The State of the Democratic Party Post-2016

[MERIZoC]

Sorry for wanting healthcare, I'll be sure to do better next time. Hope we didn't offend you in your ivory tower.

Strawman, my friend. Did you not notice how I called Senator Warren the golden standard of policy?

For the record, I strongly support universal health care. Notice, however, that only a handful of countries have the single-payer system Senator Sanders and progressives demand. Germany, Switzerland, and Japan all guarantee health care as a right -- but have different ways of going about it. Germany and Japan have multi-payer systems. Switzerland has non-profit corporations providing insurance. I think these more moderate approaches may be better for America, and am annoyed at how people insist specifically on Medicare-for-all.

They aren't better for America; the US is a vastly different country than those nations. I could explain it, but I'd really just be ripping from Tim Faust so I'll let him do it.
https://twitter.com/crulge/status/913672588500590592

The fact of the matter is, having a larger risk pool is simply more efficient, making single payer better policy, and the only thing that's gonna properly work for the US. If politicians aren't getting on board with it, then yeah, fuck em! It absolutely is a purity test!

Even Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, who proposed a respectable public option for health care, was attacked by progressives for being skeptical of "Medicare-for-all." Purism is not a good thing, especially since we all agree at the end of the day.

She's refusing to support Sander's bill, which is the only real solution on the table, so I don't see why she shouldn't be given a hearty "go fuck yourself".

[Ngelmish]

Sorry for wanting healthcare, I'll be sure to do better next time. Hope we didn't offend you in your ivory tower.

Strawman, my friend. Did you not notice how I called Senator Warren the golden standard of policy?

For the record, I strongly support universal health care. Notice, however, that only a handful of countries have the single-payer system Senator Sanders and progressives demand. Germany, Switzerland, and Japan all guarantee health care as a right -- but have different ways of going about it. Germany and Japan have multi-payer systems. Switzerland has non-profit corporations providing insurance. I think these more moderate approaches may be better for America, and am annoyed at how people insist specifically on Medicare-for-all.

Even Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, who proposed a respectable public option for health care, was attacked by progressives for being skeptical of "Medicare-for-all." Purism is not a good thing, especially since we all agree at the end of the day.

Healthcare would be more of a genuine inflection point if we hadn't had a candidate in that election who campaigned on, and had successfully implemented all-payer on the state level too. As is generally the case, these complaints are little more than posturing from voters who are less interested in outcomes than they are in claiming the sole right to define what outcomes can be called good or bad. Power politics at its finest.

[Arlenton]

Strawman, my friend. Did you not notice how I called Senator Warren the golden standard of policy?

For the record, I strongly support universal health care. Notice, however, that only a handful of countries have the single-payer system Senator Sanders and progressives demand. Germany, Switzerland, and Japan all guarantee health care as a right -- but have different ways of going about it. Germany and Japan have multi-payer systems. Switzerland has non-profit corporations providing insurance. I think these more moderate approaches may be better for America, and am annoyed at how people insist specifically on Medicare-for-all.

They aren't better for America; the US is a vastly different country than those nations. I could explain it, but I'd really just be ripping from Tim Faust so I'll let him do it.
https://twitter.com/crulge/status/913672588500590592

The fact of the matter is, having a larger risk pool is simply more efficient, making single payer better policy, and the only thing that's gonna properly work for the US. If politicians aren't getting on board with it, then yeah, fuck em! It absolutely is a purity test!

Even Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, who proposed a respectable public option for health care, was attacked by progressives for being skeptical of "Medicare-for-all." Purism is not a good thing, especially since we all agree at the end of the day.

She's refusing to support Sander's bill, which is the only real solution on the table, so I don't see why she shouldn't be given a hearty "go fuck yourself".

Purism is never a good thing, believe me. Not saying single payer isn't an unpopular fringe issue (it's not), but it isn't universally popular. Democrats should try whatever is the most realistic.

[Lalaki]

Strawman, my friend. Did you not notice how I called Senator Warren the golden standard of policy?

For the record, I strongly support universal health care. Notice, however, that only a handful of countries have the single-payer system Senator Sanders and progressives demand. Germany, Switzerland, and Japan all guarantee health care as a right -- but have different ways of going about it. Germany and Japan have multi-payer systems. Switzerland has non-profit corporations providing insurance. I think these more moderate approaches may be better for America, and am annoyed at how people insist specifically on Medicare-for-all.

They aren't better for America; the US is a vastly different country than those nations. I could explain it, but I'd really just be ripping from Tim Faust so I'll let him do it.
https://twitter.com/crulge/status/913672588500590592

The fact of the matter is, having a larger risk pool is simply more efficient, making single payer better policy, and the only thing that's gonna properly work for the US. If politicians aren't getting on board with it, then yeah, fuck em! It absolutely is a purity test!

Even Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, who proposed a respectable public option for health care, was attacked by progressives for being skeptical of "Medicare-for-all." Purism is not a good thing, especially since we all agree at the end of the day.

She's refusing to support Sander's bill, which is the only real solution on the table, so I don't see why she shouldn't be given a hearty "go fuck yourself".

The link you mentioned laid out decent policy arguments. Props to you for that. However, there are also problems that we have to consider with the Medicare-for-all bills we've seen in Congress thus far:
https://www.thenation.com/article/medicare-for-all-isnt-the-solution-for-universal-health-care/

Among the problems is that Medicare isn't a solidly "single-payer" system (many of its recipients actually get subsidies to buy policies of their choice), and the fact that there are millions of Americans who would actually receive less comprehensive benefits under the new system than the current system. The article is written by someone who supports nationalizing insurance, mind you. But he emphasizes that we have to be careful about the ways we advocate for it. Calling the Sanders bill "the only solution" neglects the traction a public option proposal received in 2009-2010.

The only reason we didn't get a public option is because Sens. Joe Liberman and Ben Nelson (votes 59 and 60 on the Affordable Care Act) threatened to vote against cloture if it wasn't removed.

[Telconi]

They aren't better for America; the US is a vastly different country than those nations. I could explain it, but I'd really just be ripping from Tim Faust so I'll let him do it.
https://twitter.com/crulge/status/913672588500590592

The fact of the matter is, having a larger risk pool is simply more efficient, making single payer better policy, and the only thing that's gonna properly work for the US. If politicians aren't getting on board with it, then yeah, fuck em! It absolutely is a purity test!


She's refusing to support Sander's bill, which is the only real solution on the table, so I don't see why she shouldn't be given a hearty "go fuck yourself".

The link you mentioned laid out decent policy arguments. Props to you for that. However, there are also problems that we have to consider with the Medicare-for-all bills we've seen in Congress thus far:
https://www.thenation.com/article/medicare-for-all-isnt-the-solution-for-universal-health-care/

Among the problems is that Medicare isn't a solidly "single-payer" system (many of its recipients actually get subsidies to buy policies of their choice), and the fact that there are millions of Americans who would actually receive less comprehensive benefits under the new system than the current system. The article is written by someone who supports nationalizing insurance, mind you. But he emphasizes that we have to be careful about the ways we advocate for it. Calling the Sanders bill "the only solution" neglects the traction a public option proposal received in 2009-2010.

The only reason we didn't get a public option is because Sens. Joe Liberman and Ben Nelson (votes 59 and 60 on the Affordable Care Act) threatened to vote against cloture if it wasn't removed.

I think it's less of an issue as to what sort of health care option we pursue, and more of an issue of getting a lot of folks on board with the idea. The ACA was an unmitigated disaster IMO. And isn't something we should be sticking with as any sort of standard.

[Lalaki]

The link you mentioned laid out decent policy arguments. Props to you for that. However, there are also problems that we have to consider with the Medicare-for-all bills we've seen in Congress thus far:
https://www.thenation.com/article/medicare-for-all-isnt-the-solution-for-universal-health-care/

Among the problems is that Medicare isn't a solidly "single-payer" system (many of its recipients actually get subsidies to buy policies of their choice), and the fact that there are millions of Americans who would actually receive less comprehensive benefits under the new system than the current system. The article is written by someone who supports nationalizing insurance, mind you. But he emphasizes that we have to be careful about the ways we advocate for it. Calling the Sanders bill "the only solution" neglects the traction a public option proposal received in 2009-2010.

The only reason we didn't get a public option is because Sens. Joe Liberman and Ben Nelson (votes 59 and 60 on the Affordable Care Act) threatened to vote against cloture if it wasn't removed.

I think it's less of an issue as to what sort of health care option we pursue, and more of an issue of getting a lot of folks on board with the idea. The ACA was an unmitigated disaster IMO. And isn't something we should be sticking with as any sort of standard.

“Unmitigated disaster” is a stretch. Around 20 million Americans have gained health insurance because of the law, and premium inflation has actually slowed since 2010. It’s certainly not perfect — and we need a permanent solution. But I don’t see why we should run away from it.

[Telconi]

I think it's less of an issue as to what sort of health care option we pursue, and more of an issue of getting a lot of folks on board with the idea. The ACA was an unmitigated disaster IMO. And isn't something we should be sticking with as any sort of standard.

“Unmitigated disaster” is a stretch. Around 20 million Americans have gained health insurance because of the law, and premium inflation has actually slowed since 2010. It’s certainly not perfect — and we need a permanent solution. But I don’t see why we should run away from it.

Unmitigated Disaster

And for reasons other than that, "gaining health insurance" is, in and of itself, pointless. I spent two years with "health care" and never saw the doctor because I couldn't afford to pay down the deductible. In the end the policy was a complete waste of time. I won't go into detail about my personal situation, I've outlined before how I had a disaster of an experience with the ACA, but I recognize that my situation was likely uncommon, and not indicative of the bill as a whole. But a great deal of people are buying low cost plans, with obscene deductibles. Do these plans help? certainly, if they're in a car crash or suffer some other catastrophic affliction they'll only be six months pay in debt, not ten years pay. But a lot of these plans are functionally useless for day to day use.

Simply put, if your goal is to get a health insurance card in everyone's wallet, the ACA did a good job. If your goal is to actually provide people affordable and ready access to medical care without debt or undue expense, not so much.

Regardless, I think it's important to note, that regardless of it's degree of success, the success is ultimately insufficient. And for this reason the Democrat party should have focused upon improving the ACA, not simply defending it ad nauseam.

[Ism]

“Unmitigated disaster” is a stretch. Around 20 million Americans have gained health insurance because of the law, and premium inflation has actually slowed since 2010. It’s certainly not perfect — and we need a permanent solution. But I don’t see why we should run away from it.

Unmitigated Disaster

And for reasons other than that, "gaining health insurance" is, in and of itself, pointless. I spent two years with "health care" and never saw the doctor because I couldn't afford to pay down the deductible. In the end the policy was a complete waste of time. I won't go into detail about my personal situation, I've outlined before how I had a disaster of an experience with the ACA, but I recognize that my situation was likely uncommon, and not indicative of the bill as a whole. But a great deal of people are buying low cost plans, with obscene deductibles. Do these plans help? certainly, if they're in a car crash or suffer some other catastrophic affliction they'll only be six months pay in debt, not ten years pay. But a lot of these plans are functionally useless for day to day use.

Simply put, if your goal is to get a health insurance card in everyone's wallet, the ACA did a good job. If your goal is to actually provide people affordable and ready access to medical care without debt or undue expense, not so much.

Regardless, I think it's important to note, that regardless of it's degree of success, the success is ultimately insufficient. And for this reason the Democrat party should have focused upon improving the ACA, not simply defending it ad nauseam.

The standard Dem line has been "let's fix the ACA" for a long time now.

[Telconi]

Unmitigated Disaster

And for reasons other than that, "gaining health insurance" is, in and of itself, pointless. I spent two years with "health care" and never saw the doctor because I couldn't afford to pay down the deductible. In the end the policy was a complete waste of time. I won't go into detail about my personal situation, I've outlined before how I had a disaster of an experience with the ACA, but I recognize that my situation was likely uncommon, and not indicative of the bill as a whole. But a great deal of people are buying low cost plans, with obscene deductibles. Do these plans help? certainly, if they're in a car crash or suffer some other catastrophic affliction they'll only be six months pay in debt, not ten years pay. But a lot of these plans are functionally useless for day to day use.

Simply put, if your goal is to get a health insurance card in everyone's wallet, the ACA did a good job. If your goal is to actually provide people affordable and ready access to medical care without debt or undue expense, not so much.

Regardless, I think it's important to note, that regardless of it's degree of success, the success is ultimately insufficient. And for this reason the Democrat party should have focused upon improving the ACA, not simply defending it ad nauseam.

The standard Dem line has been "let's fix the ACA" for a long time now.

The only time I heard "let's fix it" was when it was under direct threat of getting Trumpcared. Seems like before and since there was no motivation to fix it. The ACA was a stopgap, I think anyone who says otherwise is foolish or ignorant. But the point of a stopgap is that it needs to work only long enough to design a more permanent solution. Which means you have to work on that permanent solution ASAP.

[USS Monitor]

Am I the only Warren supporter who doesn't like the "progressive" label and thinks all the fuss about getting "progressives" into office is stupid? Not that having progressives in office is stupid, but the way people talk about it is stupid.

Trust me, you're not alone. I love Senator Warren. She is the gold standard of solid political policy and has a strong background of research/administrative experience to back it up. That said, I absolutely detest how insistent some are about getting "progressives" elected to office, shooting down the prospect of any moderate having a chance of winning. A segment of Bernie Sanders supporters (certainly not all, and perhaps not most -- but a sizeable chunk) represents this mindset well.

Yeah, that's pretty much my take on it.

[Corrian]

While I don't agree with "progressives" being remotely possible everywhere, on a lot of local levels, "progressives" are energizing a lot more people than a normal Democrat or a normal Republican. Also the situation of like 3 or 4 special election seats in Oklahoma switching to Democrat is impressive.

[Tyrassueb]

While I don't agree with "progressives" being remotely possible everywhere, on a lot of local levels, "progressives" are energizing a lot more people than a normal Democrat or a normal Republican. Also the situation of like 3 or 4 special election seats in Oklahoma switching to Democrat is impressive.

It's almost as if if someone runs on a platform for the people said people are likely to vote for them! And I think it's ridiculous to say "well you see we don't run progressives here because they can't win" when they haven't done so. At least try for crying out loud! To quote Truman:

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time.

I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a program; you have to be for something, otherwise you will never get anywhere.

[Tyrassueb]

Ben Jealous names Susan Turnbull as running mate in Maryland gubernatorial race.

[San Lumen]

While I don't agree with "progressives" being remotely possible everywhere, on a lot of local levels, "progressives" are energizing a lot more people than a normal Democrat or a normal Republican. Also the situation of like 3 or 4 special election seats in Oklahoma switching to Democrat is impressive.

It's almost as if if someone runs on a platform for the people said people are likely to vote for them! And I think it's ridiculous to say "well you see we don't run progressives here because they can't win" when they haven't done so. At least try for crying out loud! To quote Truman:

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time.

I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a program; you have to be for something, otherwise you will never get anywhere.

True but when someone loses you can't just say oh they should have invested more money. Look at Alabama that state is so red a child molester will likely be the next senator. Moore could shoot a reporter in the leg and still get elected.

[Tyrassueb]

It's almost as if if someone runs on a platform for the people said people are likely to vote for them! And I think it's ridiculous to say "well you see we don't run progressives here because they can't win" when they haven't done so. At least try for crying out loud! To quote Truman:

True but when someone loses you can't just say oh they should have invested more money. Look at Alabama that state is so red a child molester will likely be the next senator. Moore could shoot a reporter in the leg and still get elected.

That's pretty much the DNC's excuse for years now though. I'm not saying that. Personally I think that one special election back in, what? March? That was ridiculously expensive and should not have been. And in Omaha the Democratic contender failed to win despite apparently coming within a hair breath of it but then the DNC stepped in and cut support and caused a controversy and he lost by 5%. The local party there still seethes at that (just read an article on it even).

[Corrian]

True but when someone loses you can't just say oh they should have invested more money. Look at Alabama that state is so red a child molester will likely be the next senator. Moore could shoot a reporter in the leg and still get elected.

Most of us actually think the DNC threw too much money into the Jon Ossof race. I also think he stood for little beyond "I'm not Trump, vote for me", which doesn't help at all.

That's pretty much the DNC's excuse for years now though. I'm not saying that. Personally I think that one special election back in, what? March? That was ridiculously expensive and should not have been. And in Omaha the Democratic contender failed to win despite apparently coming within a hair breath of it but then the DNC stepped in and cut support and caused a controversy and he lost by 5%. The local party there still seethes at that (just read an article on it even).

That whole thing was stupid.

While I don't agree with "progressives" being remotely possible everywhere, on a lot of local levels, "progressives" are energizing a lot more people than a normal Democrat or a normal Republican. Also the situation of like 3 or 4 special election seats in Oklahoma switching to Democrat is impressive.

It's almost as if if someone runs on a platform for the people said people are likely to vote for them! And I think it's ridiculous to say "well you see we don't run progressives here because they can't win" when they haven't done so. At least try for crying out loud! To quote Truman:

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time.

I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a program; you have to be for something, otherwise you will never get anywhere.

Shocking!

[Corrian]

Nancy Pelosi is now calling for Conyers to resign

[Corrian]

What

[The Huskar Social Union]

What

Im literally fucking speechless.

[Corrian]

What

Im literally fucking speechless.

I am still laughing.

[Galloism]

What

Wow, that's terrible.

Unironic official sexism, and even more hilariously, blaming the victim when someone threatens to post revenge porn of him when his only threat was he would "call the police".

I don't normally say this, but if she is on the democratic ticket, I hope a republican defeats her.

[G-Tech Corporation]

What

Oh god, it isn’t even satire.

[Corrian]

What

Wow, that's terrible.

Unironic official sexism, and even more hilariously, blaming the victim when someone threatens to post revenge porn of him when his only threat was he would "call the police".

I don't normally say this, but if she is on the democratic ticket, I hope a republican defeats her.

And people on this Twitter feed are praising her, saying that she has their vote now.

Like she comes off as actually very sexist in this video. Like Jesus Christ.

[Telconi]

What

Oh god, it isn’t even satire.

It has to be... this has to be some form of joke...

[Galloism]

Oh god, it isn’t even satire.

It has to be... this has to be some form of joke...

Someone around here was talking about the rise of anti-man rhetoric and mainstreaming of misandry in society.

That person might be a prophet.