So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
CA, which has the second best life exptency in the US is still below many other wealthy nations and its per capita health care spending is still significantly higher.
The top 10 states for life expectancy in the US, which maps pretty closely to the wealthiest states, might be blue, but the this statisic is pretty flat expecting a belt across the deep south. Idaho, Utah and Flordia are less than a year behind the top 10.
Its hard to look at this data and come to aby conclusion other than that poor states get worse results.
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
You can use things like Medicaid expansion to track the benefits of the ACA comparing state vs state or before vs after expansion. They function as the kind of natural experiments researchers love. And the results show improvements in health outcomes and other related issues.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
Well, in some ways, the US is more similar to the EU than any specific country within it.
So deciding on what the apples are is a discussion unto itself.
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I think everyone here understands that the Democratic Party is a coalition with different stances and that until not-so-long ago an anti-choice Democrat was fairly common. They still exist, but not nearly in the same numbers.
I think every person on this thread would vote against the hold-outs in a primary if they are in their district. What else would you have us do? I'm not looking to argue with your response, but am genuinely interested in the Leftist view. What is it that you (and I also welcome the opinion of other Leftists in this thread) consider to be the bare minimum response for a Democratic Party voter to not be culpable for the overturning of RvW?
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I think everyone here understands that the Democratic Party is a coalition with different stances and that until not-so-long ago an anti-choice Democrat was fairly common. They still exist, but not nearly in the same numbers.
I think every person on this thread would vote against the hold-outs in a primary if they are in their district. What else would you have us do? I'm not looking to argue with your response, but am genuinely interested in the Leftist view. What is it that you (and I also welcome the opinion of other Leftists in this thread) consider to be the bare minimum response for a Democratic Party voter to not be culpable for the overturning of RvW?
For one, hold accountable Democratic Leadership for backing anti-choice candidates over pro-choice candidates in the primaries, such as was the situation with Cuellar.
Acknowledge leadership actually does have agency in the problem and actively, repeatedly, backs these kinds of conservative democrats over progressives when push comes to shove.
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
You can use things like Medicaid expansion to track the benefits of the ACA comparing state vs state or before vs after expansion. They function as the kind of natural experiments researchers love. And the results show improvements in health outcomes and other related issues.
Given recent advances in econometrics I would be highly skeptical of any study that does a simple diff-in-diff to determine changes in health outcomes caused by the ACA.
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
Well, in some ways, the US is more similar to the EU than any specific country within it.
So deciding on what the apples are is a discussion unto itself.
That's a fair point, but I would say that unless the EU holds decisionmaking power over all member countries' healthcare systems (and I believe it doesn't) then it's appropriate to compare the US as a whole country to other countries.
More importantly you should compare like to like: wealthy areas of those countries to wealthy areas of the US, poor areas to poor areas, and not just countries to states.
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I think everyone here understands that the Democratic Party is a coalition with different stances and that until not-so-long ago an anti-choice Democrat was fairly common. They still exist, but not nearly in the same numbers.
I think every person on this thread would vote against the hold-outs in a primary if they are in their district. What else would you have us do? I'm not looking to argue with your response, but am genuinely interested in the Leftist view. What is it that you (and I also welcome the opinion of other Leftists in this thread) consider to be the bare minimum response for a Democratic Party voter to not be culpable for the overturning of RvW?
I'd say being a coalition with different stances (that does nothing towards unifying those stances) is a poor pick for fighting what we're up against, which is fascism. So as Lanz said, the best things voters can do is hold leadership accountable when they support anti-choice candidates. Second best thing is be loud and demand better from the loose coalition. Strengthen it and unify what it stands for through primaries and protest. Don't make excuses for leadership, don't act like the Democratic Party is sinless in all of this. Their lack of a real vision for our future is part of the reason we're here. Their choice to bow to corporations vs their constituents is part of the reason we're here.
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I think everyone here understands that the Democratic Party is a coalition with different stances and that until not-so-long ago an anti-choice Democrat was fairly common. They still exist, but not nearly in the same numbers.
I think every person on this thread would vote against the hold-outs in a primary if they are in their district. What else would you have us do? I'm not looking to argue with your response, but am genuinely interested in the Leftist view. What is it that you (and I also welcome the opinion of other Leftists in this thread) consider to be the bare minimum response for a Democratic Party voter to not be culpable for the overturning of RvW?
For one, hold accountable Democratic Leadership for backing anti-choice candidates over pro-choice candidates in the primaries, such as was the situation with Cuellar.
Acknowledge leadership actually does have agency in the problem and actively, repeatedly, backs these kinds of conservative democrats over progressives when push comes to shove.
The second part I get and agree with. Even in the most conservative areas there should still be a minimum level of acceptance of the party platform to get party support. I also don't think you're going to see DNC support for anti-choice candidates in the future. At least I hope not.
I don't really know how to do the first part, though. That was really what I meant by my question in the first place.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Or it tells us that they feel there's no meaningful difference for them who wins, an apathy generated by their life not improving regardless of who has been in control.
I wonder if their leftist echo chamber reinforcing this endlessly has anything to do with these feelings. Probably not, right?
i don't think people need an echo chamber to alert them to the fact that their quality of life, amount of spending power, amount of money they can earn at work, and cost of living/healthcare etc. are appreciably worse no matter who has been in office for the past 40 years. Not to mention that those things are only getting better for the top economic class.
That seems like a really privileged position at best, actively ignorant at worst . Honestly it's kind of hard not to judge people for that.
I'm sorry, what part of cursedking's post is "a really privileged position at best, actively ignorant at worst?"
I know half a dozen people who would be some combination of dead or destitute without the ACA's removal of coverage caps and pre-existing condition exceptions. And those are just the ones I know about. The idea that healthcare is "appreciably worse" is a bad joke; they used to just shrug and let you die because it would be too expensive to remove the tumor.
yeah, i knew somebody like that too
had an autoimmune disease, ACA meant she could get work for the first time without losing her life saving health coverage for people in poverty
she's back in california, but now everybody i know like that in texas and louisiana (the latter's democratic party governor decided to sign a trigger ban law after the decision leaked, just to be ready) and many other states are being denied their immunosuppressant prescriptions because they're also abortifacients, and everybody with health conditions that put them at high risk for pregnancies are at mortal peril (my partner is in this group, we might finally have to bail from the US if we fail at protecting reproductive health rights in florida)
this would have been a great argument i would have agreed with a month ago, but come the fuck on
y'all talking about privileged arguments and then you go and exclude more than half the population in the RvW thread
Except none of that changes that the ACA is still saved and will save or improve a bunch of people's lives. The idea that it doesn't matter who has been in office is just wrong. Shit, the existence of this thread is a huge example of how dumb that position is.
I guess it's a good thing that's not the position that was taken by cursedking, then! Since it's been buried in the quote tree that you're quoting there, I'll drop it below to refresh your memory on it:
Or it tells us that they feel there's no meaningful difference for them who wins, an apathy generated by their life not improving regardless of who has been in control.
I wonder if their leftist echo chamber reinforcing this endlessly has anything to do with these feelings. Probably not, right?
i don't think people need an echo chamber to alert them to the fact that their quality of life, amount of spending power, amount of money they can earn at work, and cost of living/healthcare etc. are appreciably worse no matter who has been in office for the past 40 years. Not to mention that those things are only getting better for the top economic class.
The bolded part here from your quote is exactly what I and others are referring to.
What part of that is wrong, exactly?
The cost of everything has skyrocketed compared it the increases in real wages during the same period of time. Productivity has also skyrocketed, without being reflected in wage growth, so we are working harder for less compensation.
There have been three recessions in my adult lifetime.
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
You can use things like Medicaid expansion to track the benefits of the ACA comparing state vs state or before vs after expansion. They function as the kind of natural experiments researchers love. And the results show improvements in health outcomes and other related issues.
Given recent advances in econometrics I would be highly skeptical of any study that does a simple diff-in-diff to determine changes in health outcomes caused by the ACA.
There is actually a pronouns feature available in the Vanilla user profiles to help prevent accidental misgendering.
Pronouns don't show up on mobile, though, fyi. You have to go to a user's actual profile page to see them.
They only show up if you go to the profile page period. But the option is there, and I have used it many times to avoid misgendering people.
Ah. Regardless, my point was that they're easy to miss if you don't know they're there, so I tend to assume people misgendering other posters either didn't know, or forgot, that we can list our pronouns
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
You can use things like Medicaid expansion to track the benefits of the ACA comparing state vs state or before vs after expansion. They function as the kind of natural experiments researchers love. And the results show improvements in health outcomes and other related issues.
Given recent advances in econometrics I would be highly skeptical of any study that does a simple diff-in-diff to determine changes in health outcomes caused by the ACA.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
What you're describing is a difference-in-differences empirical strategy that is what some researchers call a "natural experiment", and econometricians over the last two years have highlighted a lot of statistical problems with that strategy in providing causal evidence. So I'm skeptical of the studies you're alluding to if they've been done before roughly early 2021 (as I am skeptical of any study using that strategy before 2021 given the new advances).
So as not to clog up the thread with heavy econometrics math I'll just say if you're interested shoot me a PM and I'll explain the issues.
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
You can use things like Medicaid expansion to track the benefits of the ACA comparing state vs state or before vs after expansion. They function as the kind of natural experiments researchers love. And the results show improvements in health outcomes and other related issues.
Given recent advances in econometrics I would be highly skeptical of any study that does a simple diff-in-diff to determine changes in health outcomes caused by the ACA.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
What you're describing is a difference-in-differences empirical strategy that is what some researchers call a "natural experiment", and econometricians over the last two years have highlighted a lot of statistical problems with that strategy in providing causal evidence. So I'm skeptical of the studies you're alluding to if they've been done before roughly early 2021 (as I am skeptical of any study using that strategy before 2021 given the new advances).
So as not to clog up the thread with heavy econometrics math I'll just say if you're interested shoot me a PM and I'll explain the issues.
Ok, but are you quibbling with the methodology or do you actually think the ACA has not produced measurable changes in health outcomes?
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I think everyone here understands that the Democratic Party is a coalition with different stances and that until not-so-long ago an anti-choice Democrat was fairly common. They still exist, but not nearly in the same numbers.
I think every person on this thread would vote against the hold-outs in a primary if they are in their district. What else would you have us do? I'm not looking to argue with your response, but am genuinely interested in the Leftist view. What is it that you (and I also welcome the opinion of other Leftists in this thread) consider to be the bare minimum response for a Democratic Party voter to not be culpable for the overturning of RvW?
For one, hold accountable Democratic Leadership for backing anti-choice candidates over pro-choice candidates in the primaries, such as was the situation with Cuellar.
Acknowledge leadership actually does have agency in the problem and actively, repeatedly, backs these kinds of conservative democrats over progressives when push comes to shove.
The second part I get and agree with. Even in the most conservative areas there should still be a minimum level of acceptance of the party platform to get party support. I also don't think you're going to see DNC support for anti-choice candidates in the future. At least I hope not.
I don't really know how to do the first part, though. That was really what I meant by my question in the first place.
Protests and other form of sociopolitical agitation.
For those in Pelosi’s area, primarying her in favor of an actual progressive instead of someone who repeatedly bolsters the right wing of her party, while actively resisting efforts at necessary reforms in congress*
*there are specific issues at hand, but they’re off topic to this thread, though I’d argue ultimately they’re intersecting issues that drive the behavior to bolster the Democrat’s right flank while suppressing its progressive flank.
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
You can use things like Medicaid expansion to track the benefits of the ACA comparing state vs state or before vs after expansion. They function as the kind of natural experiments researchers love. And the results show improvements in health outcomes and other related issues.
Given recent advances in econometrics I would be highly skeptical of any study that does a simple diff-in-diff to determine changes in health outcomes caused by the ACA.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
What you're describing is a difference-in-differences empirical strategy that is what some researchers call a "natural experiment", and econometricians over the last two years have highlighted a lot of statistical problems with that strategy in providing causal evidence. So I'm skeptical of the studies you're alluding to if they've been done before roughly early 2021 (as I am skeptical of any study using that strategy before 2021 given the new advances).
So as not to clog up the thread with heavy econometrics math I'll just say if you're interested shoot me a PM and I'll explain the issues.
Ok, but are you quibbling with the methodology or do you actually think the ACA has not produced measurable changes in health outcomes?
There have been improvements but it hasn’t addressed the fundamental issues at the heart of our healthcare system’s dysfunctions.
And like, let me ask you this Shryke: you’re Canadian if I remember right. So, you obviously benefit from your healthcare system.
Would you trade that system for the present US one, as much as you defend the ACA here? Or do you recognize that even with the ACA in place that it would be a significant step down from your system and represent a distinct negative Quality of Life impact on you?
And with that in mind, would you then recognize that even with the ACA in place that our medical system is still highly inaccessible to many Americans, particularly with chronic needs that threaten to bankrupt them?*
*hell look at Biden. Vice President of the United States of America at the time of Beau’s passing, and yet his medical costs were still overwhelming for the Biden’s finances.
Lanz on
+6
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I wasn't aware that you weren't a he/him, and I apologize for botching my pronouns.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I think everyone here understands that the Democratic Party is a coalition with different stances and that until not-so-long ago an anti-choice Democrat was fairly common. They still exist, but not nearly in the same numbers.
I think every person on this thread would vote against the hold-outs in a primary if they are in their district. What else would you have us do? I'm not looking to argue with your response, but am genuinely interested in the Leftist view. What is it that you (and I also welcome the opinion of other Leftists in this thread) consider to be the bare minimum response for a Democratic Party voter to not be culpable for the overturning of RvW?
For one, hold accountable Democratic Leadership for backing anti-choice candidates over pro-choice candidates in the primaries, such as was the situation with Cuellar.
Acknowledge leadership actually does have agency in the problem and actively, repeatedly, backs these kinds of conservative democrats over progressives when push comes to shove.
The second part I get and agree with. Even in the most conservative areas there should still be a minimum level of acceptance of the party platform to get party support. I also don't think you're going to see DNC support for anti-choice candidates in the future. At least I hope not.
I don't really know how to do the first part, though. That was really what I meant by my question in the first place.
Protests and other form of sociopolitical agitation.
For those in Pelosi’s area, primarying her in favor of an actual progressive instead of someone who repeatedly bolsters the right wing of her party, while actively resisting efforts at necessary reforms in congress*
*there are specific issues at hand, but they’re off topic to this thread, though I’d argue ultimately they’re intersecting issues that drive the behavior to bolster the Democrat’s right flank while suppressing its progressive flank.
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
You can use things like Medicaid expansion to track the benefits of the ACA comparing state vs state or before vs after expansion. They function as the kind of natural experiments researchers love. And the results show improvements in health outcomes and other related issues.
Given recent advances in econometrics I would be highly skeptical of any study that does a simple diff-in-diff to determine changes in health outcomes caused by the ACA.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
What you're describing is a difference-in-differences empirical strategy that is what some researchers call a "natural experiment", and econometricians over the last two years have highlighted a lot of statistical problems with that strategy in providing causal evidence. So I'm skeptical of the studies you're alluding to if they've been done before roughly early 2021 (as I am skeptical of any study using that strategy before 2021 given the new advances).
So as not to clog up the thread with heavy econometrics math I'll just say if you're interested shoot me a PM and I'll explain the issues.
Ok, but are you quibbling with the methodology or do you actually think the ACA has not produced measurable changes in health outcomes?
There have been improvements but it hasn’t addressed the fundamental issues at the heart of our healthcare system’s dysfunctions.
And like, let me ask you this Shryke: you’re Canadian if I remember right. So, you obviously benefit from your healthcare system.
Would you trade that system for the present US one, as much as you defend the ACA here? Or do you recognize that even with the ACA in place that it would be a significant step down from your system and represent a distinct negative Quality of Life impact on you?
And with that in mind, would you then recognize that even with the ACA in place that our medical system is still highly inaccessible to many Americans, particularly with chronic needs that threaten to bankrupt them?*
*hell look at Biden. Vice President of the United States of America at the time of Beau’s passing, and yet his medical costs were still overwhelming for the Biden’s finances.
Thank you for answering. I had wondered if some of you considered the general Democratic voting population to be culpable if they stop short of protesting and other forms of agitation.
Edit - I have no idea what I did to the quote tree.
altlat55 on
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I think everyone here understands that the Democratic Party is a coalition with different stances and that until not-so-long ago an anti-choice Democrat was fairly common. They still exist, but not nearly in the same numbers.
I think every person on this thread would vote against the hold-outs in a primary if they are in their district. What else would you have us do? I'm not looking to argue with your response, but am genuinely interested in the Leftist view. What is it that you (and I also welcome the opinion of other Leftists in this thread) consider to be the bare minimum response for a Democratic Party voter to not be culpable for the overturning of RvW?
For one, hold accountable Democratic Leadership for backing anti-choice candidates over pro-choice candidates in the primaries, such as was the situation with Cuellar.
Acknowledge leadership actually does have agency in the problem and actively, repeatedly, backs these kinds of conservative democrats over progressives when push comes to shove.
The second part I get and agree with. Even in the most conservative areas there should still be a minimum level of acceptance of the party platform to get party support. I also don't think you're going to see DNC support for anti-choice candidates in the future. At least I hope not.
I don't really know how to do the first part, though. That was really what I meant by my question in the first place.
cuellar's primary was concurrent with the RvW leak, biden was going to nominate an anti-abortion judge until it became a scandal, and the whole blue dog project was rahm immanuel's thing, right after obama was elected on a surge of votes that believed he was going to create progressive change; so i really question why you think the democrats are going to change course on this, when their leadership has been in office for most of the erosion if RvW in the first place
wrt what you can do, firstly, stop using language like anti-choice that obfuscates what you're talking about, abortion isn't actually that unpopular when you poll about it in clear language, and it stifles turnout for both elections and protests when people don't realize what's at stake
past that, your approach is going to need to be pretty local
rn i am helping to lead my local dsa chapter to push for local decriminalization, and i'm organizing a wider effort to get other florida dsa chapters collaborating on this issue, we're going to be releasing our own reproductive-justice demands, similar to tampa dsa (you can find them on their instagram and there's a petition as well)
the day the decision was released a group of progressive prosecutors, including the one over in hillsborough county, released a statement saying they wouldn't be charging abortion crimes, if the state government moved to make them illegal
over here, our prosecutor is a republican, so part of our decriminalization campaign is probably going to involve unseating him and getting somebody elected that will work with us
as part of the wider effort we're already seeing up a training for our members with an abortion fund that needs volunteers and funds to help people get abortions, even before this decision, people were coming to central florida from as far away as texas because so many clinics between here and there have gradually been bombed out of existence (last one in pensacola shut down a couple months back after a long stochastic terror campaign)
we're also going to be attacking funding sources for crisis pregnancy centers (fake abortion clinics that mislead and delay women until they're ineligible for abortion) via previous electoral successes and relationships we've developed
and eventually we're going to combine all this pressure into guilting a more institutional org with better financial and legal resources into helping us pass a ballot initiative, to permanently protect abortion access in florida
i can't really tell you what to do where you live, because all of this is based off of previous work and a lot of local power mapping and legal analysis (a lot of which is still on progress for this new challenge); but if i was back home in california, or new york, i'd definitely be working on replacing democratic party leadership that allowed this to happen, over the course of 50 years, and seem content so far to use the lives of my friends and family as bargaining chips for midterms and fundraising emails
my message is the same as it was in 2020, it's still all hands on deck, you need to be doing more, if you don't want to be another complicit person with a monstrous regime in the history books
anti-choice is used to demonstrate that the pro-life people aren't pro life, they're anti-choice. it's been a phrase used for years to try to undermine their framing of the two positions.
League of Legends: Sorakanmyworld
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
House democrats (aside from one) voted for the Women's Health Protection Act at least
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
anti-choice is used to demonstrate that the pro-life people aren't pro life, they're anti-choice. it's been a phrase used for years to try to undermine their framing of the two positions.
yes and it's one of the main things abortion activists have called out as a failing of the liberal messaging on this, which is why i am bringing it up
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I wasn't aware that you weren't a he/him, and I apologize for botching my pronouns.
So to be clear, we should use pro-abortion and anti-abortion? Ok
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So to be clear, we should use pro-abortion and anti-abortion? Ok
Those sound like terrible choices because even people who are pro-choice are not necessary pro-abortion. They're pro being able to make that choice, but not that they want to make that choice themselves necessarily.
anti-choice is used to demonstrate that the pro-life people aren't pro life, they're anti-choice. it's been a phrase used for years to try to undermine their framing of the two positions.
yes and it's one of the main things abortion activists have called out as a failing of the liberal messaging on this, which is why i am bringing it up
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I wasn't aware that you weren't a he/him, and I apologize for botching my pronouns.
thank you
I didn't hear anti-choice as a thing until much more recently, like past 5 years, so to say it's 50 years of failure doesn't make sense. It was pro-life vs pro-choice for all my memory of the 90s and 2000s.
League of Legends: Sorakanmyworld
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
So to be clear, we should use pro-abortion and anti-abortion? Ok
Pro-Choice is better.
Because you can personally be against abortion if you aren't trying to take it away from anyone else and still be Pro-Choice.
you are in disagreement with the people that originally secured abortion rights in the united states, and those that i am taking cues from that are currently leading the fight
don't really know how i can explain this aside from suggesting you read Without Apology again, without doxxing radical feminist activists in the south so you can go ask them
So to be clear, we should use pro-abortion and anti-abortion? Ok
Those sound like terrible choices because even people who are pro-choice are not necessary pro-abortion. They're pro being able to make that choice, but not that they want to make that choice themselves necessarily.
anti-choice is used to demonstrate that the pro-life people aren't pro life, they're anti-choice. it's been a phrase used for years to try to undermine their framing of the two positions.
yes and it's one of the main things abortion activists have called out as a failing of the liberal messaging on this, which is why i am bringing it up
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I wasn't aware that you weren't a he/him, and I apologize for botching my pronouns.
thank you
I didn't hear anti-choice as a thing until much more recently, like past 5 years, so to say it's 50 years of failure doesn't make sense. It was pro-life vs pro-choice for all my memory of the 90s and 2000s.
"anti-choice" has been around for awhile but in my experience it was something you'd not really see used in more serious or professional discourse since it comes off kinda cringey most of the time. Especially back in like the early 2000s or earlier. It never seemed like a big part of any kind of long-term strategy to me. It seemed like a reaction to decades of the pro-life vs pro-choice framing that was actually being used.
I am actually Pro-Abortion in the same way I am Pro-Healthcare or Pro-Insulin or Pro-Surgery.
Every person who needs or chooses an abortion should have access to one no questions asked at no cost and with no stigma. Ideally abortions are rare because birth control and education make more invasive procedures less necessary but if a person does need or choose one they should absolutely get one.
Being against abortion makes as much sense as being against organ transplants or heart valve replacements or even basic trauma care. It just should be offered as standard of care if needed / chosen.
you are in disagreement with the people that originally secured abortion rights in the united states, and those that i am taking cues from that are currently leading the fight
don't really know how i can explain this aside from suggesting you read Without Apology again, without doxxing radical feminist activists in the south so you can go ask them
I'm going to reply to the other post later, but what do you think the right term for a person who is not pro-choice should be?
I avoid using 1 or 2 words to label my politics and philosophy unless absolutely forced, and even then it will be inaccurate as my code of ethics is unique to me
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
I am actually Pro-Abortion in the same way I am Pro-Healthcare or Pro-Insulin or Pro-Surgery.
Every person who needs or chooses an abortion should have access to one no questions asked at no cost and with no stigma. Ideally abortions are rare because birth control and education make more invasive procedures less necessary but if a person does need or choose one they should absolutely get one.
Being against abortion makes as much sense as being against organ transplants or heart valve replacements or even basic trauma care. It just should be offered as standard of care if needed / chosen.
yeah this is the point that abortion activists have been making for 50 years
So to be clear, we should use pro-abortion and anti-abortion? Ok
Pro-Choice is better.
Because you can personally be against abortion if you aren't trying to take it away from anyone else and still be Pro-Choice.
you are in disagreement with the people that originally secured abortion rights in the united states, and those that i am taking cues from that are currently leading the fight
don't really know how i can explain this aside from suggesting you read Without Apology again, without doxxing radical feminist activists in the south so you can go ask them
We are going to have to agree to disagree then.
Being Pro-Choices does not mean everyone can choose as long as they make the 'right' choice. You can personally define it however you want, but I choose a different definition.
zagdrob on
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Which is why pro-abortion isn't used, because no one is happy about, say, chemotherapy. But it's better than it not being an option.
Posts
please read a book, or even a few wikipedia articles
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
CA, which has the second best life exptency in the US is still below many other wealthy nations and its per capita health care spending is still significantly higher.
The top 10 states for life expectancy in the US, which maps pretty closely to the wealthiest states, might be blue, but the this statisic is pretty flat expecting a belt across the deep south. Idaho, Utah and Flordia are less than a year behind the top 10.
Its hard to look at this data and come to aby conclusion other than that poor states get worse results.
Pronouns don't show up on mobile, though, fyi. You have to go to a user's actual profile page to see them.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
You can use things like Medicaid expansion to track the benefits of the ACA comparing state vs state or before vs after expansion. They function as the kind of natural experiments researchers love. And the results show improvements in health outcomes and other related issues.
Well, in some ways, the US is more similar to the EU than any specific country within it.
So deciding on what the apples are is a discussion unto itself.
I think everyone here understands that the Democratic Party is a coalition with different stances and that until not-so-long ago an anti-choice Democrat was fairly common. They still exist, but not nearly in the same numbers.
I think every person on this thread would vote against the hold-outs in a primary if they are in their district. What else would you have us do? I'm not looking to argue with your response, but am genuinely interested in the Leftist view. What is it that you (and I also welcome the opinion of other Leftists in this thread) consider to be the bare minimum response for a Democratic Party voter to not be culpable for the overturning of RvW?
For one, hold accountable Democratic Leadership for backing anti-choice candidates over pro-choice candidates in the primaries, such as was the situation with Cuellar.
Acknowledge leadership actually does have agency in the problem and actively, repeatedly, backs these kinds of conservative democrats over progressives when push comes to shove.
Given recent advances in econometrics I would be highly skeptical of any study that does a simple diff-in-diff to determine changes in health outcomes caused by the ACA.
That's a fair point, but I would say that unless the EU holds decisionmaking power over all member countries' healthcare systems (and I believe it doesn't) then it's appropriate to compare the US as a whole country to other countries.
More importantly you should compare like to like: wealthy areas of those countries to wealthy areas of the US, poor areas to poor areas, and not just countries to states.
I'd say being a coalition with different stances (that does nothing towards unifying those stances) is a poor pick for fighting what we're up against, which is fascism. So as Lanz said, the best things voters can do is hold leadership accountable when they support anti-choice candidates. Second best thing is be loud and demand better from the loose coalition. Strengthen it and unify what it stands for through primaries and protest. Don't make excuses for leadership, don't act like the Democratic Party is sinless in all of this. Their lack of a real vision for our future is part of the reason we're here. Their choice to bow to corporations vs their constituents is part of the reason we're here.
The second part I get and agree with. Even in the most conservative areas there should still be a minimum level of acceptance of the party platform to get party support. I also don't think you're going to see DNC support for anti-choice candidates in the future. At least I hope not.
I don't really know how to do the first part, though. That was really what I meant by my question in the first place.
They only show up if you go to the profile page period. But the option is there, and I have used it many times to avoid misgendering people.
What part of that is wrong, exactly?
The cost of everything has skyrocketed compared it the increases in real wages during the same period of time. Productivity has also skyrocketed, without being reflected in wage growth, so we are working harder for less compensation.
There have been three recessions in my adult lifetime.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That's what you're arguing about
The arguement is that the overall quality of life is, and has been for some time, been trending negative for the majority of folks.
That some small improvements have been made here and there do not render that invalid.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
And a lot of people's lives have gotten dramatically worse in all the ways that quote lists. So, how is that quote wrong?
Ah. Regardless, my point was that they're easy to miss if you don't know they're there, so I tend to assume people misgendering other posters either didn't know, or forgot, that we can list our pronouns
What you're describing is a difference-in-differences empirical strategy that is what some researchers call a "natural experiment", and econometricians over the last two years have highlighted a lot of statistical problems with that strategy in providing causal evidence. So I'm skeptical of the studies you're alluding to if they've been done before roughly early 2021 (as I am skeptical of any study using that strategy before 2021 given the new advances).
So as not to clog up the thread with heavy econometrics math I'll just say if you're interested shoot me a PM and I'll explain the issues.
Ok, but are you quibbling with the methodology or do you actually think the ACA has not produced measurable changes in health outcomes?
Protests and other form of sociopolitical agitation.
For those in Pelosi’s area, primarying her in favor of an actual progressive instead of someone who repeatedly bolsters the right wing of her party, while actively resisting efforts at necessary reforms in congress*
*there are specific issues at hand, but they’re off topic to this thread, though I’d argue ultimately they’re intersecting issues that drive the behavior to bolster the Democrat’s right flank while suppressing its progressive flank.
There have been improvements but it hasn’t addressed the fundamental issues at the heart of our healthcare system’s dysfunctions.
And like, let me ask you this Shryke: you’re Canadian if I remember right. So, you obviously benefit from your healthcare system.
Would you trade that system for the present US one, as much as you defend the ACA here? Or do you recognize that even with the ACA in place that it would be a significant step down from your system and represent a distinct negative Quality of Life impact on you?
And with that in mind, would you then recognize that even with the ACA in place that our medical system is still highly inaccessible to many Americans, particularly with chronic needs that threaten to bankrupt them?*
*hell look at Biden. Vice President of the United States of America at the time of Beau’s passing, and yet his medical costs were still overwhelming for the Biden’s finances.
I wasn't aware that you weren't a he/him, and I apologize for botching my pronouns.
Thank you for answering. I had wondered if some of you considered the general Democratic voting population to be culpable if they stop short of protesting and other forms of agitation.
Edit - I have no idea what I did to the quote tree.
cuellar's primary was concurrent with the RvW leak, biden was going to nominate an anti-abortion judge until it became a scandal, and the whole blue dog project was rahm immanuel's thing, right after obama was elected on a surge of votes that believed he was going to create progressive change; so i really question why you think the democrats are going to change course on this, when their leadership has been in office for most of the erosion if RvW in the first place
wrt what you can do, firstly, stop using language like anti-choice that obfuscates what you're talking about, abortion isn't actually that unpopular when you poll about it in clear language, and it stifles turnout for both elections and protests when people don't realize what's at stake
past that, your approach is going to need to be pretty local
rn i am helping to lead my local dsa chapter to push for local decriminalization, and i'm organizing a wider effort to get other florida dsa chapters collaborating on this issue, we're going to be releasing our own reproductive-justice demands, similar to tampa dsa (you can find them on their instagram and there's a petition as well)
the day the decision was released a group of progressive prosecutors, including the one over in hillsborough county, released a statement saying they wouldn't be charging abortion crimes, if the state government moved to make them illegal
over here, our prosecutor is a republican, so part of our decriminalization campaign is probably going to involve unseating him and getting somebody elected that will work with us
as part of the wider effort we're already seeing up a training for our members with an abortion fund that needs volunteers and funds to help people get abortions, even before this decision, people were coming to central florida from as far away as texas because so many clinics between here and there have gradually been bombed out of existence (last one in pensacola shut down a couple months back after a long stochastic terror campaign)
we're also going to be attacking funding sources for crisis pregnancy centers (fake abortion clinics that mislead and delay women until they're ineligible for abortion) via previous electoral successes and relationships we've developed
and eventually we're going to combine all this pressure into guilting a more institutional org with better financial and legal resources into helping us pass a ballot initiative, to permanently protect abortion access in florida
i can't really tell you what to do where you live, because all of this is based off of previous work and a lot of local power mapping and legal analysis (a lot of which is still on progress for this new challenge); but if i was back home in california, or new york, i'd definitely be working on replacing democratic party leadership that allowed this to happen, over the course of 50 years, and seem content so far to use the lives of my friends and family as bargaining chips for midterms and fundraising emails
my message is the same as it was in 2020, it's still all hands on deck, you need to be doing more, if you don't want to be another complicit person with a monstrous regime in the history books
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
yes and it's one of the main things abortion activists have called out as a failing of the liberal messaging on this, which is why i am bringing it up
what we have been doing for 50 years failed
thank you
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Pro-Choice is better.
Because you can personally be against abortion if you aren't trying to take it away from anyone else and still be Pro-Choice.
Those sound like terrible choices because even people who are pro-choice are not necessary pro-abortion. They're pro being able to make that choice, but not that they want to make that choice themselves necessarily.
I didn't hear anti-choice as a thing until much more recently, like past 5 years, so to say it's 50 years of failure doesn't make sense. It was pro-life vs pro-choice for all my memory of the 90s and 2000s.
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
I'm also pretty sure we've had this exact discussion before.
you are in disagreement with the people that originally secured abortion rights in the united states, and those that i am taking cues from that are currently leading the fight
don't really know how i can explain this aside from suggesting you read Without Apology again, without doxxing radical feminist activists in the south so you can go ask them
"anti-choice" has been around for awhile but in my experience it was something you'd not really see used in more serious or professional discourse since it comes off kinda cringey most of the time. Especially back in like the early 2000s or earlier. It never seemed like a big part of any kind of long-term strategy to me. It seemed like a reaction to decades of the pro-life vs pro-choice framing that was actually being used.
Every person who needs or chooses an abortion should have access to one no questions asked at no cost and with no stigma. Ideally abortions are rare because birth control and education make more invasive procedures less necessary but if a person does need or choose one they should absolutely get one.
Being against abortion makes as much sense as being against organ transplants or heart valve replacements or even basic trauma care. It just should be offered as standard of care if needed / chosen.
I'm going to reply to the other post later, but what do you think the right term for a person who is not pro-choice should be?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
yeah this is the point that abortion activists have been making for 50 years
We are going to have to agree to disagree then.
Being Pro-Choices does not mean everyone can choose as long as they make the 'right' choice. You can personally define it however you want, but I choose a different definition.