2020 Democratic presidential primary

I think it's fair to criticize Warren's strategy (who knows what the congress is 3 years into her presidency) but I'm always shocked when someone expresses that she doesn't care about Medicare for All. One thing is analysis, the other is just being part of the cult.

I take no position on whether she "cares about" M4A but if I were a supporter of hers who was a strong proponent of M4A, earnest sentiments like this would concern me

Negative fallout from Medicare For All? @ewarren has a plan for that!
Her transition plan to MFA sounds more like that of @PeteButtigieg and @Joebiden, preserving private choice with a robust public option.
It’s a better place to be.https://t.co/HtoIiJDXsq

— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) November 16, 2019

xp I disagree with that. I think progress has been achieved in many ways, increments is one of them. Comparing situation from beginning of 20th century, Nordic countries/Can/Australia/NZ had incrementalist approaches to social progress and have been more successful than most nations, including powerful nations that have tried to achieve social progress through more direct methods. I think there is such a thing as a populist trap where one side only think about its base which riles up the other opposing base who then only think about its base and then it just escalates from there into instability, and no progress seems to get done within unstable timeframe. In the case of the us, the big mistake of moderates is to not recognize that medicare for all can break the lock. I think the big mistake from the Warren/Sanders side (I support Warren) is to think everyone will and should get behind it in no time because it is the good policy. Deep down, I believe that had the US population wanted universal health care they would have voted for it a long time ago.

I said it upthread but I think preserving private choice is going to work long term because people will realize that there is no use paying much more for the same service than people with medicare will get.

I believe that had the US population wanted universal health care they would have voted for it a long time ago.

when have they had the chance to vote on this

Any day since it has been invented?

I mean electoral history chose a clear preference for racist demagogues over universal health care over the what? last 60 years?

again, when has that EVER been the choice presented

unless I've missed all those times M4A, single payer or an equivalent proposal was part of the Democratic platform as opposed to slight expansions/reforms

Simon isn’t it two in the morning

incremental progress

NHS wasn't incremental

Not that you’re wrong I just question your priorities

If it were such a winning electoral issue that was beloved by americans all over it would have been used as an electoral issue to win votes. American people have made the choice to not care about it. Heck it seems half of the democratic base still doesn't give a shit about it.

Anyway millions will die needlessly waiting for incremental progress

you're not alone xps

If it were such a winning electoral issue that was beloved by americans all over it would have been used as an electoral issue to win votes.

I wonder if maybe there's a set of powerful actors more invested in stuffing their pockets than improving people's lives who have gotten in the way of making the case for it

Yeah there was never any massive corporations in France, Germany, Canada, Japan and in the UK.

I don't think it's controversial to say there'a a difference in magnitude between

actually silby was right I'm going back to alan rudolph

The benevolent people who voted for Reagan twice, Bush once, Clinton twice, Bush twice, Trump once, all they ever wanted was universal health care but ugh no one came up with that idea and presented it to them!

Yeah there was never any massive corporations in France, Germany, Canada, Japan and in the UK.

Germany's healthcare system dates to the 19th century, the UK and France to the immediate aftermath of WW2. Massive corporations have put in quite a bit of work in all three undermining things in the neoliberal era.

Incremental change in dismantling the NHS has been relatively successful, and it should be pointed out in that case that outright removal is unfeasible. The way to do it is to underfund it to the point where people complain about the service, and the question of privatisation becomes palatable (it still isn't yet, that still at least 5 years away I would say, depending on Brexit)

Incremental change and radical change are like a knife and fork. Useless if you have no dinner

I appreciate when male white posters posture about incremental vs radical change early Sunday mornings

When’s the best time?

In the bathroom, door closed, posting to your Livejournal account

Let’s see if that kind of policing will have an effect.

I've lit a candle to St. Jude.

I believe that had the US population wanted universal health care they would have voted for it a long time ago.

I believe this shows an almost willful ignorance of the history of US politics and how the system operates. The political power of "the US population" is heavily diluted and diverted into channels that are defined for them by the wealthy, whose major interest is the maintenance of a global empire.

ugh I am really tired of ignorant crackpot energy. incrementalism is fucking bullshit, come fucking on

just shut the fuck up and stop trying to be a pundit or whatever. Please. For the children at least

not you aimless

Honest question then: how come other ultra-wealthy countries, some of which have higher rates of billionaires per capita (Sweden, Norway), others who have vast corporate interests abroad (France, Canada, UK), have managed to build solid universal health care institutions?

Honest answer: smaller, less mobile populations operating under parliamentary systems, and the adoption of universal health care during their post-WWII, post-imperial, post-colonial 'reconstruction' periods.

Smaller populations I can get behind, parliamentary systems not as much. France and Italy and some latin American nations have systems that are closer to the US than to Westminster style politics and they have UHC.

cant forget the specific strength of health care corporate lobbying and american exceptionalism i guess

Why would corporate health care lobbyism thrive in the US and not nearly as much in other nations?

You might find some answers in this Beatrix Hoffman paper in '03 which seems to foretell the more unified push for M4A we're seeing now

Abstract

Because of the importance of grassroots social movements, or “change from below,” in the history of US reform, the relationship between social movements and demands for universal health care is a critical one.

National health reform campaigns in the 20th century were initiated and run by elites more concerned with defending against attacks from interest groups than with popular mobilization, and grassroots reformers in the labor, civil rights, feminist, and AIDS activist movements have concentrated more on immediate and incremental changes than on transforming the health care system itself.

However, grassroots health care demands have also contained the seeds of a wider critique of the American health care system, leading some movements to adopt calls for universal coverage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447696/

*from '03

Why would corporate health care lobbyism thrive in the US and not nearly as much in other nations?

― Van Horn Street, Sunday, November 17, 2019 12:10 PM (twelve minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

a lot of things. cold war fears of anything socialist sounding. AMA lobbying against medicare. US conservatism built around dismantling the welfare state bc of perception that it disproportionately helps people of color. lower tax rates and cheap credit means more lobbying dollars.

incrementalism is fucking bullshit, come fucking on

― brimstead, Sonntag, 17. November 2019 18:30 (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

whenever I read this, I'm reminded of this Sanpaku post:

On the Right, they can pursue more restrictions on reproductive rights at late-term, then 20 weeks, then closer to conception, etc. They're willing to accept the grind towards achieving whatever dystopia they're after.

On the Left, if a climate crisis solution doesn't perfectly meet everyone's needs, some environmental groups will actively oppose it rather than seek to correct its faults at a later date.

― Distribution of all possible outcomes (Sanpaku), Montag, 21. November 2016 03:56 (two years ago) bookmarkflaglink

so is everyone going to be hella disappointed and not vote is Buttigeig winds up getting the nomination? If he gets the nom, who should he pick as a running mate? I vote Castro.

Buttigieg would pick Tim Kaine again.

he will probably pick michael bennet or something lame like that. castro talked to shit pete's face at the debate and is angling for a progressive candidate's VP slot

Why would corporate health care lobbyism thrive in the US and not nearly as much in other nations?

Look at history for a moment. When did corporate health care end in those other nations? Compared to today, corporate involvement in US health care was minimal prior to 1960. Hospitals were largely run by municipalities, churches, or non-profits. Pharmaceuticals were nowhere near as important then, since the explosion in the development of new drugs hadn't happened, yet. Doctors mostly operated independently, or in small clinics.

Truman's proposed national health care wasn't lobbied to death by corporations, but by the AMA, who claimed vociferously that it would destroy the Norman Rockwell version of the kindly family doctor and replace it with SOCIALISM, which was very effective propaganda around the time the USSR exploded its first atomic weapon and was creating the "Iron Curtain" control of Eastern Europe.

Because those other nations have had their national health care systems in place for roughly 60 or 70 years, contemporaneous to Truman's failed effort, why would corporate health care even exist in those countries in any form resembling the mega-corporations now running things in the USA?

Just realize that your naïve questions indicate that you do not understand enough of the issue to justify the positivity of your opinions. Hold open the idea that you are wrong, because you are relying on drawing your conclusions from an insufficient fund of knowledge.

otm

Buttigieg should pick Biden for VP

Buttigieg should pick Biden for VP

https://i.imgur.com/Tjpq33C.gif

Now do the ears.

Rhonda,

has he ever been naked

the problem is that he doesn't have an ear hair issue. he's very well groomed, tbh, and photogenic. it's hard to find a bad photo of him (although part of that is google image search and how it's unintentionally (?) steering us toward a path of glossy/ideal life images as models, rather than real life). you gotta search for a while to come across anything that's more than just a poor photo.

but in constrast, for instance, type in louie gohmert and you're immediately confronted with pages of

https://i.imgur.com/JplkYxr.jpg