- 146,438
- 192,643
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
There were plenty of people who said those things who didn't support the status quo during those eras, but who believed fundamental change was not possible. It wasn't just the people who actively supported those injustices. Every one of those achievements that people fought for had road blocks, some of them larger and more entrenched than those working against M4A. So I wasn't trying to characterize your response as reactionary, but as unnecessarily and problematically defeatist.Oh please miss me with this
We have had many discussions about healthcare, you know I don't support the status quo like the people you listed in these examples.
So this is just some disingenuous **** and a hand wave regarding the road blocks facing M4A
Exactly, you shouldn't need supplementary private coverage—I agree 100%. Based on your example, I think your experience of what is or isn't covered is so extremely different from what the norm is in this country it pretty much belies comparison to what's happening in the U.S.I'll respond to your last question first. The argument is luxury. Think of it like a hotel. A regular hotel will do just fine but some people want a 5 star hotel. The public coverage shouldn't cover an optional 1-person room stay in a hospital for example but that's something where private insurance steps in. You mentioned "why should we even need supplementary private insurance" but the point is that you shouldn't need it.
As for your other points, I don't think we really disagree all that much here. Keeping your options open, preparing contingency plans and fighting for the ideal solution are not mutually exclusive.
"The abolition of slavery is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."
"Women's suffrage is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."
"The forty-hour work week is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."
"Child labor protections are not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."
"Government protection of collective bargaining rights is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."
"Social Security is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."
"The destruction of the Jim Crow regime is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."
"Medicare and Medicaid are not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."
"It always seems impossible until it's done."
—Nelson Mandela
Imagine a dude who comes into a discussion and... wait, who the hell are you?Imagine a white dude kicking this BS to a black dude.
"The abolition of slavery is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."
Dude please.There were plenty of people who said those things who didn't support the status quo during those eras, but who believed fundamental change was not possible. It wasn't just the people who actively supported those injustices. Every one of those achievements that people fought for had road blocks, some of them larger and more entrenched than those working against M4A. So I wasn't trying to characterize your response as reactionary, but as unnecessarily and problematically defeatist.
You may not want actually want M4A—as I recall, you don't—and we can argue what the best healthcare system would look like, but let's not conflate your preference with what is or isn't ultimately possible. Donald Trump is president of the United States. A self-described socialist may very well receive the Democratic Party nomination for president. So you can miss me with the declarations about what is or isn't possible over the next handful of years, much less beyond that.
Sure each of those examples has its own unique historical developments that ultimately made them possible. None of these are one-to-one comparisons.-Red-
I understand what you were trying to do, but this is a miss for me, fam. And not because of the cheap identity politics that Chopper hit you with.
Take the abolition example. By the time of the British Abolition Act of 1833, the political agitation against slavery was a transnational movement. You had nation states fighting against slavery (in Mexico, Britain, and beyond) and powerful forces within the US, Cuba, and Brazil fighting to preserve slavery.
The point is that it took nation states, imperial rivalries, the politics of capital, religious institutions, and a robust ideology of anti-slavery to bring about abolition.
I am for M4A, but can you realistically claim that the base of support behind it, its ideological coherence, and the ways in which power blocs will be neutralized is even slightly comparable to abolition? You've tried to use a historical example to push us to think more expansively, but that example is not apt.
Where the **** did I say anything close to that?Sure each of those examples has its own unique historical developments that ultimately made them possible. None of these are one-to-one comparisons.
My point was that many things that were deemed "impossible" and commonly understood as such have been transformed. So I don't buy the "M4A is impossible, so just shut up about it" line of argumentation.
Bruh, you, Osh, and maybe some others have been beating that drum for at least six months in this thread.Where the **** did I say anything close to that?
I said it is not happening anything soon, and people need to stop acting like that is not true.
In case people missed it, DOJ filed a motion with the Supreme Court this week in which they argue that the ACA case does not merit an expedited review. That means a review in the current SC session. The SC hasn't decided yet on how they will proceed. That leaves 3 potential timetables and only the expedited review would result in a ruling before the election. Late June or early July at the latest in that case.Furthermore, SCOTUS is going to rule on the ACA relatively soon. At the latest, it is next Spring. Unless the Dems pass a reform bill under budget reconciliation, if Robert chooses to strike down the law, the Dems may be in the position where they would need 60 votes again to pass anything. President Sanders won't be able to force through anything at that point, let alone M4A.
Other people's words are there wordsBruh, you, Osh, and maybe some others have been beating that drum for at least six months in this thread.
So if the SCOTUS may invalidate the half-stepping, generally capital-friendly ACA, why on earth should we base our vision for healthcare on what the SCOTUS may determine?In case people missed it, DOJ filed a motion with the Supreme Court this week in which they argue that the ACA case does not merit an expedited review. That means a review in the current SC session. The SC hasn't decided yet on how they will proceed. That leaves 3 potential timetables and only the expedited review would result in a ruling before the election. Late June or early July at the latest in that case.
The longest timetable would be to simply let the case work its way up through the lower courts first.
If the Supreme Court decides take up the case already but not on the basis of an expedited review, the start of the process would have to wait until the next Supreme Court session begins. That's in October.
I notice you rephrase the supposed argument I have been makingRustyShackleford how exactly would you characterize your own statements about M4A in this thread over the last six months or so?
I don't have the time nor energy to parse through your thousands of posts in here to pull up receipts, but I seem to recall you saying things to the effect of "I wish people would just stop talking about M4A, since it's not gonna happen." If you tell me I'm wrong, though, I'll eat that.
I don't think anyone has argued that the Dems should base their vision of healthcare strictly on what conservatives in SCOTUS will accept.So if the SCOTUS may invalidate the half-stepping, generally capital-friendly ACA, why on earth should we base our vision for healthcare on what the SCOTUS may determine?
Fam, "stop talking about" and "shut up about" are synonymous, so whatever.I notice you rephrase the supposed argument I have been making
And to be honest, I do say a lot of stuff in here. I know that even if I have made a flippant post I can't remember, most of my objection to pressing for M4A have been spelled out in detail, and mu position has not been to simply tell people to shut up on M4A. It has been to consider the roadblocks to improving the situation.
At this point, I really don't give a **** if you eat it or not. Nearly every back and forth with you involves me having to pushback against some **** I didn't say or beleive. I know in a few weeks months it will be the same song and dance. So it is whatever to me.