***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[IATT]

 

[-Red-]

Oh please miss me with this

We have had many discussions about healthcare, you know I don't support the status quo like the people you listed in these examples.

So this is just some disingenuous **** and a hand wave regarding the road blocks facing M4A

There were plenty of people who said those things who didn't support the status quo during those eras, but who believed fundamental change was not possible. It wasn't just the people who actively supported those injustices. Every one of those achievements that people fought for had road blocks, some of them larger and more entrenched than those working against M4A. So I wasn't trying to characterize your response as reactionary, but as unnecessarily and problematically defeatist.

You may not want actually want M4A—as I recall, you don't—and we can argue what the best healthcare system would look like, but let's not conflate your preference with what is or isn't ultimately possible. Donald Trump is president of the United States. A self-described socialist may very well receive the Democratic Party nomination for president. So you can miss me with the declarations about what is or isn't possible over the next handful of years, much less beyond that.

 

[-Red-]

What happens when they nominate a socialist who responds to red-baiting not with defensiveness but with defiance? What happens when they are able to articulate just how beneficial and attractive a "socialist" political vision would be for the lives of everyday people in this country?

 

[whywesteppin]

Fox News assesses Dem candidates with the same rigor that Twitter analyzes NFL QBs.

"Lamar is overrated but Tannehill is a great playoff QB who just needed a coach to believe in him.:"

Spoiler

Tannehill is throwing 50% and averaging fewer than 100 ypg in these playoffs

 

[-Red-]

I'll respond to your last question first. The argument is luxury. Think of it like a hotel. A regular hotel will do just fine but some people want a 5 star hotel. The public coverage shouldn't cover an optional 1-person room stay in a hospital for example but that's something where private insurance steps in. You mentioned "why should we even need supplementary private insurance" but the point is that you shouldn't need it.


As for your other points, I don't think we really disagree all that much here. Keeping your options open, preparing contingency plans and fighting for the ideal solution are not mutually exclusive.

Exactly, you shouldn't need supplementary private coverage—I agree 100%. Based on your example, I think your experience of what is or isn't covered is so extremely different from what the norm is in this country it pretty much belies comparison to what's happening in the U.S.

To your last point, I think they are very much mutually exclusive at this point in the process. This is the time when you lay out your political vision and try to build public support for it. It is not the time to equivocate or negotiate—unless you don't really have the moral conviction of your vision. Then I suppose equivocating and negotiating at this stage is no big deal.

 

[Chopper]

The message in 2020 better be build upon ACA. If not, get ready for a washing in November.

Lizzo needs to pivot. Really want her to come out of the primary.

 

[Chopper]

"The abolition of slavery is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Women's suffrage is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"The forty-hour work week is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Child labor protections are not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Government protection of collective bargaining rights is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Social Security is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"The destruction of the Jim Crow regime is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Medicare and Medicaid are not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"It always seems impossible until it's done."
—Nelson Mandela

Imagine a white dude kicking this BS to a black dude.

 

[-Red-]

Imagine a white dude kicking this BS to a black dude.

Imagine a dude who comes into a discussion and... wait, who the hell are you?

And what does your comment have to do with the people's collective historical struggles for a more just world and how they might inform our understanding and approach to contemporary struggles?

 

[Wargames]

Dems got to be better and @ people when they talk trash. It’s proper beef etiquette

 

[obeahmyal7]

"The abolition of slavery is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

-Red-

I understand what you were trying to do, but this is a miss for me, fam. And not because of the cheap identity politics that Chopper hit you with.

Take the abolition example. By the time of the British Abolition Act of 1833, the political agitation against slavery was a transnational movement. You had nation states fighting against slavery (in Mexico, Britain, and beyond) and powerful forces within the US, Cuba, and Brazil fighting to preserve slavery.

The point is that it took nation states, imperial rivalries, the politics of capital, religious institutions, and a robust ideology of anti-slavery to bring about abolition.

I am for M4A, but can you realistically claim that the base of support behind it, its ideological coherence, and the ways in which power blocs will be neutralized is even slightly comparable to abolition? You've tried to use a historical example to push us to think more expansively, but that example is not apt.

 

[heelsandeers]

public option seems very popular. forced sign-up with government plan, maybe not as much

one thing that bothers me with the discussion is the assumption that M4A, with no choice of employer-based or other private health insurance, is clearly the best plan. that even if we come up a little short of that, it's still important to set it as the goal

I don't concede that but I'm willing to consider that it might be the way to go. And while I'm generally pretty pro-government, I also think there's reason to consider whether the government will get everything right

regardless - that is less important to me right now than having the best candidate and platform to defeat Trump in 2020. If public option is more popular than M4A then I think we have an obvious path forward on this healthcare stuff. the dem primaries should give us a pretty good idea of what that is

 

[RustyShackleford]

There were plenty of people who said those things who didn't support the status quo during those eras, but who believed fundamental change was not possible. It wasn't just the people who actively supported those injustices. Every one of those achievements that people fought for had road blocks, some of them larger and more entrenched than those working against M4A. So I wasn't trying to characterize your response as reactionary, but as unnecessarily and problematically defeatist.

You may not want actually want M4A—as I recall, you don't—and we can argue what the best healthcare system would look like, but let's not conflate your preference with what is or isn't ultimately possible. Donald Trump is president of the United States. A self-described socialist may very well receive the Democratic Party nomination for president. So you can miss me with the declarations about what is or isn't possible over the next handful of years, much less beyond that.

Dude please.

You are just handwaving legit arguments with this "anything is possible" stuff.

MA4 (Bernie's version) is not a popular program, except for Warren's bad attempt there is no plan to pay for it (you do know the CBO has to score a M4A bill so the rules on how it can pass can be established), there are not enough votes for it in the House, even worse in the Senate. The conditions needed for it to pass are not there, and there are no signs of them changing anything soon. Even public sentiment alone will not be enough because it will dwindle once the fight in Congress starts getting news coverage.

Bernie intends to pass in next Spring, that is the timeline he gives. At best, the Dems will have 50-52 votes in the Senate. Jones (who will probably be gone), Manchin, Tester, and Sinema already said they don't support M4A and don't support dropping the filibuster, so you can't pass it with less than a supermajority. The price tag exceeds 1.5 trillion over ten years, so you can't pass it through budget reconciliation. You want to ignore all this, but there literally might not be a legal way to pass this thing. What is your answer for that? That somehow if more people advocate for it that centrist Dems Senator in red states, will somehow come around to M4A and all that it entails, including the sharp middle-class tax increases and banning private insurance. Furthermore, liberal justices might not even go along with banning private insurance thing. Oh yeah, but I forget, anything is possible, so ignore the roadblocks.

Furthermore, SCOTUS is going to rule on the ACA relatively soon. At the latest, it is next Spring. Unless the Dems pass a reform bill under budget reconciliation, if Robert chooses to strike down the law, the Dems may be in the position where they would need 60 votes again to pass anything. President Sanders won't be able to force through anything at that point, let alone M4A.

Secondly, you list many successes, a couple on Medicare and Medicaid, but that it convenient history of the push for universal healthcare in America. What happened with the national healthcare push under Truman? Why couldn't LBJ get the votes for universal single-payer? Why couldn't Ted Kennedy get a single-payer plan out of Nixon? Or Carter? Why did Hillarycare fail? Why was Obamacare stripped of its public option? Why did Vermont abandon single-payer because of the cost? And why did Colorado (a blue state) soundly reject single-payer at the ballot? If anything is possible, why weren't these attempts?

Thirdly, you like to bait and switch on the M4A argument. Like I said before, Bernie's bill (which I called Primecare in the past) is not the only way to get to universal health insurance. The difference between it and many other plans is that it bans private health insurance. However, prohibiting private health insurance is not necessary to have universal healthcare, or to get people quality care. Other countries you like to list don't have a ban on private insurance, and Medicare right now has private plans. Why Bernie supporters are so insistent on PrimeCare is not the moral "people are dying" argument, that it can't be. It is because they want to ban private insurance companies; they want to strike a blow against private interest. The argument for killing private insurance is not that exciting or compelling for people to prefer M4A or a robust public option. You can compare yourself to abolitionists, labor rights advocates, and many others that put their life on the line for change, but at the end of the day, I think that is a reach. The real hang-up is not about justice or human rights; it is about whether private insurance should or should not exist. While I have my own opinions on that, it is down the list of priorities for things to fix in order to get people adequate healthcare. So I don't think it is something worth purity testing people on.

Your path to victory is not trying to deal with these roadblocks face on, instead you think more advocacy of the same kind, but a bigger scale will solve them. And like I pointed out, there is a lot of misinformation in the current advocacy with M4A.

And oh please, a racist Republican became president of the United States because his racist party suppresses votes, and our electoral system swings power to white people with regressive social views. That is hardly doing the impossible. Secondly, McGovern was nominated, and Jackson came close. Bernie, who is not a true socialist potentially winning the nomination with 30-35% of the vote, is hardly doing the impossible.

-You would recall wrong btw. I said I would vote if I were in Congress, and it had a chance of passing. I said it was not a panacea for the current situation. And I said my preferred policy in a perfect world would be nationalized healthcare. I prefer a public option right now because looking at roadblocks ahead; it is the best move. And I have said that building on a public option might make M4A more possible in the future.

I have said a lot about healthcare, so please don't try to water it down to fit your argument.

The whole reason people Bernie supporters seem to want to make it seem like the road ahead is different than what history, economic, the law and politics says that it is; is to make it seem like there are not legitimate reasons to not jump on the M4A bandwagon right now, to pretend like not doing so means people are ok with the status quo, and avoid a conversation that would hurt Bernie.

All you are doing handwave legit concerns for M4A. But my all means, maybe just maybe...

Anything is possible.

 

[RustyShackleford]

To be honest I don't think M4A happening one day is not impossible.

But I think the best chance it has to becoming the reality is working through a public option gradually building out the single payer system, instead it being passed as a bill in one shot.

If we get single payer in America, I am pretty sure it won't be Bernie's version though.

 

[Belgium]

Wouldn't be surprised if he ends up firing Atkinson. In October, a large number of employees working in various Inspector General offices sent a letter to DOJ in which they defended Atkinson's handling of the complaint.
The letter contained roughly 70 signatories from the Council of Inspectors General, including DOJ IG Horowitz, and accused the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel of issuing a binding opinion that was not supported by law and threatened the integrity of the whistleblower system.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I sort of believe Matthew Yglesias argument for Bernie being a unity candidate for the Democratic Party, especially on healthcare.

Unless Bernie's yes men get in his ear, most of the time Bernie is very rational person when it comes to the power dynamics at play in Congress. When his vote is absolutely needed, he votes with the party.

Given that, the best the Dems will probably do on healthcare is a public option. The difference is that the far left of the party will see a public option as a sell out under Biden or Pete, or anyone but Bernie. However under Bernie he will accept that it is the best plan they could pass right now.

 

[-Red-]

-Red-

I understand what you were trying to do, but this is a miss for me, fam. And not because of the cheap identity politics that Chopper hit you with.

Take the abolition example. By the time of the British Abolition Act of 1833, the political agitation against slavery was a transnational movement. You had nation states fighting against slavery (in Mexico, Britain, and beyond) and powerful forces within the US, Cuba, and Brazil fighting to preserve slavery.

The point is that it took nation states, imperial rivalries, the politics of capital, religious institutions, and a robust ideology of anti-slavery to bring about abolition.

I am for M4A, but can you realistically claim that the base of support behind it, its ideological coherence, and the ways in which power blocs will be neutralized is even slightly comparable to abolition? You've tried to use a historical example to push us to think more expansively, but that example is not apt.

Sure each of those examples has its own unique historical developments that ultimately made them possible. None of these are one-to-one comparisons.

My point was that many things that were deemed "impossible" and commonly understood as such have been transformed. So I don't buy the "M4A is impossible, so just shut up about it" line of argumentation.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Sure each of those examples has its own unique historical developments that ultimately made them possible. None of these are one-to-one comparisons.

My point was that many things that were deemed "impossible" and commonly understood as such have been transformed. So I don't buy the "M4A is impossible, so just shut up about it" line of argumentation.

Where the **** did I say anything close to that?

I said it is not happening anything soon, and people need to stop acting like that is not true.

 

[-Red-]

Where the **** did I say anything close to that?

I said it is not happening anything soon, and people need to stop acting like that is not true.

Bruh, you, Osh, and maybe some others have been beating that drum for at least six months in this thread.

 

[Belgium]

Furthermore, SCOTUS is going to rule on the ACA relatively soon. At the latest, it is next Spring. Unless the Dems pass a reform bill under budget reconciliation, if Robert chooses to strike down the law, the Dems may be in the position where they would need 60 votes again to pass anything. President Sanders won't be able to force through anything at that point, let alone M4A.

In case people missed it, DOJ filed a motion with the Supreme Court this week in which they argue that the ACA case does not merit an expedited review. That means a review in the current SC session. The SC hasn't decided yet on how they will proceed. That leaves 3 potential timetables and only the expedited review would result in a ruling before the election. Late June or early July at the latest in that case.

The longest timetable would be to simply let the case work its way up through the lower courts first.

If the Supreme Court decides take up the case already but not on the basis of an expedited review, the start of the process would have to wait until the next Supreme Court session begins. That's in October.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Bruh, you, Osh, and maybe some others have been beating that drum for at least six months in this thread.

Other people's words are there words

osh kosh bosh words are his words.

You have an issue with them, quote them, and subtweet them.

Please I damn sure didn't tell you or anyone else in here to shut up about M4A because it is impossible, all I did was point out the political realities we operate in. So ****ing miss me with your pearl clutching.

Every single time someone wants to engage me with a detailed discussion about health insurance, you included, I have been game. Last time you wanted to check me and Osh about public support for M4A, I provided evidence on my position which as I remember to conceded was legit. So spare me this act like all I have been is flippant on this subject, telling you and others to shut up. When people disagree with me want a detailed explanation on my position, I provide it.

 

[-Red-]

RustyShackleford how exactly would you characterize your own statements about M4A in this thread over the last six months or so?

I don't have the time nor energy to parse through your thousands of posts in here to pull up receipts, but I seem to recall you saying things to the effect of "I wish people would just stop talking about M4A, since it's not gonna happen." If you tell me I'm wrong, though, I'll eat that.

 

[-Red-]

In case people missed it, DOJ filed a motion with the Supreme Court this week in which they argue that the ACA case does not merit an expedited review. That means a review in the current SC session. The SC hasn't decided yet on how they will proceed. That leaves 3 potential timetables and only the expedited review would result in a ruling before the election. Late June or early July at the latest in that case.

The longest timetable would be to simply let the case work its way up through the lower courts first.

If the Supreme Court decides take up the case already but not on the basis of an expedited review, the start of the process would have to wait until the next Supreme Court session begins. That's in October.

So if the SCOTUS may invalidate the half-stepping, generally capital-friendly ACA, why on earth should we base our vision for healthcare on what the SCOTUS may determine?

 

[RustyShackleford]

RustyShackleford how exactly would you characterize your own statements about M4A in this thread over the last six months or so?

I don't have the time nor energy to parse through your thousands of posts in here to pull up receipts, but I seem to recall you saying things to the effect of "I wish people would just stop talking about M4A, since it's not gonna happen." If you tell me I'm wrong, though, I'll eat that.

I notice you rephrase the supposed argument I have been making

And to be honest, I do say a lot of stuff in here. I know that even if I have made a flippant post I can't remember (but I will concede I could have), most of my objection to pressing for M4A have been spelled out in detail, and my position has not been to simply tell people to shut up on M4A. It has been to consider the roadblocks to improving the situation.

At this point, I really don't give a **** if you eat it or not. Nearly every back and forth with you involves me having to pushback against some **** I didn't say or beleive. I know in a few weeks months it will be the same song and dance. So it is whatever to me.

 

[RustyShackleford]

So if the SCOTUS may invalidate the half-stepping, generally capital-friendly ACA, why on earth should we base our vision for healthcare on what the SCOTUS may determine?

I don't think anyone has argued that the Dems should base their vision of healthcare strictly on what conservatives in SCOTUS will accept.

However given the legal argument at play, the nonsense they are using to strike down the ACA might also affect parts of the M4A bill.

Also since the ACA has been attacked by the GOP through the budget process, maybe leftist would consider how would the law would survive the GOP regaining power in Congress or the presidency. And you know the fact that if the ACA is invalidated we can't use the budget reconciliation process to reform the system from my understanding.

But of course I guess we should ignore those things and just advocate for M4A blindly, and everything will be cool.

 

[-Red-]

I notice you rephrase the supposed argument I have been making

And to be honest, I do say a lot of stuff in here. I know that even if I have made a flippant post I can't remember, most of my objection to pressing for M4A have been spelled out in detail, and mu position has not been to simply tell people to shut up on M4A. It has been to consider the roadblocks to improving the situation.

At this point, I really don't give a **** if you eat it or not. Nearly every back and forth with you involves me having to pushback against some **** I didn't say or beleive. I know in a few weeks months it will be the same song and dance. So it is whatever to me.

Fam, "stop talking about" and "shut up about" are synonymous, so whatever.

As far as our back and forths, I'm sorry you feel that way. I like to think I engage folks in whatever they say and go from there. If I put words in you or anyone else's mouth or attribute to someone something they don't believe in, that is never my intention. So I don't come in here on some "What liberals don't understand is..." or "One thing I can't stand about liberals is..." I don't expect you or anyone else to answer for what anyone else says or does, so I don't use those categorical descriptors that people in here may fall under the umbrella of.

You, on the other hand, do that very thing when it comes to deriding leftists, Bernie bros, Bernie supporters, etc. Then you throw up your hands and say "I wasn't talking about you, specifically" and act as if myself and others are being ridiculous when we push back on attacks on broad categories with which we identify. So I really don't understand you trying to make yourself out as some kind of victim here.