US Politics: Biden vs. Trump and Corona, Thunderdome Society at Its Very Best

[Pecan]

15 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I think it should. Clearly they don't see it that way in today's political moment, at least cross party wise anyway. They do compromise within their party which still doesn't actually help anyone who needs it.

I guess where I'm coming from is the perspective that when Democrats are in power, there's always this notion that we have to compromise with the right and how important it is to build bi-partisanship, but you never hear that from the other side. Obama tried working with Republicans on the ACA, basically modeling Romney's plan in MA and still didn't get a single Republican vote. 

Democrats in Power = Compromise - Dems get some things, Republicans get some things

Republicans in Power = No Compromise - Republicans get everything

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

About half of them have insurance now that didn't. That again, is not enough. But it is something. Is it so hard to acknowledge that it actually did some good?

It's possible to acknowledge at an intellectual level that people, or society, in general benefits from some piece of legislation, while still being arsed that you didn't get a piece of the pie, and indeed were deliberately excluded from getting one.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Also for the record, M4A is terrible branding. Should have stuck with Universal Healthcare.

Why? Medicare is one of the most incredibly popular government programs ever in the U.S. Tying your proposed changes to an incredibly popular brand is just good marketing, especially because you're not going to get sued for copyright infringement.

[Kalbear]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Why? Medicare is one of the most incredibly popular government programs ever in the U.S. Tying your proposed changes to an incredibly popular brand is just good marketing, especially because you're not going to get sued for copyright infringement.

Because it implies an implementation, and that is a weakness. 

[Pecan]

9 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Name a "progressive" Democrat that got elected President. What a stupid fucking question.

Well, there hasn't been one. Clinton and Obama were both centrists, and of course Obama got together with Clyburn to kneecap Sanders. I hope Democrats enjoy another 4 years of Trump and losing the Supreme Court and the Judiciary for the next quarter century because Biden is going to lose hard. 

[Guest]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Because it implies an implementation, and that is a weakness. 

And UHC doesn't? That doesn't track.

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Pecan said:

I guess where I'm coming from is the perspective that when Democrats are in power, there's always this notion that we have to compromise with the right and how important it is to build bi-partisanship, but you never hear that from the other side. Obama tried working with Republicans on the ACA, basically modeling Romney's plan in MA and still didn't get a single Republican vote. 

Democrats in Power = Compromise - Dems get some things, Republicans get some things

Republicans in Power = No Compromise - Republicans get everything

Well sure it's folly to think that the Republicans will work in good faith. I think that is a mistake Obama made, believing that he could work with Republicans. And after having been through that experience, I think it was naive for Biden to suggest he could work with them.

I get your frustration with the Republican Party. Trying to work with them is like being Charlie Brown. They are always going to pull that football.

That said, I think playing hardball with the Republican Party isn't the same thing as having policies that will turn off more centrist minded people.

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Pecan said:

I guess where I'm coming from is the perspective that when Democrats are in power, there's always this notion that we have to compromise with the right and how important it is to build bi-partisanship, but you never hear that from the other side. Obama tried working with Republicans on the ACA, basically modeling Romney's plan in MA and still didn't get a single Republican vote. 

Democrats in Power = Compromise - Dems get some things, Republicans get some things

Republicans in Power = No Compromise - Republicans get everything

Well, part of that was because of the fillibuster and they could only pass some things through reconciliation. Also, if you compromise, you're less likely for them to come in and try to tear it all apart, at least in theory. 

There is the other aspect that they have to compromise within themselves as well which is because they represent some unique districts. Might be different if they can ever get full ownership over Senate/House and no fillibuster and a willingness to get destroyed in midterms, potentially losing any chance at packing lifetime appointments on the courts. Every action has an implication.

[Pecan]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Because it implies an implementation, and that is a weakness. 

Huh? 

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

There are LOTS of native specific college grants, which is what I was referring to. So while checking that box in financial aid forms, you are accessing real actual money and loans available to native students. My siblings got a small break on their University of Minnesota tuition bills this way.

Is there any evidence Warren ever did this?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And UHC doesn't? That doesn't track.

No, it doesn't. UHC is a policy goal. Medicare for all is specifically 'give everyone medicare'. There are a lot of single payer systems that have nothing like m4a in the world, and they do pretty good too. 

But if you say you want M4A, it means that people can attack you on the very specific weaknesses of M4A. 

2 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Huh? 

See above. Universal healthcare as a goal is significantly more popular than M4A, and the more you get into the details the less popular M4A becomes. Heck, even single payer is less specific. 

[Pecan]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well sure it's folly to think that the Republicans will work in good faith. I think that is a mistake Obama made, believing that he could work with Republicans. And after having been through that experience, I think it was naive for Biden to suggest he could work with them.

I get your frustration with the Republican Party. Trying to work with them is like being Charlie Brown. They are always going to pull that football.

That said, I don't think playing hardball with the Republican Party isn't the same thing as having policies that will turn off more centrist minded people.

But here's the thing. At least when it comes to M4A, I don't think it's actually a radical policy. It polls really well, though that does depend on how you frame the question. Frankly, I think the reason more Dems don't get behind it is their fear of the healthcare lobby - insurers and providers both.

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, it doesn't. UHC is a policy goal. Medicare for all is specifically 'give everyone medicare'. There are a lot of single payer systems that have nothing like m4a in the world, and they do pretty good too. 

But if you say you want M4A, it means that people can attack you on the very specific weaknesses of M4A. 

See above. Universal healthcare as a goal is significantly more popular than M4A, and the more you get into the details the less popular M4A becomes. Heck, even single payer is less specific. 

I agree with this.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Pecan said:

But here's the thing. At least when it comes to M4A, I don't think it's actually a radical policy. It polls really well, though that does depend on how you frame the question. Frankly, I think the reason more Dems don't get behind it is their fear of the healthcare lobby - insurers and providers both.

They don't get behind it because it has projected costs of $35 trillion and it polls about at 50-55%. 

[Pecan]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, it doesn't. UHC is a policy goal. Medicare for all is specifically 'give everyone medicare'. There are a lot of single payer systems that have nothing like m4a in the world, and they do pretty good too. 

But if you say you want M4A, it means that people can attack you on the very specific weaknesses of M4A. 

See above. Universal healthcare as a goal is significantly more popular than M4A, and the more you get into the details the less popular M4A becomes. Heck, even single payer is less specific. 

Okay, I see what you're saying. I'm not sure I agree, but not really a point I want to spend time on either. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well sure it's folly to think that the Republicans will work in good faith. I think that is a mistake Obama made, believing that he could work with Republicans. And after having been through that experience, I think it was naive for Biden to suggest he could work with them.

This. Biden claiming that he could get McConnell and...whomever replaces Meadows...in a room, where he'd "Uncle Joe" them into some kind of compromise was every bit as laughable as getting M4A passed in the next 5 years. Even moreso because Biden was the goddamn Veep the whole time McConnell was very deliberately not letting him "Uncle Joe" jack shit. 

The difference is that the progressive candidates didn't push this line of attack, while the moderates were perfectly willing to be total hypocrites. That's a failure on the part of progressives.

[DanteGabriel]

10 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Well, there hasn't been one. Clinton and Obama were both centrists, and of course Obama got together with Clyburn to kneecap Sanders. I hope Democrats enjoy another 4 years of Trump and losing the Supreme Court and the Judiciary for the next quarter century because Biden is going to lose hard. 

You haven't really shown why a more left Democrat would win. There is no model for a left Democrat to win, because as you astutely admitted, no one ever has. So why is Bernie different? He couldn't even beat sad-ass Joe Biden.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I find you to be disappointing, @Pecan

Quote

Well, there hasn't been one. Clinton and Obama were both centrists, 

I won't speak for the former, but really dude?  President Obama accomplished a lot. Was he perfect? No. Will I forever be proud to have worked on his campaigns? 

Until the day I die. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, it doesn't. UHC is a policy goal. Medicare for all is specifically 'give everyone medicare'. There are a lot of single payer systems that have nothing like m4a in the world, and they do pretty good too. 

But if you say you want M4A, it means that people can attack you on the very specific weaknesses of M4A. 

Right. Good luck on educating the American public on all the nuances of public healthcare systems in other countries. 

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Pecan said:

But here's the thing. At least when it comes to M4A, I don't think it's actually a radical policy. It polls really well, though that does depend on how you frame the question. Frankly, I think the reason more Dems don't get behind it is their fear of the healthcare lobby - insurers and providers both.

What's M4A? Is that Bernie's healthcare plan? If it is, I'll say what I've said before: I loath our employer sponsored healthcare system. And I would be happy to see it go away. That said, pulling the electorate's employer sponsored healthcare all at once involves huge risk. Add to it, there will likely be a few bugs when the system starts, pissing people off even more, even if it eventually turns out alright.

By all means get universal healthcare done. And have a public option too. I think that is politically doable. But, in my view, yanking everyone's employer sponsored healthcare at once is asking for trouble.