The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
The idea that the DNC isn't progressive enough is bonkers anyhow. In the last 8 years we have had more progressive policies enacted than the 25 that came before it.
Many of which during a period of unprecedented obstructionism.
Care to name a few
There's lily ledbetter and ????
Well, there's the ACA for starters.
The military allows gay Americans to openly serve, and is about to allow transgender Americans to do so as well.
Federal contractors have to pay higher minimum wages or lose their contracts.
Thanks to appointments to the courts by Obama, affirmative action and abortion have been affirmatively protected by the courts.
The idea that the DNC isn't progressive enough is bonkers anyhow. In the last 8 years we have had more progressive policies enacted than the 25 that came before it.
Many of which during a period of unprecedented obstructionism.
Care to name a few
There's lily ledbetter and ????
Same sex benefits to federal employees and then same sex marriage
Normalized with Cuba
Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Act
Open LGBT service in the military and female equality in combat roles
Ended abstinence only
Ended the crack-cocaine disparity
Reduced federal prison population
ARRA included many progressive programs including 5 billion for early education, 18 billion for civilian research, and a lot more
Expanded Pell Grants
DAPA and DACA
Regulated Carbon Dioxide as a health hazard in the EPA
Provided 8 billion to provided broadband infrastructure in poor and rural areas
Ended the ban on embryonic stem cell research and funded it
and I could go on but all you really need is the fucking Affordable Care Act
I wasn't really talking about executive actions or court decisions (and it strains credulity to give the Democratic party credit for court decisions that were frankly long overdue), but yeah that's been great
the ACA does fuck all for poor people and it wasn't designed to, just like the rest of the Democratic party it's for middle class and upper middle class people because they vote
I am a huge supporter of the ACA, I think it's borderline laughable to call it progressive but it's definitely keeping America's healthcare system from falling off a cliff for a few years (Obama really did try to do better, even if I think he spent way too much time trying to court Republicans)
I wasn't really talking about executive actions or court decisions (and it strains credulity to give the Democratic party credit for court decisions that were frankly long overdue), but yeah that's been great
the ACA does fuck all for poor people and it wasn't designed to, just like the rest of the Democratic party it's for middle class and upper middle class people because they vote
Middle and upper class people already had health insurance.
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
When the President nominates SCOTUS justices and there would be very different justices appointed under a Republican president, I do not see how it strains credulity to give the party some credit for that.
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
I'm willing to accept the idea that it was a foot in the door on health care, but it has always confused me that liberals seem happy with the ACA as-is for exactly this reason.
I wasn't really talking about executive actions or court decisions (and it strains credulity to give the Democratic party credit for court decisions that were frankly long overdue), but yeah that's been great
the ACA does fuck all for poor people and it wasn't designed to, just like the rest of the Democratic party it's for middle class and upper middle class people because they vote
I am a huge supporter of the ACA, I think it's borderline laughable to call it progressive but it's definitely keeping America's healthcare system from falling off a cliff for a few years (Obama really did try to do better, even if I think he spent way too much time trying to court Republicans)
What? Besides the changes caused by rulings from the courts to make it truly voluntary from states, the medicaid expansion to cover people below 133% of the poverty line does a whole hell of a lot for poor people.
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
Because as this fight has shown me, the Democrats ARE pretty right wing on economic policy
Clinton destroyed the safety net in this country and left it up to states to stitch together an alternative and he's the Democratic Reagan
When the President nominates SCOTUS justices and there would be very different justices appointed under a Republican president, I do not see how it strains credulity to give the party some credit for that.
Yes it strains credulity to call SCOTUS rulings "democratic policies" I'm sorry
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
Things are relative.
No, the ACA is not a progressive wet dream, especially without the public option and with a bunch of states skipping the Medicaid expansion.
That doesn't mean it wasn't a huge accomplishment, and much better than what we had before, an even less regulated and even more privatized healthcare system.
I also have never been able to stop being angry about the individual mandate. Why would I pay more taxes for not buying a product of a private corporation? If you're going to tax me more for healthcare, can't you just put the money towards Medicaid? And then raise the income cap so I can get Medicaid? I can't afford this shit.
Ugh. Sanders' constant advocacy for nationalized healthcare was probably my favorite thing about him.
edit - I guess right now I can afford it because the factory I work overnights at is giving me tons of overtime. But I don't really want to have to work 60hrs a week overnights at a factory in order to pay off debt and afford healthcare! Where's my union? Oh, right, shattered by globalized capitalism.
I also have never been able to stop being angry about the individual mandate. Why would I pay more taxes for not buying a product of a private corporation? If you're going to tax me more for healthcare, can't you just put the money towards Medicaid? And then raise the income cap so I can get Medicaid? I can't afford this shit.
Ugh. Sanders' constant advocacy for nationalized healthcare was probably my favorite thing about him.
Because that's what help makes insurance affordable for everyone else.
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
Things are relative.
No, the ACA is not a progressive wet dream, especially without the public option and with a bunch of states skipping the Medicaid expansion.
That doesn't mean it wasn't a huge accomplishment, and much better than what we had before, an even less regulated and even more privatized healthcare system.
Just because it's a huge accomplishment doesn't mean it's a progressive policy
it's a conservative wet dream from the 1990s, that doesn't mean it's not an improvement but it's about as far from progressive as possible while still keeping the train on the tracks
the ACA saved my niece's life, I am a HUGE SUPPORTER of it, but shining a light on it as being progressive is laughable
The ACA isn't perfect and isn't ideal. It also isn't what was originally being talked about at the time, it's compromised and weak. It was suppose to do more, originally it would have done more. As it was passed it would have done more.
But unfortunately we had a very very tenuous 60 vote majority at the time, and that included too many hold out votes that had to be appeased in the short window we actually had to get it passed.
Yeah, the ACA isn't the end game. The ACA wasn't the goal at the time. But either way it was a huge help to millions of people. Pretending like it wasn't gets in the way of progress, it doesn't embolden it.
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
You get that half the country is opposed to deprivatizing any industry right? That a notable section of that group is violently opposed to it?
Like as much as I'm down for public control of many sectors I can understand that 1 some people are opposed to it and 2 some of those opposed to it do so not for personal gain but due to ideological purity.
Regulated, but privatized, is like the best we can do here as of right now.
The ACA isn't perfect and isn't ideal. It also isn't what was originally being talked about at the time, it's compromised and weak. It was suppose to do more, originally it would have done more. As it was passed it would have done more.
But unfortunately we had a very very tenuous 60 vote majority at the time, and that included too many hold out votes that had to be appeased in the short window we actually had to get it passed.
Yeah, the ACA isn't the end game. The ACA wasn't the goal at the time. But either way it was a huge help to millions of people. Pretending like it wasn't gets in the way of progress, it doesn't embolden it.
Not a progressive piece of legislation does not equal getting in the way of progress
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
I'm willing to accept the idea that it was a foot in the door on health care, but it has always confused me that liberals seem happy with the ACA as-is for exactly this reason.
Not so much happy as able to acknowledge it as nominally better than the previous situation.
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
You get that half the country is opposed to deprivatizing any industry right? That a notable section of that group is violently opposed to it?
Like as much as I'm down for public control of many sectors I can understand that 1 some people are opposed to it and 2 some of those opposed to it do so not for personal gain but due to ideological purity.
Regulated, but privatized, is like the best we can do here as of right now.
We'll never know because "single payer" was never even mentioned in hushed whispers
we might have even gotten the public option if it had been, but we'll never know (although I'm sure you're going to say that without a shadow of a doubt it was a good idea to start with a compromise)
When the President nominates SCOTUS justices and there would be very different justices appointed under a Republican president, I do not see how it strains credulity to give the party some credit for that.
Yes it strains credulity to call SCOTUS rulings "democratic policies" I'm sorry
It is a democratic policy to not appoint Scalias. The choices of who to appoint have huge effects. That the party does not write the decisions does not change that and saying indirect stuff does not count is ludicrous because much of the biggest stuff parties can do are through indirect means.
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
You get that half the country is opposed to deprivatizing any industry right? That a notable section of that group is violently opposed to it?
Like as much as I'm down for public control of many sectors I can understand that 1 some people are opposed to it and 2 some of those opposed to it do so not for personal gain but due to ideological purity.
Regulated, but privatized, is like the best we can do here as of right now.
We'll never know because "single payer" was never even mentioned in hushed whispers
we might have even gotten the public option if it had been, but we'll never know (although I'm sure you're going to say that without a shadow of a doubt it was a good idea to start with a compromise)
Wouldn't have mattered, aside from being a stronger argument to bargain down with. We barely got the ACA, we were never going to get single payer.
The ACA isn't perfect and isn't ideal. It also isn't what was originally being talked about at the time, it's compromised and weak. It was suppose to do more, originally it would have done more. As it was passed it would have done more.
But unfortunately we had a very very tenuous 60 vote majority at the time, and that included too many hold out votes that had to be appeased in the short window we actually had to get it passed.
Yeah, the ACA isn't the end game. The ACA wasn't the goal at the time. But either way it was a huge help to millions of people. Pretending like it wasn't gets in the way of progress, it doesn't embolden it.
Not a progressive piece of legislation does not equal getting in the way of progress
No, but saying it wasn't designed to help poor people, saying that the Democratic party doesn't help poor people does.
the ACA does fuck all for poor people and it wasn't designed to, just like the rest of the Democratic party it's for middle class and upper middle class people because they vote
This ignores the reality of the legislative branch and the difference between the ACA as it was conceived and pitched vs the reality of what was able to be passed. And then uses people working damn hard to get something compromised but significantly better through as a cheap shot at the Dem party.
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
You get that half the country is opposed to deprivatizing any industry right? That a notable section of that group is violently opposed to it?
Like as much as I'm down for public control of many sectors I can understand that 1 some people are opposed to it and 2 some of those opposed to it do so not for personal gain but due to ideological purity.
Regulated, but privatized, is like the best we can do here as of right now.
We'll never know because "single payer" was never even mentioned in hushed whispers
we might have even gotten the public option if it had been, but we'll never know (although I'm sure you're going to say that without a shadow of a doubt it was a good idea to start with a compromise)
Wouldn't have mattered, aside from being a stronger argument to bargain down with. We barely got the ACA, we were never going to get single payer.
Like I said, I'm not sure, but one thing's for sure, Democrats have the ability to see all possible timelines and this is why they never stake out a position that might be controversial within their own electorate - because it would clearly be ruinous to do so
it's why they weren't sure about whether or not gays were people until a few years ago
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
You get that half the country is opposed to deprivatizing any industry right? That a notable section of that group is violently opposed to it?
Like as much as I'm down for public control of many sectors I can understand that 1 some people are opposed to it and 2 some of those opposed to it do so not for personal gain but due to ideological purity.
Regulated, but privatized, is like the best we can do here as of right now.
We'll never know because "single payer" was never even mentioned in hushed whispers
we might have even gotten the public option if it had been, but we'll never know (although I'm sure you're going to say that without a shadow of a doubt it was a good idea to start with a compromise)
Wouldn't have mattered, aside from being a stronger argument to bargain down with. We barely got the ACA, we were never going to get single payer.
I hate this mentality. Single payer healthcare will not be given to us. We have to struggle and fight for it.
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
You get that half the country is opposed to deprivatizing any industry right? That a notable section of that group is violently opposed to it?
Like as much as I'm down for public control of many sectors I can understand that 1 some people are opposed to it and 2 some of those opposed to it do so not for personal gain but due to ideological purity.
Regulated, but privatized, is like the best we can do here as of right now.
We'll never know because "single payer" was never even mentioned in hushed whispers
we might have even gotten the public option if it had been, but we'll never know (although I'm sure you're going to say that without a shadow of a doubt it was a good idea to start with a compromise)
Wouldn't have mattered, aside from being a stronger argument to bargain down with. We barely got the ACA, we were never going to get single payer.
I hate this mentality. Single payer healthcare will not be given to us. We have to struggle and fight for it.
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
You get that half the country is opposed to deprivatizing any industry right? That a notable section of that group is violently opposed to it?
Like as much as I'm down for public control of many sectors I can understand that 1 some people are opposed to it and 2 some of those opposed to it do so not for personal gain but due to ideological purity.
Regulated, but privatized, is like the best we can do here as of right now.
We'll never know because "single payer" was never even mentioned in hushed whispers
we might have even gotten the public option if it had been, but we'll never know (although I'm sure you're going to say that without a shadow of a doubt it was a good idea to start with a compromise)
Wouldn't have mattered, aside from being a stronger argument to bargain down with. We barely got the ACA, we were never going to get single payer.
I hate this mentality. Single payer healthcare will not be given to us. We have to struggle and fight for it.
Nobody is saying to stop fighting for UHC though.
That's what was just said
"Why didn't Obama even try for single payer"
"Because he wouldn't have gotten it"
oh so...
when exactly are you supposed to fight for it?
I tend to think that Obama didn't fight for it because he didn't want it. Every single one of Obama's economic proposals since the day he took office has been a pretty conservative proposal. The stimulus was 400 billion dollars in tax cuts. His proposed jobs bill the Republicans killed was pretty market oriented.
I mean it's all well written, sane stuff that I wish our actual conservative party favored, but I'm pretty sure Obama actually believes in it
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
You get that half the country is opposed to deprivatizing any industry right? That a notable section of that group is violently opposed to it?
Like as much as I'm down for public control of many sectors I can understand that 1 some people are opposed to it and 2 some of those opposed to it do so not for personal gain but due to ideological purity.
Regulated, but privatized, is like the best we can do here as of right now.
We'll never know because "single payer" was never even mentioned in hushed whispers
we might have even gotten the public option if it had been, but we'll never know (although I'm sure you're going to say that without a shadow of a doubt it was a good idea to start with a compromise)
Wouldn't have mattered, aside from being a stronger argument to bargain down with. We barely got the ACA, we were never going to get single payer.
I hate this mentality. Single payer healthcare will not be given to us. We have to struggle and fight for it.
Nobody is saying to stop fighting for UHC though.
I would like to take this time to remind people that Single Payer isn't UHC and UHC isn't single payer.
We can achieve UHC without single payer and single payer doesn't necessarily mean we have UHC (it's likely, but not guaranteed).
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
You get that half the country is opposed to deprivatizing any industry right? That a notable section of that group is violently opposed to it?
Like as much as I'm down for public control of many sectors I can understand that 1 some people are opposed to it and 2 some of those opposed to it do so not for personal gain but due to ideological purity.
Regulated, but privatized, is like the best we can do here as of right now.
We'll never know because "single payer" was never even mentioned in hushed whispers
we might have even gotten the public option if it had been, but we'll never know (although I'm sure you're going to say that without a shadow of a doubt it was a good idea to start with a compromise)
Wouldn't have mattered, aside from being a stronger argument to bargain down with. We barely got the ACA, we were never going to get single payer.
I hate this mentality. Single payer healthcare will not be given to us. We have to struggle and fight for it.
And eventually you may get it.
But it was not in the cards during Obama's 1st term (even less so during the 2nd).
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Praise past victories, even when they are not everything you wanted, and then go on to fight for even more.
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
You get that half the country is opposed to deprivatizing any industry right? That a notable section of that group is violently opposed to it?
Like as much as I'm down for public control of many sectors I can understand that 1 some people are opposed to it and 2 some of those opposed to it do so not for personal gain but due to ideological purity.
Regulated, but privatized, is like the best we can do here as of right now.
We'll never know because "single payer" was never even mentioned in hushed whispers
we might have even gotten the public option if it had been, but we'll never know (although I'm sure you're going to say that without a shadow of a doubt it was a good idea to start with a compromise)
Wouldn't have mattered, aside from being a stronger argument to bargain down with. We barely got the ACA, we were never going to get single payer.
I hate this mentality. Single payer healthcare will not be given to us. We have to struggle and fight for it.
Nobody is saying to stop fighting for UHC though.
That's what was just said
"Why didn't Obama even try for single payer"
"Because he wouldn't have gotten it"
oh so...
when exactly are you supposed to fight for it?
Through primaries, elections, and lobbying to get a legislative body that might actually pass it. Sending it out to die in a legislative session is pretty worthless.
The ACA is at best a center-right approach to healthcare policy.
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
You get that half the country is opposed to deprivatizing any industry right? That a notable section of that group is violently opposed to it?
Like as much as I'm down for public control of many sectors I can understand that 1 some people are opposed to it and 2 some of those opposed to it do so not for personal gain but due to ideological purity.
Regulated, but privatized, is like the best we can do here as of right now.
We'll never know because "single payer" was never even mentioned in hushed whispers
we might have even gotten the public option if it had been, but we'll never know (although I'm sure you're going to say that without a shadow of a doubt it was a good idea to start with a compromise)
Wouldn't have mattered, aside from being a stronger argument to bargain down with. We barely got the ACA, we were never going to get single payer.
I hate this mentality. Single payer healthcare will not be given to us. We have to struggle and fight for it.
Nobody is saying to stop fighting for UHC though.
That's what was just said
"Why didn't Obama even try for single payer"
"Because he wouldn't have gotten it"
oh so...
when exactly are you supposed to fight for it?
Before the public option was removed, the ACA was suppose to act as a foot in the door towards single payer (or at least towards UHC). The US population is ridiculously untrusting of the state. The movement towards single payer either needs to wait (as in, work on informing and changing the minds of the US) for that to change, or needs to be slipped in as just an option in our current system and then grown out as the benefits of a fed run system are demonstrated.
When the President nominates SCOTUS justices and there would be very different justices appointed under a Republican president, I do not see how it strains credulity to give the party some credit for that.
Yes it strains credulity to call SCOTUS rulings "democratic policies" I'm sorry
No it doesn't. What the ... are you listening to yourself? The whole reason Scalia has not been replaced is exactly because SCOTUS rulings are heavily partisan on alot of key issues. It's why "Win the presidency to get those SCOTUS appointments" is a big rallying cry for many. Whoever gets to nominate a SCOTUS justice, especially in a key position like the one Scalia left open, is 100% about getting their party's policies and views enshrined in law via SCOTUS rulings. To think otherwise is to be somehow completely missing the point of why people pay attention to this stuff.
Democrats want to expand the franchise, Republicans to curtail it. The VRA was gutted because SCOTUS at the time was 4+1 right-wingers. That's GOP policy all up in your face because they got those appointments.
UHC is nowhere near as popular among voters as basic gun control measures.
And, yeah, no doubt we would all like Democratic party to do things with different order of priority.
But just because they are unwilling to mash their head against the wall for your pet issue, is not the same as not wanting it.
Posts
Well, there's the ACA for starters.
The military allows gay Americans to openly serve, and is about to allow transgender Americans to do so as well.
Federal contractors have to pay higher minimum wages or lose their contracts.
Thanks to appointments to the courts by Obama, affirmative action and abortion have been affirmatively protected by the courts.
That's just off the top of my head.
Same sex benefits to federal employees and then same sex marriage
Normalized with Cuba
Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Act
Open LGBT service in the military and female equality in combat roles
Ended abstinence only
Ended the crack-cocaine disparity
Reduced federal prison population
ARRA included many progressive programs including 5 billion for early education, 18 billion for civilian research, and a lot more
Expanded Pell Grants
DAPA and DACA
Regulated Carbon Dioxide as a health hazard in the EPA
Provided 8 billion to provided broadband infrastructure in poor and rural areas
Ended the ban on embryonic stem cell research and funded it
and I could go on but all you really need is the fucking Affordable Care Act
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
the ACA does fuck all for poor people and it wasn't designed to, just like the rest of the Democratic party it's for middle class and upper middle class people because they vote
I am a huge supporter of the ACA, I think it's borderline laughable to call it progressive but it's definitely keeping America's healthcare system from falling off a cliff for a few years (Obama really did try to do better, even if I think he spent way too much time trying to court Republicans)
Middle and upper class people already had health insurance.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It honestly surprises that you point to a regulated but privatized healthcare system as the example of how progressive the DNC is. This perspective (which I would say is dominant in the Democratic Party) reminds me of why I supported Sanders.
Poor people are in exactly the same position as before, go use the ER, except now a health insurance company is getting $200 a month on their behalf
I'm willing to accept the idea that it was a foot in the door on health care, but it has always confused me that liberals seem happy with the ACA as-is for exactly this reason.
What? Besides the changes caused by rulings from the courts to make it truly voluntary from states, the medicaid expansion to cover people below 133% of the poverty line does a whole hell of a lot for poor people.
Because as this fight has shown me, the Democrats ARE pretty right wing on economic policy
Clinton destroyed the safety net in this country and left it up to states to stitch together an alternative and he's the Democratic Reagan
Yes it strains credulity to call SCOTUS rulings "democratic policies" I'm sorry
Do you live in a state that participated in the Medicare expansion?
The medicaid expansion is real in most places and the subsidies are real. Saying they are in the same position as before is hyperbole at best.
Things are relative.
No, the ACA is not a progressive wet dream, especially without the public option and with a bunch of states skipping the Medicaid expansion.
That doesn't mean it wasn't a huge accomplishment, and much better than what we had before, an even less regulated and even more privatized healthcare system.
Ugh. Sanders' constant advocacy for nationalized healthcare was probably my favorite thing about him.
edit - I guess right now I can afford it because the factory I work overnights at is giving me tons of overtime. But I don't really want to have to work 60hrs a week overnights at a factory in order to pay off debt and afford healthcare! Where's my union? Oh, right, shattered by globalized capitalism.
Well I don't need to use a nebulous "They", I am poor as are a lot of my family members, and we're in the exact same position as before yes
I can't afford to use my subsidized health insurance, and when I get a good job I won't need the subsidized health insurance
Because that's what help makes insurance affordable for everyone else.
Just because it's a huge accomplishment doesn't mean it's a progressive policy
it's a conservative wet dream from the 1990s, that doesn't mean it's not an improvement but it's about as far from progressive as possible while still keeping the train on the tracks
the ACA saved my niece's life, I am a HUGE SUPPORTER of it, but shining a light on it as being progressive is laughable
But unfortunately we had a very very tenuous 60 vote majority at the time, and that included too many hold out votes that had to be appeased in the short window we actually had to get it passed.
Yeah, the ACA isn't the end game. The ACA wasn't the goal at the time. But either way it was a huge help to millions of people. Pretending like it wasn't gets in the way of progress, it doesn't embolden it.
You get that half the country is opposed to deprivatizing any industry right? That a notable section of that group is violently opposed to it?
Like as much as I'm down for public control of many sectors I can understand that 1 some people are opposed to it and 2 some of those opposed to it do so not for personal gain but due to ideological purity.
Regulated, but privatized, is like the best we can do here as of right now.
Not a progressive piece of legislation does not equal getting in the way of progress
Not so much happy as able to acknowledge it as nominally better than the previous situation.
We'll never know because "single payer" was never even mentioned in hushed whispers
we might have even gotten the public option if it had been, but we'll never know (although I'm sure you're going to say that without a shadow of a doubt it was a good idea to start with a compromise)
It is a democratic policy to not appoint Scalias. The choices of who to appoint have huge effects. That the party does not write the decisions does not change that and saying indirect stuff does not count is ludicrous because much of the biggest stuff parties can do are through indirect means.
Wouldn't have mattered, aside from being a stronger argument to bargain down with. We barely got the ACA, we were never going to get single payer.
No, but saying it wasn't designed to help poor people, saying that the Democratic party doesn't help poor people does.
This ignores the reality of the legislative branch and the difference between the ACA as it was conceived and pitched vs the reality of what was able to be passed. And then uses people working damn hard to get something compromised but significantly better through as a cheap shot at the Dem party.
Like I said, I'm not sure, but one thing's for sure, Democrats have the ability to see all possible timelines and this is why they never stake out a position that might be controversial within their own electorate - because it would clearly be ruinous to do so
it's why they weren't sure about whether or not gays were people until a few years ago
Nobody is saying to stop fighting for UHC though.
That's what was just said
"Why didn't Obama even try for single payer"
"Because he wouldn't have gotten it"
oh so...
when exactly are you supposed to fight for it?
I tend to think that Obama didn't fight for it because he didn't want it. Every single one of Obama's economic proposals since the day he took office has been a pretty conservative proposal. The stimulus was 400 billion dollars in tax cuts. His proposed jobs bill the Republicans killed was pretty market oriented.
I mean it's all well written, sane stuff that I wish our actual conservative party favored, but I'm pretty sure Obama actually believes in it
I would like to take this time to remind people that Single Payer isn't UHC and UHC isn't single payer.
We can achieve UHC without single payer and single payer doesn't necessarily mean we have UHC (it's likely, but not guaranteed).
But it was not in the cards during Obama's 1st term (even less so during the 2nd).
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Praise past victories, even when they are not everything you wanted, and then go on to fight for even more.
Through primaries, elections, and lobbying to get a legislative body that might actually pass it. Sending it out to die in a legislative session is pretty worthless.
not only does it have no political capital and no chance of passing, it also wouldn't make a difference if it did pass
Before the public option was removed, the ACA was suppose to act as a foot in the door towards single payer (or at least towards UHC). The US population is ridiculously untrusting of the state. The movement towards single payer either needs to wait (as in, work on informing and changing the minds of the US) for that to change, or needs to be slipped in as just an option in our current system and then grown out as the benefits of a fed run system are demonstrated.
Sorry, what are you wanting, progressive policies or not?
I don't actually understand what you're asking
edit: I would like the Democratic party to push as often and as loudly for UHC of some sort as they do for gun control
the fact that they don't indicates to me they aren't actually interested in it
Or how about an increase in food stamps? Bringing welfare back?
No it doesn't. What the ... are you listening to yourself? The whole reason Scalia has not been replaced is exactly because SCOTUS rulings are heavily partisan on alot of key issues. It's why "Win the presidency to get those SCOTUS appointments" is a big rallying cry for many. Whoever gets to nominate a SCOTUS justice, especially in a key position like the one Scalia left open, is 100% about getting their party's policies and views enshrined in law via SCOTUS rulings. To think otherwise is to be somehow completely missing the point of why people pay attention to this stuff.
Democrats want to expand the franchise, Republicans to curtail it. The VRA was gutted because SCOTUS at the time was 4+1 right-wingers. That's GOP policy all up in your face because they got those appointments.
And, yeah, no doubt we would all like Democratic party to do things with different order of priority.
But just because they are unwilling to mash their head against the wall for your pet issue, is not the same as not wanting it.