The whole "but republicans will oppose you" is so weird like oh are we only pursuing policies the GOP will support now?
It's weird to take stock in the biggest opposition that would like to put a bullet through any good healthcare legislation? They're not going to roll over for us on this, they have to be fought. Hard.
We have to do our best to get the best healthcare bills through congress, and sometimes that requires compromise otherwise we're stuck with the status quo. ACA passed, Public Option and Single Payer did not because of the above. And it's not just the Republicans, it's the corrupt and conservative wings in the Dems who can block it.
I mean ultimately the core of these arguments boils down to "What you want is impossible, so make do with the hell you live in."
Which like... literally most every other industrialized nation says is bunk. But somehow America is magically... anti-special I guess?
If this is bunk why didn't we get the Pubic Option or Single Payer during Obama's term? Why is America on the losing side in healthcare compared to the western world?
Yes, and even in those countries those rules still apply to pass bills. This is politics 101. Unless you're able to get enough votes to ignore that, but then again we haven't been lucky enough to have those conditions in congress for healthcare bills, its usually on the edge with one or two votes between a bill becoming law and getting nothing. Then there's the POTUS veto and VP to account for if we don't hold the White House.
The whole "but republicans will oppose you" is so weird like oh are we only pursuing policies the GOP will support now?
It's weird to take stock in the biggest opposition that would like to put a bullet through any good healthcare legislation? They're not going to roll over for us on this, they have to be fought. Hard.
We have to do our best to get the best healthcare bills through congress, and sometimes that requires compromise otherwise we're stuck with the status quo. ACA passed, Public Option and Single Payer did not because of the above. And it's not just the Republicans, it's the corrupt and conservative wings in the Dems who can block it.
Harry we're all fully cognizant of the GOP's existence in the US government.
The whole "but republicans will oppose you" is so weird like oh are we only pursuing policies the GOP will support now?
It's weird to take stock in the biggest opposition that would like to put a bullet through any good healthcare legislation? They're not going to roll over for us on this, they have to be fought. Hard.
We have to do our best to get the best healthcare bills through congress, and sometimes that requires compromise otherwise we're stuck with the status quo. ACA passed, Public Option and Single Payer did not because of the above. And it's not just the Republicans, it's the corrupt and conservative wings in the Dems who can block it.
I mean ultimately the core of these arguments boils down to "What you want is impossible, so make do with the hell you live in."
Which like... literally most every other industrialized nation says is bunk. But somehow America is magically... anti-special I guess?
If this is bunk why didn't we get the Pubic Option or Single Payer during Obama's term? Why is America on the losing side in healthcare compared to the western world?
Yes, and even in those countries those rules still apply to pass bills. This is politics 101. Unless you're able to get enough votes to ignore that, but then again we haven't been lucky enough to have those conditions in congress for healthcare bills, its usually on the edge with one or two votes between a bill becoming law and getting nothing. Then there's the POTUS veto and VP to account for if we don't hold the White House.
Because the history of America is literally one of Wealthy Assholes Who Control Everything having every last bit of power wrested away from them to the people in fits and starts while they cling onto every single inch they can, including by manipulating the levers of power via financial influence over the representatives of the republic.
Again Harry, you really really don't need to lecture us about parliamentary procedure. I'm pretty sure just about everyone in the thread understands the machinations of US lawmaking; it's not as if the only reason we disagree with you is because we just don't understand this shit.
"Something has not happened yet, therefore it cannot possibly happen"?
I believe in the probable, not the impossible. Might we somehow get a congress like that in the future? Maybe, but we're nowhere near that day. That requires immense planning and gaining political capital, which doesn't happen over night and relies on numerous factors working out which usually don't as history shows us. Show me this actually working and I'll be fighting along with you, however, until then there's a reason this is all talk on a video game message board and not happening in congress this year.
Polling counts is a measure for citizens, but in congress voting is where it counts. We've never had a program like MfA get the votes to pass. It won't even pass Single Payer or the Public Option in congress. Ignore the polling, focus on getting those votes. Those are facts, not special pleading. This is the rule, not the exception.
Harry when I cited MfA's support I was responding to you talking about "america's culture", this Deepak Sorkin shit is ridiculous.
Which accounts for something, but it is not enough to pass congress - which is where bills like this will be implemented in the real world.
Also again, for the record given recent news, I would like to point out one of the people working on the laws in question bases his decision making on consulting an imaginary concept of two suburban Long Islanders.
The whole "but republicans will oppose you" is so weird like oh are we only pursuing policies the GOP will support now?
It's weird to take stock in the biggest opposition that would like to put a bullet through any good healthcare legislation? They're not going to roll over for us on this, they have to be fought. Hard.
We have to do our best to get the best healthcare bills through congress, and sometimes that requires compromise otherwise we're stuck with the status quo. ACA passed, Public Option and Single Payer did not because of the above. And it's not just the Republicans, it's the corrupt and conservative wings in the Dems who can block it.
Harry we're all fully cognizant of the GOP's existence in the US government.
We should treat the republicans like they treat us. Use every tool at our disposal to oppose them when they try to stop up from passing healthcare legislation, have a unified opposition to their ideas, and vote in lock step.
If we don't succeed immediately, we can try not giving up on all of our ideals and collapsing, we keep trying until we have a big enough majority to get what we want.
Basically treat healthcare like other things, we don't compromise with the republicans on whether or not mexicans are rapists and murderers just because they're in charge after all. If we get a chance to pass anything at any level, state, local, federal, whatever, that gets us closer to our ultimate goal, we take it.
The whole "but republicans will oppose you" is so weird like oh are we only pursuing policies the GOP will support now?
It's weird to take stock in the biggest opposition that would like to put a bullet through any good healthcare legislation? They're not going to roll over for us on this, they have to be fought. Hard.
We have to do our best to get the best healthcare bills through congress, and sometimes that requires compromise otherwise we're stuck with the status quo. ACA passed, Public Option and Single Payer did not because of the above. And it's not just the Republicans, it's the corrupt and conservative wings in the Dems who can block it.
Harry we're all fully cognizant of the GOP's existence in the US government.
Yet you're not accounting for how tough they'll be to get this through with their opposition. Or those within the Dems who will water it down or block it. If they were that weak we'd have already have bills like M4A decades ago, but we're not.
Like to be clear here, talk about ensuring "access" is a red flag multi-alarm fire as far as I'm concerned. Its the loser language of the status quo.
You'll never beat the status quo if you don't knowledge its strengths and weaknesses. There's a reason the status quo hasn't been overruled on this subject and why didn't get Single Payer or Pubic Opinion in the ACA.
The whole "but republicans will oppose you" is so weird like oh are we only pursuing policies the GOP will support now?
It's weird to take stock in the biggest opposition that would like to put a bullet through any good healthcare legislation? They're not going to roll over for us on this, they have to be fought. Hard.
We have to do our best to get the best healthcare bills through congress, and sometimes that requires compromise otherwise we're stuck with the status quo. ACA passed, Public Option and Single Payer did not because of the above. And it's not just the Republicans, it's the corrupt and conservative wings in the Dems who can block it.
Harry we're all fully cognizant of the GOP's existence in the US government.
Yet you're not accounting for how tough they'll be to get this through with their opposition. Or those within the Dems who will water it down or block it. If they were that weak we'd have already have bills like M4A decades ago, but we're not.
Like to be clear here, talk about ensuring "access" is a red flag multi-alarm fire as far as I'm concerned. Its the loser language of the status quo.
You'll never beat the status quo if you don't knowledge its strengths and weaknesses. There's a reason the status quo hasn't been overruled on this subject and why didn't get Single Payer or Pubic Opinion in the ACA.
Being wishy washy on our stance on healthcare because we're afraid of scaring moderates is why Democrats stay home because they're unenthused
Edit: That isnt to say we shouldnt take literally any piecemeal legislation along the way that we can get, we should, anything that moves us closer to the goal - but having that goal is a thing that is important, and not being shy about it
Stop Supporting Shitty Democrats, if Shitty Democrats are part of the problem?
Like
Maybe primary them with Good Democrats, who are not Shit?
We have, they're still there.
There will always be some assholes blocking shit like this, you have deal with it. There are many conservative areas in the US which elect these politicians, they're not going extinct any time soon as much as I'd like them to. This is where compromise come in, otherwise they'll block any bills like said healthcare. Without votes like Liebermann or Scepter we wouldn't have even gotten the ACA, for example.
Stop Supporting Shitty Democrats, if Shitty Democrats are part of the problem?
Like
Maybe primary them with Good Democrats, who are not Shit?
We have, they're still there.
There will always be some assholes blocking shit like this, you have deal with it. There are many conservative areas in the US which elect these politicians, they're not going extinct any time soon as much as I'd like them to. This is where compromise come in, otherwise they'll block any bills like said healthcare. Without votes like Liebermann or Scepter we wouldn't have even gotten the ACA, for example.
No Hope No Future, a message we can all rally around.
Harry do you have any argument that isn't just "This is the best we can ever do?"
Because honestly, whether you've intended it or not that kind of feels like the theme to your posts. And at this point I don't know how to respond to it anymore.
EDIT: Like, no matter what I source, argue or find, all I'm getting back here is "Joseph Lieberman and Republicans and Conservative areas of the country"
Lanz on
+8
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited December 2018
Primary shitty Democrats, pressure and oust Republicans; target any politician who refuses to fight for M4A and win.
Pressure their donors. Organize in your communities and hold protests at the homes of politicians, donors, lobbyists, media figures, and anyone else who's cynically working to maintain the violence of the status quo. Identify and broadcast local demands, etc for representatives to hold town halls and explain to their constituents why they're not doing their jobs and who they're actually beholden to. Occupy offices and other infrastructure such that normal business can't be conducted until those demands are met or until you're arrested.
There are innumerable ways to advocate for universal coverage beyond "hope Dems (who don't want it) defeat Republicans (who don't want it) and then give it to us"
Stop Supporting Shitty Democrats, if Shitty Democrats are part of the problem?
Like
Maybe primary them with Good Democrats, who are not Shit?
We have, they're still there.
There will always be some assholes blocking shit like this, you have deal with it. There are many conservative areas in the US which elect these politicians, they're not going extinct any time soon as much as I'd like them to. This is where compromise come in, otherwise they'll block any bills like said healthcare. Without votes like Liebermann or Scepter we wouldn't have even gotten the ACA, for example.
No Hope No Future, a message we can all rally around.
I didn't say there wasn't any hope, merely acknowledging the reality we live in. Ignoring that they exist won't suddenly make M4A appear in congress fully voted for, you have to actually fight hard for it within congress itself. A lot has to go right for this to happen, but first you have to realise what forces you're working against and prepare for them.
Rallying around false hope gets us nothing, it's why must manage expectations and change the status quo as much as we can to get what we want while knowing our limits.
Stop Supporting Shitty Democrats, if Shitty Democrats are part of the problem?
Like
Maybe primary them with Good Democrats, who are not Shit?
We have, they're still there.
There will always be some assholes blocking shit like this, you have deal with it. There are many conservative areas in the US which elect these politicians, they're not going extinct any time soon as much as I'd like them to. This is where compromise come in, otherwise they'll block any bills like said healthcare. Without votes like Liebermann or Scepter we wouldn't have even gotten the ACA, for example.
No Hope No Future, a message we can all rally around.
I didn't say there wasn't any hope, merely acknowledging the reality we live in. Ignoring that they exist won't suddenly make M4A appear in congress fully voted for, you have to actually fight hard for it within congress itself. A lot has to go right for this to happen, but first you have to realise what forces you're working against and prepare for them.
Rallying around false hope gets us nothing, it's why must manage expectations and change the status quo as much as we can to get what we want while knowing our limits.
But you never venture a suggestion as to how to change the status quo.
You just keep talking about the status quo being the status quo.
EDIT: Like, no matter what I source, argue or find, all I'm getting back here is "Joseph Lieberman and Republicans and Conservative areas of the country"
Because this is a consistent obstacle to overcome to getting healthcare. If you can't find a way to neutralise them politically, we're going to be forced to compromise to get anything. I'm puzzled why this isn't a big priority for you with healthcare - take them out of equation and you get everything you wish.
Stop Supporting Shitty Democrats, if Shitty Democrats are part of the problem?
Like
Maybe primary them with Good Democrats, who are not Shit?
We have, they're still there.
There will always be some assholes blocking shit like this, you have deal with it. There are many conservative areas in the US which elect these politicians, they're not going extinct any time soon as much as I'd like them to. This is where compromise come in, otherwise they'll block any bills like said healthcare. Without votes like Liebermann or Scepter we wouldn't have even gotten the ACA, for example.
No Hope No Future, a message we can all rally around.
I didn't say there wasn't any hope, merely acknowledging the reality we live in. Ignoring that they exist won't suddenly make M4A appear in congress fully voted for, you have to actually fight hard for it within congress itself. A lot has to go right for this to happen, but first you have to realise what forces you're working against and prepare for them.
Rallying around false hope gets us nothing, it's why must manage expectations and change the status quo as much as we can to get what we want while knowing our limits.
You have to decide that either you're the serious one who lives in reality or broad bipartisan voter support for MfA doesn't matter, you can't have both.
EDIT: Like, no matter what I source, argue or find, all I'm getting back here is "Joseph Lieberman and Republicans and Conservative areas of the country"
Because this is a consistent obstacle to overcome to getting healthcare. If you can't find a way to neutralise them politically, we're going to be forced to compromise to get anything. I'm puzzled why this isn't a big priority for you with healthcare - take them out of equation and you get everything you wish.
What is the thing you are advocating here? People know how to vote and how to vote in primaries, I'd bet many or most of those participating in this discussion do so. Voting conservatives out of government is obviously a priority to leftists and UHC supporters generally, I don't know where this apparent assumption that people are unaware of Congress comes from.
But you never venture a suggestion as to how to change the status quo.
You just keep talking about the status quo being the status quo.
Because I don't know how to yet, and neither does anyone else.
Because it's not going away any time soon from the healthcare debate. Why would ignore the status quo while talking about healthcare? What good does that serve?
You have to decide that either you're the serious one who lives in reality or broad bipartisan voter support for MfA doesn't matter, you can't have both.
The former, since I can't live anywhere else. Broad partisan support exists, just not in congress - the place we need to pass said healthcare bill. It's kind of important to pass legislation. Broad partisan support in congress isn't a thing.
What is the thing you are advocating here? People know how to vote and how to vote in primaries, I'd bet many or most of those participating in this discussion do so. Voting conservatives out of government is obviously a priority to leftists and UHC supporters generally, I don't know where this apparent assumption that people are unaware of Congress comes from.
I'm not advocating anything, merely pointing out what we're up against. This opposition is constantly overlooked as a continuing, powerful threat to getting the healthcare they want.
What is the thing you are advocating here? People know how to vote and how to vote in primaries, I'd bet many or most of those participating in this discussion do so. Voting conservatives out of government is obviously a priority to leftists and UHC supporters generally, I don't know where this apparent assumption that people are unaware of Congress comes from.
I'm not advocating anything, merely pointing out what we're up against. This opposition is constantly overlooked as a continuing, powerful threat to getting the healthcare they want.
No one needs you to remind them every other page that the GOP is really bad and lots of existing Democrats don't support MfA. We're all fully aware and working to change it.
What is the thing you are advocating here? People know how to vote and how to vote in primaries, I'd bet many or most of those participating in this discussion do so. Voting conservatives out of government is obviously a priority to leftists and UHC supporters generally, I don't know where this apparent assumption that people are unaware of Congress comes from.
I'm not advocating anything, merely pointing out what we're up against. This opposition is constantly overlooked as a continuing, powerful threat to getting the healthcare they want.
We already know what we're up against Harry, we've known it for years now.
We are not ignoring the opposition, I promise you.
What is the thing you are advocating here? People know how to vote and how to vote in primaries, I'd bet many or most of those participating in this discussion do so. Voting conservatives out of government is obviously a priority to leftists and UHC supporters generally, I don't know where this apparent assumption that people are unaware of Congress comes from.
I'm not advocating anything, merely pointing out what we're up against. This opposition is constantly overlooked as a continuing, powerful threat to getting the healthcare they want.
But why do you think it's being overlooked? I don't understand why you think that most people advocating Medicare for All are unaware of the opposition to their cause.
I mean ultimately the core of these arguments boils down to "What you want is impossible, so make do with the hell you live in."
Which like... literally most every other industrialized nation says is bunk. But somehow America is magically... anti-special I guess?
The only thing special about the US is that a lot of people there believe in American Exceptionalism.
That one's always fun w. America is Very Exceptional, except when it comes to single payer healthcare, in which case America is Very Exceptionally Bad.
Well exceptionally bad is still exceptional. One could perhaps argue that America is simply too corrupt and rotten to achieve positive humanitarian goals. (Not that I think that is true.)
Of course, I think it is usually a case of less explicit normative judgement and more a case of a failure to accurately understand the (relation to the) rest of the world. To borrow a term, it is Cultural Narcissism, where the culture is so inward looking that it is incredibly hard for anyone to take a step back. It is both too focused on differences over commonalities ("well because of our larger population or freedom it won't work in America") and very willing to put itself as the measure of other countries ("failure of systems in other countries is due to their derivation from the US system, not the unique and exceptional traits of the specific country"). It is not just that America is better (though of course it is), it is that it is the only possible reference point.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I mean to repeat a point that gets overlooked a lot, MfA is wildly popular. Its political malpractice to act otherwise.
Unless that transmits into congressional votes it's irrelevant. Can't pass bills with polls.
Yes, that is why people should vote for representatives who would vote for it.
I am trying to understand your point but I come up with: "The positions and behaviour of current elected representatives are not like this, so they won't do the thing"
And that is true and also dumb. The whole point is to get representatives into power who will do the thing. The "make into law what the people want" bit of democracy. The transmitting of what people want into congressional votes, done by voting in those doing the votes. The point is to change the status quo by voting.
I can tell you one thing, if we don't pressure our leaders to support universal healthcare, it's reaaaaaaaaaaaalllyyy easy for them to make vague noises about healthcare and ignore the problem, given where political donations largely come from
Pressed by MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on whether he thinks it’s time for Democrats to unify around Medicare for All — which has the backing of 84 percent of Democratic voters — Schumer dodged, saying, “Look, Democrats are for universal access to healthcare, from one end of the party to the other.”
“We want more people covered, everyone covered; we want better healthcare at a lower cost. People have different views as to how to get there. Many are for Medicare for All, some are for Medicare buy-in, some are Medicare over 55, some are Medicaid buy-in, some are public option,” Schumer added. “I’m going to support a plan that can pass, and that can provide the best, cheapest healthcare for all Americans.”
Secretary: [pounding her clipboard] PRIMARY, PRIMARY, PRIMARY!
Cant wait for AOC to put him in a home
Seriously? Would you really rather Democratic leadership tell the party from the top down, “This is the plan,” as opposed to letting the grassroots decide which specific version they want through the 2020 primary?
I'd like to have leadership with a vision and a plan and who doesn't prattle about "access"
The point is that what you really want is leadership with your vision and plan. Which, yeah, who doesn't. But it's really not coherent to be all for the politics the grass-roots is pushing while also wishing leadership was taking a stronger hand here. Schumer's wishy-washy shit just means theirs room for people keep building the momentum for Medicare For All.
In general Schumer is pretty irrelevant for this stuff. Healthcare reform is not getting through the next Congress. His position is basically going to be whatever covers ass for his caucus, some of whom are still from some pretty red states. But ultimately, primary season is starting soon and it's going to be those people, the ones running to unseat Trump, that will define the Democratic position on healthcare for any Congress where such a thing has a possibility of occurring. We're basically just killing time listening to Schumer honestly. He's not that relevant here.
PS - Not that I'm against primarying Schumer btw. Go for it. I don't think it'll work but he's from fucking New York, there's no reason not to climb up his ass every primary season and try and shove him left.
Pressed by MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on whether he thinks it’s time for Democrats to unify around Medicare for All — which has the backing of 84 percent of Democratic voters — Schumer dodged, saying, “Look, Democrats are for universal access to healthcare, from one end of the party to the other.”
“We want more people covered, everyone covered; we want better healthcare at a lower cost. People have different views as to how to get there. Many are for Medicare for All, some are for Medicare buy-in, some are Medicare over 55, some are Medicaid buy-in, some are public option,” Schumer added. “I’m going to support a plan that can pass, and that can provide the best, cheapest healthcare for all Americans.”
Secretary: [pounding her clipboard] PRIMARY, PRIMARY, PRIMARY!
Cant wait for AOC to put him in a home
Seriously? Would you really rather Democratic leadership tell the party from the top down, “This is the plan,” as opposed to letting the grassroots decide which specific version they want through the 2020 primary?
I'd like to have leadership with a vision and a plan and who doesn't prattle about "access"
The point is that what you really want is leadership with your vision and plan. Which, yeah, who doesn't. But it's really not coherent to be all for the politics the grass-roots is pushing while also wishing leadership was taking a stronger hand here. Schumer's wishy-washy shit just means theirs room for people keep building the momentum for Medicare For All.
In general Schumer is pretty irrelevant for this stuff. Healthcare reform is not getting through the next Congress. His position is basically going to be whatever covers ass for his caucus, some of whom are still from some pretty red states. But ultimately, primary season is starting soon and it's going to be those people, the ones running to unseat Trump, that will define the Democratic position on healthcare for any Congress where such a thing has a possibility of occurring. We're basically just killing time listening to Schumer honestly. He's not that relevant here.
PS - Not that I'm against primarying Schumer btw. Go for it. I don't think it'll work but he's from fucking New York, there's no reason not to climb up his ass every primary season and try and shove him left.
Yeah no shit man. MfA isn't some grass roots niche thing though. I mean really, how many times do we have to pretend these people are actually on our side and just being clever before we get fucked again?
Posts
It's weird to take stock in the biggest opposition that would like to put a bullet through any good healthcare legislation? They're not going to roll over for us on this, they have to be fought. Hard.
We have to do our best to get the best healthcare bills through congress, and sometimes that requires compromise otherwise we're stuck with the status quo. ACA passed, Public Option and Single Payer did not because of the above. And it's not just the Republicans, it's the corrupt and conservative wings in the Dems who can block it.
If this is bunk why didn't we get the Pubic Option or Single Payer during Obama's term? Why is America on the losing side in healthcare compared to the western world?
Yes, and even in those countries those rules still apply to pass bills. This is politics 101. Unless you're able to get enough votes to ignore that, but then again we haven't been lucky enough to have those conditions in congress for healthcare bills, its usually on the edge with one or two votes between a bill becoming law and getting nothing. Then there's the POTUS veto and VP to account for if we don't hold the White House.
Harry we're all fully cognizant of the GOP's existence in the US government.
Because the history of America is literally one of Wealthy Assholes Who Control Everything having every last bit of power wrested away from them to the people in fits and starts while they cling onto every single inch they can, including by manipulating the levers of power via financial influence over the representatives of the republic.
Again Harry, you really really don't need to lecture us about parliamentary procedure. I'm pretty sure just about everyone in the thread understands the machinations of US lawmaking; it's not as if the only reason we disagree with you is because we just don't understand this shit.
I believe in the probable, not the impossible. Might we somehow get a congress like that in the future? Maybe, but we're nowhere near that day. That requires immense planning and gaining political capital, which doesn't happen over night and relies on numerous factors working out which usually don't as history shows us. Show me this actually working and I'll be fighting along with you, however, until then there's a reason this is all talk on a video game message board and not happening in congress this year.
Which accounts for something, but it is not enough to pass congress - which is where bills like this will be implemented in the real world.
We should treat the republicans like they treat us. Use every tool at our disposal to oppose them when they try to stop up from passing healthcare legislation, have a unified opposition to their ideas, and vote in lock step.
If we don't succeed immediately, we can try not giving up on all of our ideals and collapsing, we keep trying until we have a big enough majority to get what we want.
Basically treat healthcare like other things, we don't compromise with the republicans on whether or not mexicans are rapists and murderers just because they're in charge after all. If we get a chance to pass anything at any level, state, local, federal, whatever, that gets us closer to our ultimate goal, we take it.
Yet you're not accounting for how tough they'll be to get this through with their opposition. Or those within the Dems who will water it down or block it. If they were that weak we'd have already have bills like M4A decades ago, but we're not.
You'll never beat the status quo if you don't knowledge its strengths and weaknesses. There's a reason the status quo hasn't been overruled on this subject and why didn't get Single Payer or Pubic Opinion in the ACA.
I'm not engaging with Sun Tzu quotes harry
We could like
Stop Supporting Shitty Democrats, if Shitty Democrats are part of the problem?
Like
Maybe primary them with Good Democrats, who are not Shit?
Unless that transmits into congressional votes it's irrelevant. Can't pass bills with polls.
No, but polls can help light a fire under some asses when it comes to knowing what to support.
Key word being "some," of course.
Ha Ha! Plutocracy.
Edit: That isnt to say we shouldnt take literally any piecemeal legislation along the way that we can get, we should, anything that moves us closer to the goal - but having that goal is a thing that is important, and not being shy about it
[local representative democracy]
Schumer: [chanting] market choices, market choices-
Lobbyists: market choices, MARKET CHOICES
Americans: bankrupt due to 10k deductible.
We have, they're still there.
There will always be some assholes blocking shit like this, you have deal with it. There are many conservative areas in the US which elect these politicians, they're not going extinct any time soon as much as I'd like them to. This is where compromise come in, otherwise they'll block any bills like said healthcare. Without votes like Liebermann or Scepter we wouldn't have even gotten the ACA, for example.
No Hope No Future, a message we can all rally around.
Because honestly, whether you've intended it or not that kind of feels like the theme to your posts. And at this point I don't know how to respond to it anymore.
EDIT: Like, no matter what I source, argue or find, all I'm getting back here is "Joseph Lieberman and Republicans and Conservative areas of the country"
Pressure their donors. Organize in your communities and hold protests at the homes of politicians, donors, lobbyists, media figures, and anyone else who's cynically working to maintain the violence of the status quo. Identify and broadcast local demands, etc for representatives to hold town halls and explain to their constituents why they're not doing their jobs and who they're actually beholden to. Occupy offices and other infrastructure such that normal business can't be conducted until those demands are met or until you're arrested.
There are innumerable ways to advocate for universal coverage beyond "hope Dems (who don't want it) defeat Republicans (who don't want it) and then give it to us"
I didn't say there wasn't any hope, merely acknowledging the reality we live in. Ignoring that they exist won't suddenly make M4A appear in congress fully voted for, you have to actually fight hard for it within congress itself. A lot has to go right for this to happen, but first you have to realise what forces you're working against and prepare for them.
Rallying around false hope gets us nothing, it's why must manage expectations and change the status quo as much as we can to get what we want while knowing our limits.
But you never venture a suggestion as to how to change the status quo.
You just keep talking about the status quo being the status quo.
Because this is a consistent obstacle to overcome to getting healthcare. If you can't find a way to neutralise them politically, we're going to be forced to compromise to get anything. I'm puzzled why this isn't a big priority for you with healthcare - take them out of equation and you get everything you wish.
You have to decide that either you're the serious one who lives in reality or broad bipartisan voter support for MfA doesn't matter, you can't have both.
Because I don't know how to yet, and neither does anyone else.
Because it's not going away any time soon from the healthcare debate. Why would ignore the status quo while talking about healthcare? What good does that serve?
The former, since I can't live anywhere else. Broad partisan support exists, just not in congress - the place we need to pass said healthcare bill. It's kind of important to pass legislation. Broad partisan support in congress isn't a thing.
This is all so dumb
I'm not advocating anything, merely pointing out what we're up against. This opposition is constantly overlooked as a continuing, powerful threat to getting the healthcare they want.
No one needs you to remind them every other page that the GOP is really bad and lots of existing Democrats don't support MfA. We're all fully aware and working to change it.
We already know what we're up against Harry, we've known it for years now.
We are not ignoring the opposition, I promise you.
EDIT: Like, if I'm being an ass here, I'm sorry
but
just
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
*gazes at marijuana legislation changing almost in real time nationwide*
*gets homosexually married*
I just don't see how overwhelming public support is relevant to political viability
I mean no analogy is perfect, but some choose to conveniently ignore that for a majority of Americans the debate is more or less over.
Well exceptionally bad is still exceptional. One could perhaps argue that America is simply too corrupt and rotten to achieve positive humanitarian goals. (Not that I think that is true.)
Of course, I think it is usually a case of less explicit normative judgement and more a case of a failure to accurately understand the (relation to the) rest of the world. To borrow a term, it is Cultural Narcissism, where the culture is so inward looking that it is incredibly hard for anyone to take a step back. It is both too focused on differences over commonalities ("well because of our larger population or freedom it won't work in America") and very willing to put itself as the measure of other countries ("failure of systems in other countries is due to their derivation from the US system, not the unique and exceptional traits of the specific country"). It is not just that America is better (though of course it is), it is that it is the only possible reference point.
Yes, that is why people should vote for representatives who would vote for it.
I am trying to understand your point but I come up with: "The positions and behaviour of current elected representatives are not like this, so they won't do the thing"
And that is true and also dumb. The whole point is to get representatives into power who will do the thing. The "make into law what the people want" bit of democracy. The transmitting of what people want into congressional votes, done by voting in those doing the votes. The point is to change the status quo by voting.
The point is that what you really want is leadership with your vision and plan. Which, yeah, who doesn't. But it's really not coherent to be all for the politics the grass-roots is pushing while also wishing leadership was taking a stronger hand here. Schumer's wishy-washy shit just means theirs room for people keep building the momentum for Medicare For All.
In general Schumer is pretty irrelevant for this stuff. Healthcare reform is not getting through the next Congress. His position is basically going to be whatever covers ass for his caucus, some of whom are still from some pretty red states. But ultimately, primary season is starting soon and it's going to be those people, the ones running to unseat Trump, that will define the Democratic position on healthcare for any Congress where such a thing has a possibility of occurring. We're basically just killing time listening to Schumer honestly. He's not that relevant here.
PS - Not that I'm against primarying Schumer btw. Go for it. I don't think it'll work but he's from fucking New York, there's no reason not to climb up his ass every primary season and try and shove him left.
Yeah no shit man. MfA isn't some grass roots niche thing though. I mean really, how many times do we have to pretend these people are actually on our side and just being clever before we get fucked again?