None of these respond to my points. Democrats passed Obamacare. They were one vote away from going even further left with a public option. Meanwhile, Republicans were ALL votes away from any healthcare reform. Claiming that Democrats made the country go further right than Republicans is completely bizarre.
Is it? The Affordable Care Act was a palliative. It served its purpose of pretending to solve a problem, but making it worse. Life expectancy is declining, housing is becoming unaffordable, college tuition continues to rise, there’s a mental health epidemic. Even when Democrats have had control of Congress and the Presidency, nothing substantial changes. Maybe next time, right?
Yes, the US should’ve also passed a public option. That would’ve made the US system very similar to those in Scandinavian countries (who don’t have single payer btw). But again the reason we didn’t get it is not because we had too many Democrats! Remember: that’s the extreme thesis you’re defending and providing no evidence for.
How do Scandinavian countries get their progressive policies? It’s not by voting for the right leaning party!
Thank you so much for your patient and clear defense of reason. The person you’re arguing with is certainly not arguing in good faith – they are constantly throwing out partial truths and never once addressing your actual point. You’re adding a lot of value in the way you’re commenting, and I salute you.
That is not my thesis. My thesis is that it doesn’t matter if it is Republicans, or Democrats. You are never getting ranked choice voting. It is a threat to DNC control. The government is captured by corporations through special interests and lobbying. It’s never getting better with voting. Only with a social movement will things change.
You explicitly said you endorsed Nimitz, who said voting for the lesser evil leads to right leaning policies. Now you’re defending the much more modest thesis that it doesn’t matter who you vote for. You never said this before. Even this less crazy thesis is extremely dubious. I’ve given dozens of examples of how voting matters.
Other countries have changed voting systems. How did they do it, despite it threatening control by the ruling parties? Voting, actually. I agree that it will take a social movement, but it’s utterly bizarre that you seem to think that’s somehow orthogonal to voting. Trump had historically low favorability even amongst Republicans until he won. His winning an election caused a social movement to take root.
“It’s a mistake to think you’re exercising political power [by voting]. What you’re doing is registering a preference,” said August Nimtz, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota. Nimtz was clear that a vote does not directly impose one’s will upon the political system as many believe it does. Nimtz also argued that the action of voting is the opposite of most meaningful political action: it is one taken alone, and is often over in a matter of minutes. Real political change stems from sustained collective action. Source
Yes it’s pretty disappointing. And even worse, during Trump, the US was much closer to repealing Obamacare than extending it.
But why describe this as Democrats coasting instead of blaming Republicans? Are you expecting Democrats to expand publicly funded healthcare without control of the House, and barely controlling the Senate with two conservative Dems?
But why describe this as Democrats coasting instead of blaming Republicans?
Because they keep expecting gratitude for taking the plan Obama ran on and nerfing it down to what Clinton ran on. And not doing anything at all in the intervening years to improve it. It’s been 15 years. All we’re getting now is minor piddly shit that the party tarts up as the greatest thing in the history of mankind.
Do they expect gratitude? Obamacare hasn’t been a major piece of marketing in a long time, except when Republicans demand it be repealed.
In fact, that’s revisionist history: Democrats were heavily punished for Obamacare by voters, not rewarded. Polling showed that the farther left public option, called “death panels” by the right, was even less popular. The left, as is typical, quickly abandoned Dems to “teach them a lesson”, and we had 8 years of “Tea party” crazies controlling congress.
Polling showed that the farther left public option, called “death panels” by the right, was even less popular.
Congratulations on killing it for Republicans then. How’d that work out for the party? Oh yeah, Republicans still voted against you and you alienated the people who voted for you.
But at least you get to blame everyone to your left for the results of your party’s greatest accomplishment: killing the public option.
I am not touting it. The specific claim we’re discussing is whether voting for democrats cause right leaning policies compared to voting for republicans. It didn’t. Nothing you’ve said has addressed this point.
I am not touting it. The specific claim we’re discussing is whether voting for democrats cause right leaning policies compared to voting for republicans.
It doesn’t and I never said it did. But let’s not pretend that it’s preventing right leaning policies or putting left leaning policies in place.
None of these respond to my points. Democrats passed Obamacare. They were one vote away from going even further left with a public option. Meanwhile, Republicans were ALL votes away from any healthcare reform. Claiming that Democrats made the country go further right than Republicans is completely bizarre.
Is it? The Affordable Care Act was a palliative. It served its purpose of pretending to solve a problem, but making it worse. Life expectancy is declining, housing is becoming unaffordable, college tuition continues to rise, there’s a mental health epidemic. Even when Democrats have had control of Congress and the Presidency, nothing substantial changes. Maybe next time, right?
Yes, the US should’ve also passed a public option. That would’ve made the US system very similar to those in Scandinavian countries (who don’t have single payer btw). But again the reason we didn’t get it is not because we had too many Democrats! Remember: that’s the extreme thesis you’re defending and providing no evidence for.
How do Scandinavian countries get their progressive policies? It’s not by voting for the right leaning party!
Thank you so much for your patient and clear defense of reason. The person you’re arguing with is certainly not arguing in good faith – they are constantly throwing out partial truths and never once addressing your actual point. You’re adding a lot of value in the way you’re commenting, and I salute you.
Lol. TIL: Good faith means you have to agree with me.
That is not my thesis. My thesis is that it doesn’t matter if it is Republicans, or Democrats. You are never getting ranked choice voting. It is a threat to DNC control. The government is captured by corporations through special interests and lobbying. It’s never getting better with voting. Only with a social movement will things change.
You explicitly said you endorsed Nimitz, who said voting for the lesser evil leads to right leaning policies. Now you’re defending the much more modest thesis that it doesn’t matter who you vote for. You never said this before. Even this less crazy thesis is extremely dubious. I’ve given dozens of examples of how voting matters.
Other countries have changed voting systems. How did they do it, despite it threatening control by the ruling parties? Voting, actually. I agree that it will take a social movement, but it’s utterly bizarre that you seem to think that’s somehow orthogonal to voting. Trump had historically low favorability even amongst Republicans until he won. His winning an election caused a social movement to take root.
And have coasted on it for a decade and a half.
Yes it’s pretty disappointing. And even worse, during Trump, the US was much closer to repealing Obamacare than extending it.
But why describe this as Democrats coasting instead of blaming Republicans? Are you expecting Democrats to expand publicly funded healthcare without control of the House, and barely controlling the Senate with two conservative Dems?
Because they keep expecting gratitude for taking the plan Obama ran on and nerfing it down to what Clinton ran on. And not doing anything at all in the intervening years to improve it. It’s been 15 years. All we’re getting now is minor piddly shit that the party tarts up as the greatest thing in the history of mankind.
Do they expect gratitude? Obamacare hasn’t been a major piece of marketing in a long time, except when Republicans demand it be repealed.
In fact, that’s revisionist history: Democrats were heavily punished for Obamacare by voters, not rewarded. Polling showed that the farther left public option, called “death panels” by the right, was even less popular. The left, as is typical, quickly abandoned Dems to “teach them a lesson”, and we had 8 years of “Tea party” crazies controlling congress.
Here’s you touting it because Democrats haven’t had any successes that have approached it in 15 years:
https://lemmy.world/comment/5373174
Congratulations on killing it for Republicans then. How’d that work out for the party? Oh yeah, Republicans still voted against you and you alienated the people who voted for you.
But at least you get to blame everyone to your left for the results of your party’s greatest accomplishment: killing the public option.
I am not touting it. The specific claim we’re discussing is whether voting for democrats cause right leaning policies compared to voting for republicans. It didn’t. Nothing you’ve said has addressed this point.
It doesn’t and I never said it did. But let’s not pretend that it’s preventing right leaning policies or putting left leaning policies in place.
Obamacare is a left leaning policy compared to what came before. So I’m not pretending anything. It is very bizarre to claim otherwise.