Dems Rebuild

[RedDenver]

You, a single-payer and Green Party supporter, would have voted for Gary Johnson before Hillary Clinton?

I'm not really a Green Party supporter. Stein is the only time I've voted Green.

 

And being a single-payer supporter is part of why Clinton had zero appeal for me. Gary Johnson was also a terrible candidate, so I would have been torn, but as I said before, with such terrible candidates I was voting to try and get another party up to the 5% threshold to get federal funding.

[zoogs]

 

You, a single-payer and Green Party supporter, would have voted for Gary Johnson before Hillary Clinton?

I'm not really a Green Party supporter. Stein is the only time I've voted Green.

 

And being a single-payer supporter is part of why Clinton had zero appeal for me. Gary Johnson was also a terrible candidate, so I would have been torn, but as I said before, with such terrible candidates I was voting to try and get another party up to the 5% threshold to get federal funding.

 

 

Ahhh, I see.

 

I could see myself doing something like this, swinging for the 5% fences, but two things would have to be true: 1) I'm indifferent to the two major political coalitions and the only ones of consequence in U.S. politics, and 2) I'm a true believer in the party I'm hoping to elevate.

 

Federal funding isn't going to change the game, especially if they're terrible parties but even if they're not. A world of diverse parties can only be realized if we replace the Presidency and the Congress with a parliamentary system. There are many advocates for this, and I think I may even consider myself among them. But, keep in mind, that's not an imperfect solution either, because there are no neat and ideal ones. More importantly, that's not happening no matter what parties rise and fall in the current system or who gets federal funding and who doesn't.

 

Thus, questions like "what's a world in which single payer is more likely to happen in the future", those are the types of questions that mean more to me. The ACA isn't out of the woods here, to speak only of short term consequences. And if Republicans like Lindsey Graham can rally and lead the charge on revise/replace, then single payer will be set back for good. At least, that is explicitly their goal. And the longer they're in control, the closer we get to such scenarios. Stopping this is a high priority, at least for me.

[RedDenver]

 

 

You, a single-payer and Green Party supporter, would have voted for Gary Johnson before Hillary Clinton?

I'm not really a Green Party supporter. Stein is the only time I've voted Green.

 

And being a single-payer supporter is part of why Clinton had zero appeal for me. Gary Johnson was also a terrible candidate, so I would have been torn, but as I said before, with such terrible candidates I was voting to try and get another party up to the 5% threshold to get federal funding.

 

 

Ahhh, I see.

 

I could see myself doing something like this, swinging for the 5% fences, but two things would have to be true: 1) I'm indifferent to the two major political coalitions and the only ones of consequence in U.S. politics, and 2) I'm a true believer in the party I'm hoping to elevate.

 

Federal funding isn't going to change the game, especially if they're terrible parties but even if they're not. A world of diverse parties can only be realized if we replace the Presidency and the Congress with a parliamentary system. There are many advocates for this, and I think I may even consider myself among them. But, keep in mind, that's not an imperfect solution either, because there are no neat and ideal ones. More importantly, that's not happening no matter what parties rise and fall in the current system or who gets federal funding and who doesn't.

 

Thus, questions like "what's a world in which single payer is more likely to happen in the future", those are the types of questions that mean more to me. The ACA isn't out of the woods here, to speak only of short term consequences. And if Republicans like Lindsey Graham can rally and lead the charge on revise/replace, then single payer will be set back for good. At least, that is explicitly their goal. And the longer they're in control, the closer we get to such scenarios. Stopping this is a high priority, at least for me.

 

I don't realistically think a third party can change the Presidential race - at least not unless one of the major parties implodes or we get ranked choice voting. But additional funding for parties will hopefully have an effect on other races. If there are other voices in a race for Congress or state legislature or whatever, then the two parties can't just say the other team is bad. My hope is that it would lead to better discussions and debates on actual policy and governing. Policies like single-payer have a majority support of the people and should help to get candidates elected.

 

The Republicans could do major damage with their stupid healthcare policies but that doesn't necessarily setback single-payer. If Republicans actually manage to pass one of these plans, then a few years from now people will realize how terrible it is. If we've already tried the centrist ACA plan and a right-wing plan, then I think single-payer in some form is very likely. I hope that isn't the path we take, but it doesn't setback single-payer for good.

[zoogs]

I think most people realize what the game is and thus sort themselves into one of the two coalitions. This leads to the remaining parties truly being these narrow-band groups of really dubious quality. For example, there were four voices in the 2016 general election but the GP and LP were not voices. Non-centrist influencers for the most part will opt to spur change from within one of the camps. This can be slow, but at least it's not futile; their voices may be small, but at least not hopelessly so.

 

I disagree that it doesn't set back single-payer. We're on the cusp of all the forces that have made single payer an impossible sell in the US for so long become even further entrenched. And the theory that the devastating failure of this will lead to fresh buds -- well, maybe, or things keep becoming worse and all those people hurt were for nothing.

[RedDenver]

I think most people realize what the game is and thus sort themselves into one of the two coalitions. This leads to the remaining parties truly being these narrow-band groups of really dubious quality. For example, there were four voices in the 2016 general election but the GP and LP were not voices. Non-centrist influencers for the most part will opt to spur change from within one of the camps. This can be slow, but at least it's not futile; their voices may be small, but at least not hopelessly so.

 

I disagree that it doesn't set back single-payer. We're on the cusp of all the forces that have made single payer an impossible sell in the US for so long become even further entrenched. And the theory that the devastating failure of this will lead to fresh buds -- well, maybe, or things keep becoming worse and all those people hurt were for nothing.

You are correct that there's no certainty about what will happen with healthcare. I'm pointing out that your assertion that "single payer will be set back for good" isn't certain either, and there's reason to think that single-payer may be adopted either way.

[zoogs]

Well, define "reason".

 

The government we've chosen today averted repealing the ACA by the narrowest of margins and will settle on sabotaging it for now; the ACA still isn't safe. The more moderate Republican voices in the arena are touting plans that are objectively far, far backwards of single payer while championing their efforts in their own words as 'the end of single payer'. The "This is Actually Good for Single Payer" path you outlined involves this grossly opposite legislative push succeeding and resulting in disaster so thorough and unmitigated that, after all the damage is done, we reverse course entirely and push through on the fast track.

 

Even if we're to accept this as fairly enabling an "either way" approach to the American healthcare debate, it's one that comes with a human toll that is awfully hard to justify. But maybe the Green Party or the Libertarian Party or both would have had federal funding in 2018/20.

 

Further, there's no guarantee that this would have happened. Sometimes entrenching things in place simply has the effect of further entrenching them. The curtailing of unions has led not to a reversal but to their continued debasement and a world where labor advocacy has simply become harder and harder. Institutions like public schooling that are left to whither, rather than spur renewed investment, become instead targets of further estrangement as the Betsy DeVos's of the world point to the dilapidated state of affairs and say, "Hey, why not make it all more private?"

 

I'm echoing the arguments Chomsky (who undoubtedly is withering in his criticism of both parties) made in his rent documentary. When an institution is degraded like this, the floundering results will be seized upon as justification that things need to go even further in the opposite direction. "See? More Government failed. We need to try Less Government. Much Less Government." That's my worry, and I think we're now in a world where this is a much stronger possibility. Healthcare-as-a-right is still a fragile thing. If single-payer isn't snuffed out for literally ever, it can be set back generations relative to the alternatives -- if they succeed.

 

This is the Darkest Timeline, and the existence of silver linings shouldn't blind us to the realizations of how we could have avoided all this.

[RedDenver]

Well, define "reason".

 

The government we've chosen today averted repealing the ACA by the narrowest of margins and will settle on sabotaging it for now; the ACA still isn't safe. The more moderate Republican voices in the arena are touting plans that are objectively far, far backwards of single payer while championing their efforts in their own words as 'the end of single payer'. The "This is Actually Good for Single Payer" path you outlined involves this grossly opposite legislative push succeeding and resulting in disaster so thorough and unmitigated that, after all the damage is done, we reverse course entirely and push through on the fast track.

 

Even if we're to accept this as fairly enabling an "either way" approach to the American healthcare debate, it's one that comes with a human toll that is awfully hard to justify. But maybe the Green Party or the Libertarian Party or both would have had federal funding in 2018/20.

 

Further, there's no guarantee that this would have happened. Sometimes entrenching things in place simply has the effect of further entrenching them. The curtailing of unions has led not to a reversal but to their continued debasement and a world where labor advocacy has simply become harder and harder. Institutions like public schooling that are left to whither, rather than spur renewed investment, become instead targets of further estrangement as the Betsy DeVos's of the world point to the dilapidated state of affairs and say, "Hey, why not make it all more private?"

 

I'm echoing the arguments Chomsky (who undoubtedly is withering in his criticism of both parties) made in his rent documentary. When an institution is degraded like this, the floundering results will be seized upon as justification that things need to go even further in the opposite direction. "See? More Government failed. We need to try Less Government. Much Less Government." That's my worry, and I think we're now in a world where this is a much stronger possibility. Healthcare-as-a-right is still a fragile thing. If single-payer isn't snuffed out for literally ever, it can be set back generations relative to the alternatives -- if they succeed.

 

This is the Darkest Timeline, and the existence of silver linings shouldn't blind us to the realizations of how we could have avoided all this.

The link I provided hows that support for single-payer is increasing, mostly among independents but also among Republicans:

 

You're making a big leap to all kinds of things that I'm not saying. What I am saying is if bad healthcare policies are enacted, it seems reasonable that people will not like those policies, which will put more people in favor of single-payer.

 

And as I said before, I agree that repealing ACA is a bad path to take. But if that happens I'm neither going to just give up on single-payer nor am I resigned to it taking generations for single-payer to happen.

[zoogs]

I don't think it's a leap at all to suggest that severe consequences are the outcomes of severe policy, the kind we've been flirting ever since the election.

Isn't that what you are saying? Your argument, if I may attempt to summarize, is that the healthcare question in the 2016 election was relatively inconsequential because both could lead to single payer. Preserving the ACA, that one's fairly obvious. Repealing the ACA, by being so bad as to further whip up the popular demand for it (indeed, see the poll results now that the ACA is under threat).

 

So my argument is this: the bad consequences were important to avoid, and the bad results could end up equally energizing demand for the opposite. In the way that poor public education results, for example, seems to energize various forms of "privatize". You may not give up on single-payer, but this seems like a scenario where it's much, much, much harder for it to be achieved or even inched closer to in the near future. I think you're putting far too much stock into what's a hopeful poll result and nothing more.

[RedDenver]

I don't think it's a leap at all to suggest that severe consequences are the outcomes of severe policy, the kind we've been flirting ever since the election.

 

Isn't that what you are saying? Your argument, if I may attempt to summarize, is that the healthcare question in the 2016 election was relatively inconsequential because both could lead to single payer. Preserving the ACA, that one's fairly obvious. Repealing the ACA, by being so bad as to further whip up the popular demand for it (indeed, see the poll results now that the ACA is under threat).

 

 

So my argument is this: the bad consequences were important to avoid, and the bad results could end up equally energizing demand for the opposite. In the way that poor public education results, for example, seems to energize various forms of "privatize". You may not give up on single-payer, but this seems like a scenario where it's much, much, much harder for it to be achieved or even inched closer to in the near future. I think you're putting far too much stock into what's a hopeful poll result and nothing more.

That's not what I'm arguing. I've clearly stated that repealing the ACA is a BAD PATH. Nor do I think healthcare was inconsequential in the 2016 election. Once again, let me state that I'm arguing against your assertion that if the ACA gets repealed then there's little to no chance for single-payer to succeed. Even if you disregard the polling, your claim that "this seems like a scenario where it's much, much, much harder for it to be achieved or even inched closer to in the near future" is not any more likely than mine that "if bad healthcare policies are enacted, it seems reasonable that people will not like those policies, which will put more people in favor of single-payer".

[zoogs]

To be clear, I don't think it's a definite death knell for single-payer if ACA is repealed. I just think it's a clear setback, and it's a prominent possibility.

 

It seems that where we agree to disagree is whether "setting single-payer back for ages" and "ushering in single-payer quickly" are equally plausible scenarios for the GOP-dismantles-ACA world.

 

Also, I want to point out that while we're in close agreement on a lot of things, isn't our difference in how consequential the healthcare question last election quite clear also? For example, we both think that the prospect of ACA repeal is bad, but you're also arguing that it's not /that/ bad (in short) and I'm saying it was urgently terrible. Is that unfair?

[RedDenver]

To be clear, I don't think it's a definite death knell for single-payer if ACA is repealed. I just think it's a clear setback, and it's a prominent possibility.

 

It seems that where we agree to disagree is whether "setting single-payer back for ages" and "ushering in single-payer quickly" are equally plausible scenarios for the GOP-dismantles-ACA world.

 

Also, I want to point out that while we're in close agreement on a lot of things, isn't our difference in how consequential the healthcare question last election quite clear also? For example, we both think that the prospect of ACA repeal is bad, but you're also arguing that it's not /that/ bad (in short) and I'm saying it was urgently terrible. Is that unfair?

That's not unfair. The Republican plans are terrible and a lot of people will be impoverished, suffer, and/or die under all the versions I've seen them propose, so I think we're mostly in agreement there. I'd say my focus is on getting passed the ACA to what comes next as I don't think the ACA is sustainable for too much longer (years but not decades).

[zoogs]

+1. Certainly it doesn't seem like it will be under this Administration.

--

 

A scathing review of the Democratic Party from a real leftist outlet : https://jacobinmag.com/2017/08/democrats-better-deal-midterms-clinton-2016

 

 

With Buffett and Bill Gates on board, we can be sure that no matter the rhetoric, a carefully constrained and market-oriented regime of redistribution will be the only thing on the agenda — some tinkering with tax rates, perhaps, along with mild subsidies for “the most vulnerable.” An occasional trust may be busted, especially if it troubles the consumption habits of well-heeled Democrats. Reforms aimed at bolder egalitarian changes, however, will remain safely over the horizon. And Sanders-style class politics, which might lead to an even more radical reconfiguration of power relations within the economy, are off limits altogether.

 

I don't share their dim view of the Gates and Buffetts and centrists of the world, I guess. But I think they're making some important points here. Even as we vote against the greater threats in favor of the lesser, it's important to recognize the flaws and limitations of what we're getting, and the crucial role that advocacy should play on these issues.

 

Notably, this makes a point of mentioning just how absent "unions" are from the supposedly (and probably comparatively!) populist platform. I think that's a good topic to focus on. But of course -- and disappointingly -- stronger union language is not going to make its way into a major coalition's manifesto. Not for lack of popularity, perhaps, so much as lack of imagination and will among the controlling interests.

 

(Hope you enjoy this one, RD! )

[RedDenver]

+1. Certainly it doesn't seem like it will be under this Administration.

--

 

A scathing review of the Democratic Party from a real leftist outlet : https://jacobinmag.com/2017/08/democrats-better-deal-midterms-clinton-2016

 

 

With Buffett and Bill Gates on board, we can be sure that no matter the rhetoric, a carefully constrained and market-oriented regime of redistribution will be the only thing on the agenda — some tinkering with tax rates, perhaps, along with mild subsidies for “the most vulnerable.” An occasional trust may be busted, especially if it troubles the consumption habits of well-heeled Democrats. Reforms aimed at bolder egalitarian changes, however, will remain safely over the horizon. And Sanders-style class politics, which might lead to an even more radical reconfiguration of power relations within the economy, are off limits altogether.

 

I don't share their dim view of the Gates and Buffetts and centrists of the world, I guess. But I think they're making some important points here. Even as we vote against the greater threats in favor of the lesser, it's important to recognize the flaws and limitations of what we're getting, and the crucial role that advocacy should play on these issues.

 

Notably, this makes a point of mentioning just how absent "unions" are from the supposedly (and probably comparatively!) populist platform. I think that's a good topic to focus on. But of course -- and disappointingly -- stronger union language is not going to make its way into a major coalition's manifesto. Not for lack of popularity, perhaps, so much as lack of imagination and will among the controlling interests.

 

(Hope you enjoy this one, RD! )

The article is a bit over the top but makes some good points. I'm not buying what the Dems have trotted out so far and this expresses much of my own doubts. I also hadn't considered the political angle of naming the enemy but it makes a lot of sense.

[zoogs]

Single payer should not be a litmus test: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/opinion/healthcare-single-payer-children.html?_r=0

 

Single payer should be a litmus test: https://jacobinmag.com/2017/08/medicare-for-all-health-care-obamacare-single-payer

[RedDenver]

Single payer should not be a litmus test: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/opinion/healthcare-single-payer-children.html?_r=0

 

Single payer should be a litmus test: https://jacobinmag.com/2017/08/medicare-for-all-health-care-obamacare-single-payer

It's interesting that Krugman thinks improving the ACA is an easier sell than single-payer, which he shows as being a lot of different possible solutions. But Medicare-for-all (MFA) polls better than both the ACA and single-payer (probably because people don't know MFA is a form of single-payer). It's not clear that campaigning on Improved ACA is any better politically than MFA.

 

I don't think single-payer should be a strict litmus test, but I'm WAY more likely to vote for a candidate that supports it, especially if they've got detailed proposals of how to get there. The thing that I'm wary of is the Dems using "should not be a litmus test" as an excuse not to run candidates that support single-payer. IOW a litmus test in the opposite direction.