Elite NYC school publishes anti-racism manifesto

[Toni]

You have an pleasant habit of contradicting people who have information and knowledge and understanding that you do not. Rhea’s link nicely outlined the fallacy that Obama had all this time when his party was in control.

The US and Australia do not have the same political system. Each has subtleties that require more than cursory reading to understand. No one faults you for not being conversant in American politics. Far too many Americans don’t have a good understanding of the overreaching principles much less the subtleties. But Rhea and others On this forum certainly have the background and the links to back up what they post.

You are very much at risk of being that person who does not work sh to be confused by facts because your mind is already made up

If your point is that Americans are dvided re: single payer, you’re right. We are. Even a leftist like me has reservations—because of right wingers who would simply fuck it up and fuck over the medical community and the taxpayers so long as they could maintain their concierge medical care ( rich folks) or be duped that it’s the doctors fault fir not working for free or for $15/hr.

4 months is not sufficient time to get devise and pass a comprehensive overhaul of something as complicated and large as health care even with overwhelming support. With the entrenched private special interests opposing this, along with the difficulty of getting anything through the US senate without a 60 vote bloc of votes is even more difficult - and that assumes that "Democrat" denotes a hive mind.

All in all, the idea that universal health care could have been implemented within that 4 month window is monumentally naive or ignorant.

Indeed. Even if the entire plan was completed fown to the last detail.

 

[Toni]

You have an pleasant habit of contradicting people who have information and knowledge and understanding that you do not. Rhea’s link nicely outlined the fallacy that Obama had all this time when his party was in control.

Rhea accused me of being 'misinformed' even though I did not say anything that was factually incorrect.

The US and Australia do not have the same political system. Each has subtleties that require more than cursory reading to understand. No one faults you for not being conversant in American politics. Far too many Americans don’t have a good understanding of the overreaching principles much less the subtleties. But Rhea and others On this forum certainly have the background and the links to back up what they post.

You are very much at risk of being that person who does not work sh to be confused by facts because your mind is already made up

I did not say anything factually incorrect yet you're doubling down.

My point was there is no political will for single payer healthcare, that's all. Indeed, if there was the political will, it wouldn't matter if the Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate for four months or four years. It'd be passed.

Yes you are factually incorrect. What you mean is universal political will or overwhelming political will.

Instead, you were argumentative with Rhea and tried to say that the detailed kind of the timeline was not really correct or important. You simply do not understand what you are opining about.

 

[Toni]

You have an pleasant habit of contradicting people who have information and knowledge and understanding that you do not. Rhea’s link nicely outlined the fallacy that Obama had all this time when his party was in control.

The US and Australia do not have the same political system. Each has subtleties that require more than cursory reading to understand. No one faults you for not being conversant in American politics. Far too many Americans don’t have a good understanding of the overreaching principles much less the subtleties. But Rhea and others On this forum certainly have the background and the links to back up what they post.

You are very much at risk of being that person who does not work sh to be confused by facts because your mind is already made up

If your point is that Americans are dvided re: single payer, you’re right. We are. Even a leftist like me has reservations—because of right wingers who would simply fuck it up and fuck over the medical community and the taxpayers so long as they could maintain their concierge medical care ( rich folks) or be duped that it’s the doctors fault fir not working for free or for $15/hr.

4 months is not sufficient time to get devise and pass a comprehensive overhaul of something as complicated and large as health care even with overwhelming support. With the entrenched private special interests opposing this, along with the difficulty of getting anything through the US senate without a 60 vote bloc of votes is even more difficult - and that assumes that "Democrat" denotes a hive mind.

All in all, the idea that universal health care could have been implemented within that 4 month window is monumentally naive or ignorant.

It certainly couldn't have since it wasn't even on the table.

Yes—politicians used their sophisticated understanding of our political system along with a comprehensive understanding of the obstacles to passing universal health care—and passed a plan that they could pass. Trying for universal health care when they would have certainly been vehemently opposed —and which battle they would have lost—would have been a foolish waste of time and political capital.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes you are factually incorrect. What you mean is universal political will or overwhelming political will.

Instead, you were argumentative with Rhea and tried to say that the detailed kind of the timeline was not really correct or important. You simply do not understand what you are opining about.

Rhea was argumentative with me for no reason. Democrats controlled the house, senate and presidency from 2009. It's true. Obamacare was passed during the period that Democrats had a filibuster-proof senate.

But it's true that the timeline is actually irrelevant. If Americans wanted universal healthcare, they would get it. Clinton tried it and then the American public reversed the Democrat majority in the house and senate.

 

[Metaphor]

It certainly couldn't have since it wasn't even on the table.

Yes—politicians used their sophisticated understanding of our political system along with a comprehensive understanding of the obstacles to passing universal health care—and passed a plan that they could pass. Trying for universal health care when they would have certainly been vehemently opposed —and which battle they would have lost—would have been a foolish waste of time and political capital.

Yes, that's the point. They'd have been opposed. Not enough Americans want universal health care for it to happen.

I can't believe this point seems so controversial. It's obvious.

 

[laughing dog]

It certainly couldn't have since it wasn't even on the table.

Yes—politicians used their sophisticated understanding of our political system along with a comprehensive understanding of the obstacles to passing universal health care—and passed a plan that they could pass. Trying for universal health care when they would have certainly been vehemently opposed —and which battle they would have lost—would have been a foolish waste of time and political capital.

Yes, it is truly a rarity - a political outcome between competing interesting that results in a compromise result. Which is probably why the naive/ignorant are so upset that such a rare outcome occurred.

 

[ruby sparks]

Staff warning

Not for the first time in this thread, some recent posts have contained a bit too much in terms of something approaching personal attacks and complaints. All posters are reminded that this is discouraged and it would be greatly appreciated if if could be curtailed.

If the tone of the thread were to continue to deteriorate along those lines, moving the thread to 'Elsewhere' may be considered appropriate.

Thank you all.

 

[Rhea]

Also, health care needs to be decoupled from working. Democrats commanded the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for two years from 2009, but Obama failed to create a single payer healthcare system, because single payer wasn't even an option on the table.

Let me rephrase for you in a different way. It was on the table in the caucus discussions among Democrats. Most people in America know this. There were not enough Democratic votes to overcome a filibuster - because there were ONLY 4 months to negotiate, and the Democrats even during that time could not afford to lose even one vote. And Democrats in America are not a Monolith, as you can tell by, for example, Manchin and Sanders being in the same caucus together. Manchin’s constituents would NEVER go for universal health care (even though it would benefit them and they depserately need it)

With only 4 months to negotiate, they could not sell it to Red State Dem voters. Single payer was on the table within the caucus, but it didn’t make it to the public table because it was not able to be passed with that very narrow control of a filibuster-proof senate, and they knew it then.

over how many highly privileged women of colour Biden appoints, ordinary Americans in their 70s refuse to leave work because they won't have adequate health care if they do.

That is correct. And ironically, it is those over 70s who are most likely to be the reason we can’t have it, most of whom are Republicans. But the women of color (even highly privileged) are likely to drive a voter pressure that will get us closer to it than additional white men. So they are very useful for the cause.

We should have it, it would be so valuable to decouple health care from employment. But the big employers do NOT want to lose this lever, and so they scare the voters into voting for their own harm and embracing the GOP. If we had more Dem senators at that time, we could have gone without the red-state dems and passed it. But we didn’t so we couldn’t. That’s a fact of American politics. We get some Senators in the Dem party from red states - it’s kind of an historical artifact. But their constituents are still conservatives and they have to serve them.

You said Dems “commanded” the senate, the house and the presidency for 2 years. They did not, because they would need 60 votes to “command” it. Without a filibuster-proof majority, they cannot command an outcome, they can only request it.

 

[Metaphor]

We should have it, it would be so valuable to decouple health care from employment. But the big employers do NOT want to lose this lever, and so they scare the voters into voting for their own harm and embracing the GOP.

If Americans wanted universal health care, they wouldn't be "scared" into voting for the GOP. Or rather, if enough Americans wanted it, it would be Republican policy too. But it's not even Democrat policy.

 

[Toni]

Yes you are factually incorrect. What you mean is universal political will or overwhelming political will.

Instead, you were argumentative with Rhea and tried to say that the detailed kind of the timeline was not really correct or important. You simply do not understand what you are opining about.

Rhea was argumentative with me for no reason. Democrats controlled the house, senate and presidency from 2009. It's true. Obamacare was passed during the period that Democrats had a filibuster-proof senate.

But it's true that the timeline is actually irrelevant. If Americans wanted universal healthcare, they would get it. Clinton tried it and then the American public reversed the Democrat majority in the house and senate.

You simply are incorrect in your assessments.

 

[Metaphor]

You said Dems “commanded” the senate, the house and the presidency for 2 years. They did not, because they would need 60 votes to “command” it. Without a filibuster-proof majority, they cannot command an outcome, they can only request it.

Oy gevalt. If I'd said "controlled" you'd have said that too is wrong. You've decided that "commanded" meant "filibuster proof" instead of "majority". I didn't.

 

[Toni]

We should have it, it would be so valuable to decouple health care from employment. But the big employers do NOT want to lose this lever, and so they scare the voters into voting for their own harm and embracing the GOP.

If Americans wanted universal health care, they wouldn't be "scared" into voting for the GOP. Or rather, if enough Americans wanted it, it would be Republican policy too. But it's not even Democrat policy.

If you wanted to understand American politics and the political processes involved in making policy, you would do well to heed Rhea’s explanations rather than simply sticking to your position regardless of the information presented to you.

 

[Metaphor]

We should have it, it would be so valuable to decouple health care from employment. But the big employers do NOT want to lose this lever, and so they scare the voters into voting for their own harm and embracing the GOP.

If Americans wanted universal health care, they wouldn't be "scared" into voting for the GOP. Or rather, if enough Americans wanted it, it would be Republican policy too. But it's not even Democrat policy.

If you wanted to understand American politics and the political processes involved in making policy, you would do well to heed Rhea’s explanations rather than simply sticking to your position regardless of the information presented to you.

I might start a thread to explain further what I mean by 'if Americans wanted universal health care, they'd have it'. But it doesn't belong in this thread and the last few posts, including mine, have been a derail.

 

[Rhea]

If Americans wanted universal health care, they wouldn't be "scared" into voting for the GOP.

And yet, here we are. Polls show Americans want it. Voting shows Americans voting for people who won’t pass it.

Or rather, if enough Americans wanted it, it would be Republican policy too. But it's not even Democrat policy.

It is not Democratic Party legislation because a small faction of the Democratic Party doesn’t want it. Most of them do, but not enough to pass it. And the Democrats are deciding to know what’s going on rather than tilt at windmills.

 

[laughing dog]

You said Dems “commanded” the senate, the house and the presidency for 2 years. They did not, because they would need 60 votes to “command” it. Without a filibuster-proof majority, they cannot command an outcome, they can only request it.

Yes, the filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was a key. Poll after poll shows a clear majority of US voters want universal health care. The problem is that majority is not evenly distributed throughout the states to get 60+ Senators on board - something anyone remotely familiar with US politics would understand.

 

[Toni]

You said Dems “commanded” the senate, the house and the presidency for 2 years. They did not, because they would need 60 votes to “command” it. Without a filibuster-proof majority, they cannot command an outcome, they can only request it.

Oy gevalt. If I'd said "controlled" you'd have said that too is wrong. You've decided that "commanded" meant "filibuster proof" instead of "majority". I didn't.

People are genuinely trying to explain to you where your understanding is falling short.

Democratic control in common parlance means that the Democrats have a simple majority in whichever house one is discussing.

In order to ensure passage of Democratic proposals despite opposition by Republicans, a super majority or 60 Senators would be required. That would make the Senate filabuster-proof. BUT The senate alone cannot pass legislation into law. It requires approval of both houses of Congress and must be signed into law by the POTUS. If both houses pass a bill and the POTUS vetoes it, they may be able to over ride the veto.

Here are a couple of links. It's really a strategy game:

https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-ma...sident can approve the,the bill becomes a law.

Here's a more visual description:

https://hobnobblog.com/legislative-process-flowchart-from-the-congressional-deskbook/

Most voters vote based upon how a candidate stands on multiple issues (and how well they articulate their position)---plus likeability plus party affiliation.

 

[Metaphor]

You said Dems “commanded” the senate, the house and the presidency for 2 years. They did not, because they would need 60 votes to “command” it. Without a filibuster-proof majority, they cannot command an outcome, they can only request it.

Oy gevalt. If I'd said "controlled" you'd have said that too is wrong. You've decided that "commanded" meant "filibuster proof" instead of "majority". I didn't.

People are genuinely trying to explain to you where your understanding is falling short.

Democratic control in common parlance means that the Democrats have a simple majority in whichever house one is discussing.

In order to ensure passage of Democratic proposals despite opposition by Republicans, a super majority or 60 Senators would be required. That would make the Senate filabuster-proof. BUT The senate alone cannot pass legislation into law. It requires approval of both houses of Congress and must be signed into law by the POTUS. If both houses pass a bill and the POTUS vetoes it, they may be able to over ride the veto.

Here are a couple of links. It's really a strategy game:

https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-ma...sident can approve the,the bill becomes a law.

Here's a more visual description:

https://hobnobblog.com/legislative-process-flowchart-from-the-congressional-deskbook/

Most voters vote based upon how a candidate stands on multiple issues (and how well they articulate their position)---plus likeability plus party affiliation.

I know how the American senate works.

Rhea rebuked me because she interpreted the word 'commanded' to mean 'filibuster-proof' and therefore I was wrong about Democrats having 'command' for two years. But I'm not wrong, because I did not mean 'commanded' to mean 'filibuster-proof' and Rhea simply assumed that I did. Would a synonym like 'control' have made the difference? Or perhaps everybody knows 'command' and 'control' when used for the US senate means '60 seat or higher majority' and I'm just too pig ignorant to know it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Excuse me, but they did. Democrats commanded the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

I have not 'accepted misinformation'. I looked up the composition of each chamber.

They had “total control” for FOUR MONTHS. That is all.

Here is the explanation.
https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

I did not say Democrats had a 'filibuster proof' Senate. I did not say Obama had "total control", which is a phrase you've used. In any case, this only strengthens my point.

Obama passed 'Obamacare' during the four-month 'total control' window. Why was...whatever the fuck compromise Obamacare is... cooked up and passed instead of actual universal health care? If Democrats wanted universal health care that was the window to do it. American politicians don't have the political will because the American people don't.

Without a filibuster-proof majority they do not have total control.

 

[Metaphor]

Excuse me, but they did. Democrats commanded the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

I have not 'accepted misinformation'. I looked up the composition of each chamber.

They had “total control” for FOUR MONTHS. That is all.

Here is the explanation.
https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

I did not say Democrats had a 'filibuster proof' Senate. I did not say Obama had "total control", which is a phrase you've used. In any case, this only strengthens my point.

Obama passed 'Obamacare' during the four-month 'total control' window. Why was...whatever the fuck compromise Obamacare is... cooked up and passed instead of actual universal health care? If Democrats wanted universal health care that was the window to do it. American politicians don't have the political will because the American people don't.

Without a filibuster-proof majority they do not have total control.

I didn't fucking say "total control".

 

[Rhea]

Democrats commanded the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for two years from 2009, but Obama failed to create a single payer healthcare system, because single payer wasn't even an option on the table.

Let me try again in a different way. The Democratic Party in America did not have ANYTHING starting in 2009 for two years that would have enabled Single payer health care, even if it were the number one policy item for Democrats. Whatever you want to call it, however you want to name it, Democrats did not have IT for two years to get one of their policies passed.

So a statement that says, “it must not have been on the table because they didn’t do it in the two years that they had ~whatever~” does not factually represent reality in America between 2009 and 2011. The “two years” and the “because it was not on the table” are both not true.

There were only four months that Dems would have been able to pass anything, assuming that Every.Single. Dem Senator agreed.
More than 4 months were needed to move this needle, and even though this policy was on the table, for the Domocratic Party, it was not advanced because they knew it was not unanimous.

The policy was on the table. It has been on the table for almost 30 years.
It is not yet possible to pass it, given the quirky way that a majority of senators represent a minority of Americans due to low population states.
We deal with that. It is simply not true that universal health care is “not on the table”.