Does it matter?
Nope. Not at all. Just curious.
You’re right and I am sorry. I apologize.
I do not like it that people can hide their profiles. To me that is not what the SDMB is all about but that’s not your fault. I took that out on you and that is not fair.
I didn’t know that option did that, I thought it just hides whether you are online or not. And i’m a transgender socialist veteran who is simply giving her viewpoint. If you have an issue with that, that is on you.
Apology accepted.
You’re a veteran?! Never saw that coming. 
Lol, yeah, thats why I’ve felt especially pissed off at how Trump has been treating us. Obama for all his faults made it so I could serve openly (I was in the Air Force when DADT ended), now Trump has made it so people like me can’t serve our country at all. So don’t get the impression I am some kind of “Destroy America!” leftist like Republicans like to portray us as. 
Bet you would never have guessed I used to be a communist youth.
I got better.
NOOoooo, we just need to elect one to three socialists and everything will be paradise overnight!!!
Only I’m not against police reform. I have specifically stated on multiple occasions that this is what Democrats should advocate, in those precise words, rather than “defunding” or “reimagining” police.
It’s amazing how people in the right wing echo chamber still call this a “hoax” and say the investigators are the ones who need to be prosecuted! 
This!
(1) It doesn’t really matter if we “alienate” progressives if they still vote Democratic because they have nowhere else to go.
(2) We may lose some progressive votes to third parties or nonvoting that way, but we would have to lose more than twice as many as the moderate Republicans we gain, because flipping a vote is worth twice as much.
I hear progressives whine about this all the time. But they somehow fail to notice that for many of them, their favorite pastime is to viciously excoriate the DNC and “corporate” “corrupt” Democrats they claim are in the pocket of big lobbyists. They spout these calumnies about the mainstream of the party all day long, every day, without even noticing how insulting these accusations are. But then if any criticism comes their way from the mainstream, they get the vapours. “How can you say anything disparaging about us–don’t you want our votes?” I’m sick and fucking tired of this one-way street. And the reason they are shocked is that in fact, mainstream Democrats do usually grit their teeth and take the abuse without firing back, because they don’t want to make these hypersensitive lefties go completely nuclear, as they do if they get even mild pushback. But it’s really fucking irritating.
My god, there are a lot of unread posts in this thread. I’m going to send this much and dive back down for more.
It was NOT a “useless piece of junk”. From the Kaiser Family Foundation:
“The number of uninsured nonelderly Americans decreased from over 46.5 million in 2010 (the year the ACA was enacted) to just below 27 million in 2016.”
I would like to see that go to zero, but I don’t think those 20 million now-insured people would agree with you! There’s the expression “a half a loaf is better than none”. This looks like about 40% of a loaf, still much better than none.
And I say that, BTW, as someone who was uninsured for many years and thought the ACA would get me insurance. Instead, I fell into the “family glitch” gap, and had to continue to go uninsured for most of the rest of the Obama years.
Indeed. This is a rare opportunity. We may have to go back to fighting it out on traditional terms in only two years, but for now we should take that gift and run with it. Progressives can wait. And really, it’s not even a true “wait”, because every analysis I’ve seen of Biden’s platform is that it is the most progressive one since LBJ at least, possibly in all of American history depending on how you define it (in absolute, or relative terms).
That’s idiotic. Early in the '00s, in Canada, what had previously been multiple right leaning parties merged into one Conservative Party. But the various left of center parties did not do this. You know what happened? Multiple elections in which Stephen Harper’s Conservatives controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government (because that’s how it goes in a parliamentary system) despite being significantly outvoted by the combined left-of-center parties.
If we “beat the GOP into dust”, those voters won’t go away. Nor will the senators from all the low-population Western states (even if we make PR and DC states, which we should). If we then splinter the Dems, the right wingers will come roaring back.
This is a tiresome canard. My mother and sister are Canadians. Canadian conservatives are, as a group, to the right of moderate Democrats, not to the left. Many of them are SCARY conservative, uber-fundamentalist right wing maniacs.
Andy and I agree again!
I had a sense those were your pronouns, so I was jolted by surprise when I saw the “him”. Good to know.
And democrats do.
The complaint that I keep hearing is that there are some protesters out there that use this term.
The complaint even extends back in time, to complain that people have used this term.
Even if we could get everyone who has had it with the terrorism that is the state of current policing to agree to use “acceptable” terminology, the fact that it was ever used at all will still be held against them.
So, we either just go ahead, and work towards police reform, and if people complain that what the protesters are saying is making them not want to work towards reform, then they need to be ignored, not the ones whose lives are being destroyed and ended by the violent totalitarianism that we call “Law and Order”.
This is exaclty the type of taking their votes for granted that caused them not to turn out in 2016. Now they will be facing even more challenges to place their vote, and we still just expect them to show up, while ignoring their needs in order to cater to the Republicans.
I would be surprised that we pick up even 1 vote from the Republicans for every 5 votes that we lost for turning our backs on them.
Not sure that there is an objective way to truly measure this, even after the election, but I know Republicans, and I know that the ones who can be swayed already have been. I also know progressives, and the ones who are willing to support the Democrats can be easily pushed away if we tell them that their concerns don’t matter as much as the Republicans’ do.
This is a rather one sided way of putting it. It is not that anything disparaging is being said, though you do that enough anyway, it is that they are entirely unrepresented by our party.
If you consider “mild pushback” to be utterly ignoring their needs, and turning our backs on them, then they are right to understand that we do not care the slightest about them.
Abuse? Abuse of words complaining? Sure, the mainstream Democrats can afford to take that “abuse” from the progressives, as the mainstream democrats are being represented by the party, their concerns are listened to and addressed.
Same here. Same with much of my peer group.
All ACA did was increase my taxes by making me pay a penalty for the years when I couldn’t afford to pay exorbitant premiums.
The years I did have it, and had need to seek medical services, it didn’t pay a dime towards them.
I’m glad that I didn’t have a severe health problem, but at the same time, in some ways I wish I had so at least I could have gotten my money’s worth out of it.
And I did say that it was better than what it replaced, which is nothing, but that still doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a piece of junk.
How many of them want to see their UHC replaced by private insurance?
My only point here is that they did ask Republicans for input. The started from a Republican plan, and then added a whole bunch of Republican amendments.
And not a single Republican supported it.
I don’t know that Obama could have done better, I do think that we could have gotten something a bit better, but that’s neither here nor there.
My point is that catering to Republicans will not get them on board, it will only make you compromise and move further and further, while they step back over and over.
What do you expect UHC will look like? Do you think you’re going to get your tax dollars worth of healthcare every year? This attitude kills me and is why America isn’t ready for UHC and why we had to settle for ACA. Most people, if they are lucky, will not get their “money’s worth” from UHC until very close to end of life. Some not even then.
I would hope that it would look like a system that actually provides healthcare.
When I said “in some ways”… that is obviously tongue in cheek.
I would imagine that if I am paying nearly $5000 a year in premiums, that if I need to go to the doctor because I have developed pneumonia from the flu, that it shouldn’t cost me an additional $250 for him to look at me for 2 minutes and give me a prescription that cost me another $100.
I would expect that when my sciatica flares up, I don’t have to pay another couple hundred dollars just to get a prescription for some muscle relaxers.
If I had had a severe medical crisis, then I would have been out several thousand before my insurance would start picking up anything.
I expect that a UHC should be where I pay my taxes, and then I don’t worry about medical bills anymore. Instead, I pay taxes, I pay premiums, and I still worry about being bankrupted by medical bills.
That’s not a very good system. Like I said, it’s better than we had, especially when it comes to “pre-existing conditions”, but it is still a piece of junk that doesn’t do what a UHC should do, which is make the people not have to worry about whether they can afford to go to the doctor when they are sick or injured.
This should provide some idea of what UHC costs in Canada:
I don’t know if it’s reasonable to expect that America will do a better job of it and I feel like it’s very likely there will be additional out of pocket costs involved for which some may opt to buy supplemental insurance.
So, a family of four that makes twice what I do pays a bit less than twice what I pay for myself.
I’ll take that deal.
So, a scare PDF put out by a right wing group in order to persuade Canadians that their UHC is a monster shows that it is far, far, far better than what we have.
Not looking into their methodologies, and taking their analysis as fact still shows that it is much better. I’m sure that if any actual Canadians come along with some more objective numbers, then it will look even better.
Yeah, I should have shared a better source. Distracted by the TdF wrap up.
Also, End of Hijack.
I’m firmly of the opinion that most opponents of UHC see it as some monolithic, inefficient government agency that will provide substandard, impersonal care by medical providers you can’t choose, and who are following the dictates of some bean-counters in Washington. Basically they see it as medical care by the DMV, which I have to admit, sounds horrible. But it’s not that- it’s far more likely to be something more similar to what we have today- like Medicare, for example, only more widespread.
That’s where UHC needs to be sold- by pointing out that there isn’t really that much difference in practice between the private insurance industry and UHC- either way, you’re paying for poor lifestyle choices, poorer people, etc… whether it’s as part of your insurance pool, or via direct taxation for public hospitals, ambulances, etc… And private insurance dictates what they’ll pay for, who you can see, etc… assuming you want them to pay for it.
I think there’s a relatively small contingent saying “But I should get to choose if I’m covered or not…” who aren’t even rich. Fuck them, I say. That’s another “tragedy of the commons” type situation where these clowns are going to not choose coverage, and then expect to be taken to the hospital by ambulance, and seen by doctors anyway, and probably not be able to pay for it all. Just like mask wearing, that decision impacts others in a negative way, and that’s where their freedom of choice should end.
I want UHC, but I favor doing it by filling in the gaps for the uninsured, not totally changing the system for those already covered. My mother and sister are Canadian, and they have had to deal with extremely long wait times for treatment. Americans would not tolerate that: there would be a revolt and the right wing backlash would in the end make us much worse off than if we just do it the way I am advocating.
Getting back from the slight hijack/tangent, and back to something closer to the topic:
Now NPR (technically non-partisan, but created by LBJ and congressional Democrats, and widely associated with educated liberals to this day) has given a lengthy and sympathetic airing to a pro-rioting, pro-looting argument:
I have been an NPR member for years, but sometimes they really make me 
. I wouldn’t mind them interviewing this author, mind you, if they really pushed back at the argument more. They do so very mildly once or twice, but mostly the questions are basically “Tell us more about why critics of your argument are spouting myths and generally getting it wrong.” 