying to enact an incredibly unpopular policy.
« in your sum up part: i'm a bit confused, the wording implies that conditions a) and b) would be apply to the same group, yet it doesn't make sense talking that way; also in condition a) do you mean that they act responsible when things are bad, or that they are responsible for things being bad? »
- c), the group is the progressives in both cases, and what I meant was that they are claimed to be responsible for things going bad. Probably not the best wording.
|
On June 23 2017 13:24 Nebuchad wrote:
Ticklish : Thanks for the illuminating talk. It had never occurred to me that progress was hard. Now that I know it, I can totally see why arguing from a position of weakness makes sense.
I mean, surely even you at this point know that presenting the progressives as people who think progress is easy is a talking point, right?
People who know progress is hard do not spend the majority of time throwing shit at the people they need to obtain the progress. Both the center and far left could spend more time dealing with their own people. I am not saying you are doing this. But there are folks that claim to be progressive that are in it to heckle.
|
On June 23 2017 13:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 13:24 Nebuchad wrote:
Ticklish : Thanks for the illuminating talk. It had never occurred to me that progress was hard. Now that I know it, I can totally see why arguing from a position of weakness makes sense.
I mean, surely even you at this point know that presenting the progressives as people who think progress is easy is a talking point, right? People who know progress is hard do not spend the majority of time throwing shit at the people they need to obtain the progress.
Let's go with that claim. Why not?
|
On June 23 2017 13:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 13:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 13:24 Nebuchad wrote:
Ticklish : Thanks for the illuminating talk. It had never occurred to me that progress was hard. Now that I know it, I can totally see why arguing from a position of weakness makes sense.
I mean, surely even you at this point know that presenting the progressives as people who think progress is easy is a talking point, right? People who know progress is hard do not spend the majority of time throwing shit at the people they need to obtain the progress. Let's go with that claim. Why not?
Because you need them to gain power and inact the progress you want.
|
I'd be interested to hear someone with a bit of expertise on polling talk about the real situation with public opinion on UHC. It seems very difficult to poll fairly, because depending on how the question is worded the answers would presumably vary widely. You could imagine a UHC-friendly PAC asking something like "do you think everybody should get the healthcare they need" and find some 90% support UHC. On the other end "should the united states government nationalize (or even worse, socialize) the healthcare industry" probably gets quite a lot of no's. You'd expect questions that include some details of payment would poll a lot worse, but once you get too bogged down in the specifics the question gets too long and who knows if people are even paying attention any more.
I would think that polling around Sanders is also somewhat artificial in that Republicans probably don't see a lot of reason to attack him. They might even like to choose a tack of something like "he's a bit misguided, but at least he's earnest unlike those corrupt Democrats" and see if they can't sow some dissent among the opposition. But I know too little about polling to say. I'd think if Sanders were a proper official party leader like Pelosi or Schumer he'd get attacked more, blamed for more of the Democrats' stuff, and reach a polling equilibrium quite a bit lower than he's at now (although arguably still higher than Pelosi or Schumer) - but I know too little about polling and how it normally behaves to predict that with any confidence.
|
On June 23 2017 14:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 13:53 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 13:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 13:24 Nebuchad wrote:
Ticklish : Thanks for the illuminating talk. It had never occurred to me that progress was hard. Now that I know it, I can totally see why arguing from a position of weakness makes sense.
I mean, surely even you at this point know that presenting the progressives as people who think progress is easy is a talking point, right? People who know progress is hard do not spend the majority of time throwing shit at the people they need to obtain the progress. Let's go with that claim. Why not? Because you need them to gain power and inact the progress you want.
Seems to me a reason to throw more shit at them, not less. I doubt I can get Danglars to come to my side no matter how much shit I throw at him, but I have hope that I can get you.
|
On June 23 2017 14:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 14:03 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 13:53 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 13:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 13:24 Nebuchad wrote:
Ticklish : Thanks for the illuminating talk. It had never occurred to me that progress was hard. Now that I know it, I can totally see why arguing from a position of weakness makes sense.
I mean, surely even you at this point know that presenting the progressives as people who think progress is easy is a talking point, right? People who know progress is hard do not spend the majority of time throwing shit at the people they need to obtain the progress. Let's go with that claim. Why not? Because you need them to gain power and inact the progress you want. Seems to me a reason to throw more shit at them, not less. I doubt I can get Danglars to come to my side no matter how much shit I throw at him, but I have hope that I can get you.
It is unclear to me why you believe throwing shit at somebody is likely to make them more sympathetic to your views.
|
On June 23 2017 14:27 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 14:08 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 14:03 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 13:53 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 13:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 13:24 Nebuchad wrote:
Ticklish : Thanks for the illuminating talk. It had never occurred to me that progress was hard. Now that I know it, I can totally see why arguing from a position of weakness makes sense.
I mean, surely even you at this point know that presenting the progressives as people who think progress is easy is a talking point, right? People who know progress is hard do not spend the majority of time throwing shit at the people they need to obtain the progress. Let's go with that claim. Why not? Because you need them to gain power and inact the progress you want. Seems to me a reason to throw more shit at them, not less. I doubt I can get Danglars to come to my side no matter how much shit I throw at him, but I have hope that I can get you. It is unclear to me why you believe throwing shit at somebody is likely to make them more sympathetic to your views.
Well he already says he agrees with my views so I'm out of policy carrots, all I'm left with is a strategy stick.
More generally that's always how you convince people btw. You're never going to get someone to change their views on something by telling them how awesome their views are, they already believe that. You need to show them why you think they're wrong.
|
On June 23 2017 14:29 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 14:27 Aquanim wrote:On June 23 2017 14:08 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 14:03 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 13:53 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 13:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 13:24 Nebuchad wrote:
Ticklish : Thanks for the illuminating talk. It had never occurred to me that progress was hard. Now that I know it, I can totally see why arguing from a position of weakness makes sense.
I mean, surely even you at this point know that presenting the progressives as people who think progress is easy is a talking point, right? People who know progress is hard do not spend the majority of time throwing shit at the people they need to obtain the progress. Let's go with that claim. Why not? Because you need them to gain power and inact the progress you want. Seems to me a reason to throw more shit at them, not less. I doubt I can get Danglars to come to my side no matter how much shit I throw at him, but I have hope that I can get you. It is unclear to me why you believe throwing shit at somebody is likely to make them more sympathetic to your views. Well he already says he agrees with my views so I'm out of policy carrots, all I'm left with is a strategy stick. More generally that's always how you convince people btw. You're never going to get someone to change their views on something by telling them how awesome their views are, they already believe that. You need to show them why you think they're wrong.
There is a distinction between "demonstrating why my point of view is more reasonable than yours" and "me throwing shit at you".
|
Its too late for this for me.
|
On June 23 2017 14:37 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 14:29 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 14:27 Aquanim wrote:On June 23 2017 14:08 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 14:03 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 13:53 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 13:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 13:24 Nebuchad wrote:
Ticklish : Thanks for the illuminating talk. It had never occurred to me that progress was hard. Now that I know it, I can totally see why arguing from a position of weakness makes sense.
I mean, surely even you at this point know that presenting the progressives as people who think progress is easy is a talking point, right? People who know progress is hard do not spend the majority of time throwing shit at the people they need to obtain the progress. Let's go with that claim. Why not? Because you need them to gain power and inact the progress you want. Seems to me a reason to throw more shit at them, not less. I doubt I can get Danglars to come to my side no matter how much shit I throw at him, but I have hope that I can get you. It is unclear to me why you believe throwing shit at somebody is likely to make them more sympathetic to your views. Well he already says he agrees with my views so I'm out of policy carrots, all I'm left with is a strategy stick. More generally that's always how you convince people btw. You're never going to get someone to change their views on something by telling them how awesome their views are, they already believe that. You need to show them why you think they're wrong. There is a distinction between "demonstrating why my point of view is more reasonable than yours" and "me throwing shit at you".
Okay so do the former not the latter.
|
On June 23 2017 11:08 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 11:05 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 10:43 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 10:34 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 08:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering.
Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further.
They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand. So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate. Yeah, probably. They should have used the fact that single payer health care is popular in America (and already was at the time). That's a great electoral argument too. Hey people from this district / state, you see your representative, republican or democrat? He's the reason why you don't get this popular policy that you want. And then you watch what happens. Instead you get this lame thing, and the opposition gets to attack you with it in the elections, and you lose a zillion seats everywhere (yeah I know, that wasn't the only reason, but still). What part of Joe Lieberman confuses you? He would kill the bill through the filibuster and nothing would happen. He was an independent and would beat any (and did) democrat tried challenge him. Congrats, no healthcare reform and there is no one to punish for it. Single payer was politically dead, there was no path to getting it. Approval polls do not directly translate to 60 votes in the senate. Edit: and the fact that people hate congress, except for their congress members. Polls do not instantly translate into political reality. This criticism would convince me much more if your plan had actually worked. Instead all the moderate progress that you have made is likely to get reversed anyway (unless it isn't? I'm just assuming the republicans are getting what they want, maybe I'm wrong), and we lost a bunch of ground in the process. a republican proposal isn't likely to pass actually, this new one still has similar issues to the prior one; though they'll probably stealth defund aca to some degree to damgae it, then claim it failed on its own rather than because of their sabotage; but there's a pretty good chance aca keeps going for awhile. oh for responsible leadership.
Already happened a few times.
|
On June 23 2017 10:23 Buckyman wrote:
@Sadist: The Medicare payroll tax is only a fraction of total Medicare funding.
Regardless, Medicare mandates are themselves costly to comply with. A small facility that takes Medicare and Medicaid patients basically needs a full-time employee just to deal with the paperwork. Large hospitals spend more. And this extra employee's pay gets tacked onto the bills.
Fair enough. Im still paying roughly 6k out of my total compensation to premiums and i would guess most people getting insurance through and employer spend something around that. Id much rather that money go directly to medicare so that im not hit with an extraordinary expense for COBRA if i lose my job. It also would make it easier to switch jobs as it takes the health insurance varuable out of it.
Also if we had medicare for eveyone and not a million different insurance plans i am quite certain the billing/paperwork overhead would be reduced dramatically.
|
|
|
So he's admitting to Witness intimidation...?
|
Come on Donnie, do it! We all know this whole covfefe is a witch hunt!
|
But they don't frame the question that way, whether it's to massage Trump's ego, or to spin the whole thing for the sake of the party.
|
This is reaching, can you intimidate someone into telling the truth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
