2020 Democratic presidential primary

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

has he ever been naked

your imagination is blindered, no doubt unconsciously

Still believe that the large democratic segregationist base would have never allowed for a free health care given to black people and since they had so much power it worked.

All the more reason to be dubious of incrementalism then

Still believe that the large democratic segregationist base would have never allowed for a free health care given to black people and since they had so much power it worked.

Social Security and Medicare also cover black people - that's the thing about universal programs, they undermine the divisions that can otherwise be exploited.

Whereas welfare/Obamacare subsidies/etc. are only given to 'those people'

Yeah and I said upthread that this is the big mistake centrists are making, not seeing the potential for m4a to unite people are locked in polarization. I am for all implementing single payer health care within first year of the next dem presidency, but when you see that Warren/Sanders can't combine 60% of the democratic base which in turn represents, what? 40% of the voting population? I have a hard time being optimistic it will have enough popular support to happen this asap.

Warren/Sanders can't combine 60% of the democratic base which in turn represents, what? 40% of the voting population?

That is such a weirdly compartmentalized way to view the current race. Both Warren and Sanders currently lead Trump in polls which place them in direct competition.

Lol

Biden says he won't legalize marijuana because it may be a 'gateway drug'

that should help him win over some young whippersnappers

he really is running for president in 1996. and by golly i think he's gonna beat the pants off bob dole.

He said he won't legalize it federally but will let states do whatever. He stepped on a rake with the dumb grandpa "gateway drug" thing though.

Even if the federal govt legalized weed, wouldn't states, counties and cities make their own laws anyway? I mean, alcohol is legal federally but I live in a dry county.

It is a gateway...to a dope ass time amirite

That is such a weirdly compartmentalized way to view the current race. Both Warren and Sanders currently lead Trump in polls which place them in direct competition.

― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, November 17, 2019 10:12 PM (fifty-two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Present Biden voters would perhaps vote for Sanders/Warren over Trump, but that doesn’t mean they support universal health care.

Most of Biden's voters already have universal care via Medicare

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

covered at length here: https://smile.amazon.com/American-Sickness-Healthcare-Became-Business/dp/1594206759

I'm no longer supporting Bernie Sanders. I'm now #TeamPete and if you got a problem with that you can unfollow. pic.twitter.com/1k6Me3oy7a

— yellow vest america 🦺 (@america_vest) November 18, 2019

Raises a couple of interesting points I hadn't considered

actually really persuasive, thx 4 posting

lool

actually i've changed my mind, mayo pete is cancelled again

Amusingly I've even gotten correspondence from someone arguing that Pete's claim to have been a country boy who had never seen "exposed brick" until he went to Harvard is a lie, because he grew up with it in his house. I really hope this becomes the scandal that undoes him. pic.twitter.com/GHdGgT3yKA

— Nathan J Robinson (@NathanJRobinson) November 17, 2019

Mayor Pete gets more and more interesting.