US of Care’s purpose is to slow the seemingly inevitable momentum toward universal healthcare to make sure that the beneficiaries of our current system (read: private insurance companies) can still get their taste of the action.
By making their goal “health care access” they’re already compromising and showing the opposition that they have no principles.
They deserve to be intensely scrutinized every step of the way, because not only is their leadership proposing insufficient half-measures while people die from lack of care, look at who they’re associating with: health insurance execs and the dude who diagnosed Terri Schaivo via video feed.
By making their goal “health care access” they’re already compromising and showing the opposition that they have no principles.
They deserve to be intensely scrutinized every step of the way, because not only is their leadership proposing insufficient half-measures while people die from lack of care, look at who they’re associating with: health insurance execs and the dude who diagnosed Terri Schaivo via video feed.
By curlyfries Go To PostBill Frist got the ACA passed? (I'm assuming you're talking about the United States of Care thing)Casual search on Twitter for "Bill Frist" show there are far fewer people spending time actually yelling at Bill Frist than people yelling at Jon Favreau. If you're really that threatened by has-beens like Tom Daschle and Bill Frist that's on you.
of course I'm threatened by Bill Frist, he's on the board of the advocacy group that supposed Medicare-for-All supporter Jon Favreau is pimping, along with a bunch of other insurance agency hacks. Do you think ex-lawmakers get these cushy gigs because they don't have any influence anymore? The difference is that Bill Frist isn't pretending to be on my side.
I fail to see the negatives in reminding those who wish to be progressive champions that DLC style tactics won't be tolerated. Even if it means being a little mean on twitter.
I fail to see the negatives in reminding those who wish to be progressive champions that DLC style tactics won't be tolerated. Even if it means being a little mean on twitter.
You can look at this group and say, "well they're our blood enemies" or you can see Andy Slavitt or Atul Gawande's name on there and know that the very least there will be considerable energy and time spent on keeping as many people on their existing ACA coverage as possible between now and 2020.
Some people can't wait 3 years for the cavalry to come.
Some people can't wait 3 years for the cavalry to come.
That's an awfully generous assessment, considering the group's official site makes no mention of defending ACA coverage. In fact, they don't mention supporting any specific policy or course of action at all.
By curlyfries Go To PostThat's an awfully generous assessment, considering the group's official site makes no mention of defending ACA coverage. In fact, they don't mention supporting any specific policy or course of action at all.Then what are you so afraid of?
Whatever "bipartisan" solution they come up with will be a bandaid. We all know that. But that's actually what we need in the year 2018.
I don't have a lot of belief in the positive powers of bipartisan consultant money pits whose aims are hidden in forty layers of pr blather.
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostThen what are you so afraid of?
I was wondering this last night lol
I think it passes with more GOP than dem support in the house and then it goes to Trumps desk.
Does Trump shutdown cause it has no wall spending?
Does Trump shutdown cause it has no wall spending?
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostCasual search on Twitter for "Bill Frist" show there are far fewer people spending time actually yelling at Bill Frist than people yelling at Jon Favreau. If you're really that threatened by has-beens like Tom Daschle and Bill Frist that's on you.Nobody is threatened by Frist or Daschle. We’re pointing out that any group with significant input from someone like Frist or Daschle should be viewed extremely skeptically.
And people like Favreau and Gawande, while well-intentioned, provide cover for terrible “centrist” policies when they sign on to groups like this. They deserve to be criticized.
By reilo Go To PostWhy are we discussing advocacy groups like they are elected officials?
They don't even have policy yet.
Skepticism is fine as long as it's not "everything but medicaid for all or fuck off"
and what "centrist" policy is terrible or is ALL centrist policy terrible?
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/08/584064306/tax-cuts-put-oklahoma-in-a-bind-now-gov-fallin-wants-to-raise-taxes
Incredible. Imagine looking at Kansas and saying "yup, we should do that".
Oklahoma taxpayers are fed up.
Riding high on the oil boom of the late 2000s, the state followed the Kansas model and slashed taxes. But the promised prosperity never came. In many cases, it was just the opposite.
Around 20 percent of Oklahoma's schools now hold classes just four days a week. Last year, highway patrol officers were given a mileage limit because the state couldn't afford to put gas in their tanks. Medicaid provider rates have been cut to the point that rural nursing homes and hospitals are closing, and the prisons are so full that the director of corrections says they're on the brink of a crisis.
Incredible. Imagine looking at Kansas and saying "yup, we should do that".
By reilo Go To PostWhy are we discussing advocacy groups like they are elected officials?They have the ear of elected officials and of the party apparatus. And they can't have it both ways: don't claim to offer the approach that will solve our healthcare system and brush off reasoned, concrete skepticism from your left.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThey don't even have policy yet.Centrism is intellectually bankrupt, especially when "centrism" in the United States means that you're already halfway or further to GOP crazy as fuck policies.
Skepticism is fine as long as it's not "everything but medicaid for all or fuck off"
and what "centrist" policy is terrible or is ALL centrist policy terrible?
Centrism is a sham and doesn't actually exist in the US. The correct term for people like Fenderputty and those that Gondo despises is incrementalism.
By KingGondo Go To PostCentrism is intellectually bankrupt, especially when "centrism" in the United States means that you're already halfway or further to GOP crazy as fuck policies.
This is not an answer to my question.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThis is not an answer to my question.Your question is misleading since there is no such thing as "centrist policy". Centrism is a reactionary ideology that seeks to conciliate both sides. The only principle in centrism is to make sure society doesn't veer too left or too right, which is inherently a fallacy to think this is the proper course of action.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostYour question is misleading since there is no such thing as "centrist policy". Centrism is a reactionary ideology that seeks to conciliate both sides. The only principle in centrism is to make sure society doesn't veer too left or too right, which is inherently a fallacy to think this is the proper course of action.
It’s not misleading when
And people like Favreau and Gawande, while well-intentioned, provide cover for terrible “centrist” policies when they sign on to groups like this. They deserve to be criticized.
It looks like he has actual policty in mind here.
Perfect Blue is correct, I misspoke. "Incrementalist" is a more accurate term for what US of Care is likely to push.
Well until we get off this bent that someone has to profit people are going to continue to eat shit.
By Fenderputty Go To PostAhhh so it is "medicare for all or fuck off" …I don't think that's unreasonable, tbh. The GOP doesn't fuck with incrementalism (unless there is literally no other way). they dive in head-first towards the policies and changes they desire. Going all in on medicare for all is doable but it requires a solid strategy and party unity, IMO.
figured …
yawn.
By Random Ass Username Go To PostWell until we get off this bent that someone has to profit people are going to continue to eat shit.
This is kinda true. That's why you use cost control measures like in Europe. Sweeden locks their private insurers into an 8% profit point and also controls pharma costs for example. There's no reason public options can't exist along side private insurers too.
Obamacare would have been pretty fucking awesome with cost control measure and pharma controls and a public option as well.
The goal should be Universal Coverage at reasonable costs. The how's shouldn't be as important.
By Fenderputty Go To PostAhhh so it is "medicare for all or fuck off" …As a starting point for negotiations? Absolutely.
figured …
yawn.
The Dems will continue to lose as long as they have it in their heads that passing bills with bipartisan support is the goal.
By Fenderputty Go To PostObamacare would have been pretty fucking awesome with cost control measure and pharma controls and a public option as well.The dems up big pharma's ass would like a word.
By KingGondo Go To PostAs a starting point for negotiations? Absolutely.Hell it isn't even this. This is being nice. They're paid off too.
The Dems will continue to lose as long as they have it in their heads that passing bills with bipartisan support is the goal.
By KingGondo Go To PostAs a starting point for negotiations? Absolutely.im okay with this
The Dems will continue to lose as long as they have it in their heads that passing bills with bipartisan support is the goal.
By KingGondo Go To PostAs a starting point for negotiations? Absolutely.
The Dems will continue to lose as long as they have it in their heads that passing bills with bipartisan support is the goal.
Starting points are fine, but you better have actual ideas in place because that's not where it will end up.
By Random Ass Username Go To PostThe dems up big pharma's ass would like a word.
Yes, Obama frustrated me deeply here.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostI don't think that's unreasonable, tbh. The GOP doesn't fuck with incrementalism (unless there is literally no other way). they dive in head-first towards the policies and changes they desire. Going all in on medicare for all is doable but it requires a solid strategy and party unity, IMO.
The left should desire Universal Healthcare. Not necessarily medicare for all. Bernie's plan for example, outlawed private insurance. What do you do with those jobs? Infrastructure? How do you implement such a transition into full government control of healthcare without private insurers? How many people you think this would piss off? His plan had no actual means of payment either.
By Fenderputty Go To PostStarting points are fine, but you better have actual ideas in place because that's not where it will end up.prettttty high bar lol
like we don't wing it in all directions
Any actual ideas will be met with "qui bono doe" anyway. This society is stuck on capitalism being the end all be all in every damn thing and the idea of government as an inept administrator, even though that's how it's run on purpose. So people think "wow private enterprise is so much more efficient and better" when it's shit.
By DY_nasty Go To Postprettttty high bar lol
like we don't wing it in all directions
I want to laugh but can’t heh
By Random Ass Username Go To PostAny actual ideas will be met with "qui bono doe" anyway. This society is stuck on capitalism being the end all be all in every damn thing and the idea of government as an inept administrator, even though that's how it's run on purpose. So people think "wow private enterprise is so much more efficient and better" when it's shit.
There are various successful and efficient multiplayer systems in the world.
Private enterprise is efficient too. It’s efficiency is half the reason labor is fucked. It’s also the reason various forms of market socialism exist
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/08/politics/politics-latest/index.html
Rand Paul hypocritically isn't happy with the debt caps being lifted, put in an amendment to restore them, Senate leaders said nah and now he's grandstanding and holding up the vote and word is he'll do it to midnight and we're shutting down.
Who's to blame here? lol
Senate leaders have no plans to give Sen. Rand Paul a vote on his amendment, Senate sources said.
Paul, who is speaking from the Senate floor right now, can push this past midnight. A source said he will do that.
That means a shutdown, for at least some period of time, is likely, even though the votes are there in the Senate to pass the deal.
Paul's amendment deals with restoring budget caps or not suspending the debt ceiling or some combination of those two ideas, according to a GOP senator.
Rand Paul hypocritically isn't happy with the debt caps being lifted, put in an amendment to restore them, Senate leaders said nah and now he's grandstanding and holding up the vote and word is he'll do it to midnight and we're shutting down.
Who's to blame here? lol
Crooked Media doing really well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/media/pod-save-america-hbo.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/media/pod-save-america-hbo.html
My sister is a nurse. I'm about to financially advise her to become a military nurse, since that's the only money that isn't entitled now apparently.
Is "winning" only ever defined by a single issue, or is DACA that important that stuff like Medicaid payouts and other social services not being operational are less important?
DACA is important (especially to those who are now in immediate danger of deportation), but that isn't the point.
We were told by certain pundits that Dems were playing the long game by ending the first shutdown and that they'd hold McConnell's feet to the fire so that a DACA solution is pushed through. That doesn't appear to have been the case.
We were told by certain pundits that Dems were playing the long game by ending the first shutdown and that they'd hold McConnell's feet to the fire so that a DACA solution is pushed through. That doesn't appear to have been the case.