You're viewing a single thread.
Cheap #bothSides nonsense.
You mean
GqP: lol no plebe
Dems: if we can get the ability, that's our goal. Aw fuck we've been cockblocked by the senate again. Sorry.
It doesn't seem weird to you that there's always some reason a Democrat prevents Democrats from accomplishing things when they have a majority? It's been like two decades of this, bud. There's always some reason for them not to fix anything.
I'll vote Democrat every time because, although they barely do anything, at least they won't actively make things worse. That choice fucking sucks though, so quit acting like Democrats aren't trash. They are trash and the only reason to vote for them is because the other side is taking policy advice from literal Nazis.
I'll vote Democrat every time because, although they barely do anything, at least they won't actively make things worse. That choice fucking sucks though, so quit acting like Democrats aren't trash. They are trash
Have you considered, y’know, participating in the party? It’s pretty easy to do. Or is it just like, “Feh. Muh. Bleh.” Which I totally understand. Things is complicated.
Have you considered, y’know, participating in the party?
Yes, just like the over 100,000 protest votes in Michigan during the primaries to protest the Palestinian genocide.
The DNC gave Michigan Muslims/Arabs the middle finger and said "We don't need your votes, and we're not changing course on Palestine."
The DNC threw trans people under the bus literally the day after they lost the election, and continue to tell us that the reason the DNC lost is because they were too woke.
In 2016, we tried to get Bernie to be our candidate, and Clinton and the DNC did everything in their power to ensure that wouldn't happen, because the DNC knows best. 🙄
Same in 2020, they had Bloomberg and Warren siphon votes off Bernie to split the progressive vote and seal the nomination for Centrist-Joe, who had to borrow policies from Bernie's campaign to be popular enough to beat Trump. And then spent four years not enacting any of those policies.
Like, I'm so tired of hearing how it's our fault, the voter's fault, for the DNC being a shitty party. Hundreds of thousands of people protest voted during this primary, and the DNC ignored their voices, and now you're condescendingly making a comment about people not being more involved with the party?
What a load of horse shit. The voters don't need to engage with the party, the party needs to engage with voters, and since they raised over a billion dollars and spent a majority of it on Clinton's 2016 political consultants... I'd say they have the resources to get off their fat asses, leave their liberal white porcelain towers, and come fucking talk to their constituents for once and figure out why they don't represent us.
Oh, I forgot, because they're too busy raising campaign money instead of changing campaign finance laws, and they're too busy rubbing elbows with their colleagues across the aisle instead of getting things done, OH, or they're on one of their numerous multi-week vacations at one of their second/third/fourth residential homes while their constituents are guaranteed no vacation time period. God, it must be so hard relating to a populace you literally share nothing in common with, why won't the filthy poors just realize they're inferior to these liberal elite who know best for them.
Or are we supposed to go participate as a PAC, should we all just be billionaires, since they're the only ones the DNC will listen to?
"Participate," what a joke.
"Participate," what a joke.
I was actually asking the other guy. But uh, nice, uh . . rant.
I was actually asking the other guy.
Cool story, but I was talking to you.
But uh, nice, uh . . rant.
Says the troll out for his daily round of trolling, the legitimate only thing the sad troll can contribute to their sad, trolling existence.
You're fun.
Still waiting for you to enlighten all of us about how to properly participate with the DNC, troll?
We're waiting, c'mon Troll Genius, all of us morons need you to enlighten us, how do we participate with the DNC?
Well?
What makes you think Optional is a troll? I ain't seeing it.
The members of my county Democratic party are insufferable.
They push the sane one out. Its by design.
If you don't like things as they are, just singlehandedly change the party! Now the party is still shit like I want, but it's your fault!
Then weren't. They had a trifecta for 2 years and it became obvious that they were unwilling to actually fight. They gave up at literally the first sign of resistance. And they haven't put forward anything that would actually change the system. Just a pay raise.
Then weren’t. They had a trifecta for 2 years and it became obvious that they were unwilling to actually fight.
You mean the term where the Dems passed the largest healthcare in 40 years with the passing of the ACA (Obamacare)? How is that not an achievement?
It was literally mitt Romneys Healthcare plan from Massachusetts. They didn't even get a public option. It was the bare minimum because dems didnt want to mess with the insurance companies that line there pockets.
It was literally mitt Romneys Healthcare plan from Massachusetts.
I don't care who gets the credit for the original model. Most Americans had FAR less healthcare options before the ACA.
They didn’t even get a public option. It was the bare minimum because dems didnt want to mess with the insurance companies that line there pockets.
You're complaining about how it could be better. Do you not remember what life was like BEFORE the ACA?
- Being denied for a preexisting condition?
- Basic wellness care like mammograms not covered?
- Swiss cheese independent coverage chocked full of "gotcha" exclusions?
Could it be better? Sure. Was it so much better than the NOTHING we had before? Absolutely!
bud, that was 16 years ago and the situation has only worsened. maybe its time to stop trotting it out as some grand thing the democrats did and focus on what they're doing today? which is essentially nothing.
and focus on what they’re doing today?
You mean like the recovery of the country from COVID with the American Rescue Plan Act, or Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPs act, Student loan forgiveness? How about repeal of the homophobic "Defense of Marriage Act"? Maybe the Honoring our PACT Act which finally recognized the conditions we put our troops in and covering their health needs resulting from that exposure? Those kind of things?
Wow! and americans day to day finances havent improved at all! Imagine doing all that and still having people struggling... I wonder....
Lets go down the list shall we?
CHIPs act: surprise a bipartisan corporate give away.
American Rescue Plan Act: corporate give away mixed with one time stimulus for americans.
Inflation Reduction Act: I actually liked this bill mostly too bad it does nothing for the majority of americans w/ respect to inflation and cost of living.
Student loan forgiveness: oh you mean the thing biden has slow walked, only managing to clear 9% in 4 years, and is the direct architect of causing? oh you mean the man who also resumed payments for them despite record inflation?
Defense of Marriage Act: yup wonderful, good job dems! the only thing that doesn't negatively impact your corporate donors you got done!
Honoring our PACT Act: Oh you mean health care in america is fucking horrible? color me surprised, yet another excuse to not actually fix our health care system.seriously man. think about these things before you post them. I'm not opposed to many of these bills but NONE of them improve the general well being of the american worker or their families.
Do people still need to worry about their health coverage if they lose their jobs? Yes? oh.
Do people still need to work multiple jobs to make ends meet in many areas? Yes? oh.
Do people still have no protections for medical, family, vacation? Yes? oh.
Do people still have to go into massive debt for an education? Yes? oh.
Do sexual orientations still have no protections within the workplace? yes? oh.Until the democrats begin addressing these issues for working americans they won't have the support of myself or individuals like me. Don't even get me fucking started on the widespread genocidal support, moral bankruptcy, and graft within the party.
I’m not opposed to many of these bills but NONE of them improve the general well being of the american worker or their families.
You have a very specific definition of any legislative success. You have a very defined view (regardless if I agree with it or not).
Can you tell me when the last time any level of legislation was passed by any party that would meet your version of success? The only thing I can think of that would meet your very high bar is FDR with the New Deal and other efforts FDR did with the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). Do you have something more recent that 1939?
You have a very specific definition of any legislative success.
Not particularly, as I said I believe some of those bills were decent successes, but they wont win votes from working americans. When it comes to winning votes and enacting change you need to accomplish demonstrable improvements to our lives. And yes that list will continuously change as more and more things are improved. That's a good thing.
Do you have something more recent that 1939?
smile do you? do you see the problem with the fact you need to go back that far to find anything that helps American's that you think I'll accept. The list I mentioned above isn't some unattainable goal. many countries already have accomplished these things for their people.
Do you have something more recent that 1939?smile do you? do you see the problem with the fact you need to go back that far to find anything that helps American’s that you think I’ll accept.
I don't need to. I see lots of things, including the ACA, that helped working Americans. However, you say that doesn't by your measure. So I'm asking you to give an example of your measure to better understand your point of view. Thats how we learn about each other's views when they aren't apparent.
The list I mentioned above isn’t some unattainable goal.
So it sounds like you're saying nothing has been passed in the USA in the last 85 years since FDR's New Deal that qualifies for your measure of "helping working Americans".
many countries already have accomplished these things for their people.
Okay, thank you. That informs me of your position. I appreciate the time you've taken to share your views.
How is that not an achievement?
Because the Dems let the GOP gut it to get it to pass. The ACA as it is now, and as it was passed back then, was not what we were promised, and we still haven't gotten the ACA we were promised.
In fact, Harris dropped support for M4A and didn't campaign on it, so is that an achievement too? The Dems giving up the fight before it even started? Like they did during this administration, literally bending over any time the GOP put up any kind of resistance to any of the Dems legislation?
The Dems let the Dems gut it. There wasn't a Republican that supported it. The massive partisan wall that created is a huge reason why things are so fucked now.
The Dems let the Dems gut it.
I don't disagree. The original had more stuff in it that I liked.
There wasn’t a Republican that supported it.
True. The GOP rejected it for many stupid reasons.
The massive partisan wall that created is a huge reason why things are so fucked now.
This statement confuses me. Are you suggesting the Dems should have let the GOP gut it MORE? Are you suggesting the Dems should have dropped the legislation altogether to "keep the peace"? What are you saying the Dems could have done so "things are so fucked now"?
Yes the Dems should have got some gop votes. It may have made the bill slightly worse, but not by much. In return the Democrats would have had far more negotiating power with there own members if there were a couple of the more purple Republicans that they could count on instead. It also would have prevented the bill from being a great campaign piece for Republicans, and it might not have resulted in one of the largest midterm swings ever.
Getting 95% of the ACA and a Congress that wasn't deadlocked for the next 6 years would have been much better overall. A split government that functioned more like under Clinton or Bush would have been much better than what ended up happening. The decision to stonewall when they had power unsurprisingly backfired.
uhhhh, literally the bill was designed and discussed with the GOP they just refused to support it after they basically got it watered down. then there was the ol' whats his face dem that refused to vote for it without removing the public option.
Yes the Dems should have got some gop votes. It may have made the bill slightly worse, but not by much.
...and...
Getting 95% of the ACA and a Congress that wasn’t deadlocked for the next 6 years would have been much better overall.
The GOP were looking to deny any Obama passage of positive legislation. Are you not remembering "make him a one term President" message from the GOP?
There was ZERO amount of cooperate the GOP were willing to have on any bill that would give Obama a healthcare win.
A split government that functioned more like under Clinton or Bush would have been much better than what ended up happening. The decision to stonewall when they had power unsurprisingly backfired.
"make him a one term President"
There's always rhetoric, but completely shutting out the opposition for major legislation was just not done.
There’s always rhetoric, but completely shutting out the opposition for major legislation was just not done.
History doesn't support your statement.
Feel free to show me legislation that was later signed during the first quarter of the Obama administration that wasn't passed on nearly party lines. I took a look and couldn't find any.
Because the Dems let the GOP gut it to get it to pass. The ACA as it is now, and as it was passed back then, was not what we were promised, and we still haven’t gotten the ACA we were promised.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
What Obama signed with the ACA was far better than the situation before it.
Right, must be why I don't have health insurance via the ACA because it's unaffordable.
I make too much to qualify for actual help, but not enough to actually afford their awful health insurance plans with deductibles that negate the entire point of insurance to begin with.
And it's all about to be undone anyway, so let's keep singing the praises of the Democrat's least-failure in the last decade.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Which must be why the DNC has adopted "Progress is the enemy of our money."
Right, must be why I don’t have health insurance via the ACA because it’s unaffordable. I make too much to qualify for actual help, but not enough to actually afford their awful health insurance plans with deductibles that negate the entire point of insurance to begin with.
Are you possibly living in a state where your GOP leadership refused to extend Medicaid which was part of the ACA? If so, you can't complain about what the ACA doesn't do for you if your state chose not to use it.
I live in a blue state in the Northeast, we went to Harris, and we've had a Democratic governor since at least the mid-2000s.
So am I allowed to complain?
Did you miss the "if so" in my post?
You're communicating you're making over $61k/year and saying you can't afford an ACA approved healthcare policy, correct?
You're communicating you're making over $61k/year
I'm communicating I cannot afford ACA healthcare, you all keep throwing out the $61k/year salary. I did the math, even if I hadn't lost however much unpaid time off to depression this last year, the most I would have made between my salary and my disability was $58k.
When I put all of this information into my states ACA marketplace back in August of this year at the behest of my therapist, I was told I qualified for plans via subsidies, but made too much to just qualify for the state's plan.
The first plan I found that I felt was reasonable, reasonable, not good, just reasonable, was just under $400/month with the subsidy, didn't have my therapist in network, and still had a $6k+ deductible. The cheapest plan had a deductible over $10k, and cost around $260ish a month.
I can't afford that, I'm sorry, between my mortgage, my car, insurance, utilities, bills, food, gas, credit card debt, etc, I don't have an extra $260-$400 a month for health insurance. I just don't, I'm sorry, wish I was as financially astute as everyone else on here seems to be, so I guess just fuck me.
But I'm not, hence why I think the ACA being held aloft like some grand triumph is a joke, especially considering John Oliver even has a segment on the Medicaid gap, and how people who should be covered aren't due to a myriad of reasons.
Best health insurance I ever had was Tricare, which is literally what America should have, and is arguably one of the largest socialist programs in the US. We did single payer already, for the military, and it's amazing. The ACA are the crumbs the liberal elite felt we deserved, and I will never not be pissed about it when I've seen we know how to do it right.
I did the math, even if I hadn’t lost however much unpaid time off to depression this last year, the most I would have made between my salary and my disability was $58k.
I keep throwing that number out there because I don't have your specific info, and from the general info it looks like under $61k you should get subsidized, but you'd communicated you weren't. I'm also not asking you to disclose your private information on the public internet. I respect your privacy.
The cheapest plan had a deductible over $10k, and cost around $260ish a month.
$10k deductible is usually considered "catastrophic" coverage. Its not supposed to be use to cover day to day health needs. It is designed for the young and generally healthy that don't consume lots of health care, but want to be covered if they have a catastrophic event that would otherwise cost them hundreds of thousands or millions in medical bills.
But I’m not, hence why I think the ACA being held aloft like some grand triumph is a joke
I'm sorry you are not benefiting from directly, but do you understand for many it has been a game changer for the better? Not every change is going to benefit each person equally. I'll be the first one to say the ACA is FAR from perfect, but compared to what we had before it was better and a step in the right direction.
Best health insurance I ever had was Tricare, which is literally what America should have, and is arguably one of the largest socialist programs in the US.
I have only a little bit of knowledge of Tricare, but everyone I know that has it loves it. I'd be on board for that for everyone too. Does this mean you were in the military? I'm really beyond my knowledge now, but does that mean you would have VA health coverage (which I know has its own flaws)?
No, this happens in states like MA/NY/Cali too.
No, this happens in states like MA/Cali too.
"Who is eligible for health insurance subsidies?" source
Household size
- 1 person max income $60,240
If thats the case then @BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world is saying they make more than $61k/year and can't afford $264/month with a $6300 annual deductible?
Maybe you should look into what that bronze plan actually covers. if you have any real medical issues you're definitely losing of a minimum 15% of your income in just medical expenses. Never mind taxes, food, housing, transport, clothing, saving for retirement (which this hypothetical person almost certainly can't do on 61k). Never mind the idea of having your own place, a family, etc.
But I guess you think people should just work just so they can pay medical bills. :shrug:
I'm so thankful my premiums doubled, now someone with a preexisting condition can pay $500 a month for a 50k deductible! So much hope and change!
I don't think drumpf has killed a citizen without due process yet, but when he does he can thank Obama for paving the way.
Obama fucking sucked, but he was a charismatic media darling and liberals ate that shit up just like the cons do with drumpf.
I’m so thankful my premiums doubled,
Are you a guy? If so you many not know that men like us were paying FAR LESS for healthcare than women of our exact same age. I learned this when my woman co-worker (same age) and I were comparing pay stubs many years ago (and many years prior to the ACA). As a young 20 year old man I was paying $30/paycheck. She was paying $124/paycheck simply because she was a woman.
This is one of the things the ACA fixed, and I agree with it. Men pay the same as women under the ACA.
Another thing that the ACA fixed was "swiss cheese" insurance. Insurance policies were filled with tons of tiny exclusions where you would be paying for premiums for months or years and when you finally needed it for something big, they'd point out fine print and you'd have no coverage. The ACA stopped that and made all insurance plans have a basic level of coverage they couldn't weasel out of. So you may have been paying cheap premiums before for insurance that would give you the finger when you needed it. The ACA fixed this. You're paying now for coverage that actually covers what it says.
now someone with a preexisting condition can pay $500 a month for a 50k deductible! So much hope and change!
I don't know how much you know about chronic health problems that were previously called "pre-existing conditions". $500 a month for a 50k deductible would a godsend for many prior to the ACA. Treatment can cost literally millions of dollars, and if $50k covers that, its amazing.
You may not have a condition that needs this today, but you may in the future. You'd be thankful you would be covered by the ACA rules.
Obama had a 60 seat supermajority in the Senate.
It's not a lack of ability. It's a lack of will.
That 60 seat majority included Joe "totally a real Democrat" Manchin and a deceased Ted Kennedy, and they still passed the Affordable Care Act which was very much a "big fucking deal."
The Affordable Care Act fell far short of being what we really needed, where millions still suffer with unaffordable premiums and worthless coverage. What we need is universal healthcare.
Joe Manchin wasn't a god. They could have dealt with him if the political will existed, just like they could have dealt with Joe Lieberman back in 2009. Mobilize the people against him, Go after his financial supporters, go after his friends and family, make his life a living hell for defying the will of the Party and the People.
But Democrats will never do something like that
Or they could have bought a single Republican...
That probably wouldn't work. They'd be outbid.
But you know what? Raising hell against Republicans is possible too - it's possible to organize against them no matter which party they're in. Go after them in their districts, go after their financial backers, go after the special interests that support them, go after the people that vote Republican, friends and family, I don't fucking care, whatever it takes. Make them suffer our political wrath and they'll fall in line.
The ACA was a national version of the Heritage foundation's for profit friendly Healthcare bandaid that bent over backward to keep for profit insurer's cut in and was initially instituted by a Republican governor. It didn't even put us in the right direction, because the right direction is ending the role of private insurer middlemen in Healthcare, which is yet another national disease we suffer. It insured more people at the cost of expanding the profit base of the market capitalists, the enemies of almost everyone else whether they love that enemy or not.
The Democrats have never done what needs to be done, take some of the profit from the oligarchs that profit off society and only succeeded with societal infrastructure they don't want to pay for, and give it to society through the commons.
Until a party starts addressing the greedy profiteer elephant in the room, nothing can improve, so nothing will improve until this gold plated cesspool collapses, almost certainly by the impacts of capitalist made climate change.
This system is comically too far captured by the capital market to have any reasonable hope for rehabilitation. It has protections upon protections, both through effective propaganda cannels and then force, to prevent any economic rehabilitation that doesn't hand even more GDP to the 0.1% at everyone else's expense.
If someone's using it as an argument "Here's why we need to get involved in political activism and improve the Democratic party," then it makes perfect sense. Biden did good, but the Democrats are far from what we need.
If someone's using it as an argument "Why not just abandon the idea of influencing politics at all, even if that means letting the Republicans have a turn smashing up the country we all live in to sell it as scrap for them and their friends while killing anyone who disagrees, because what's the worst that could happen, Dems suck anyway lol," they are either trying to help the Republicans or they've been fooled by the people who are trying to help the Republicans. They will, in the next few years, be able to have a terrifying and tragic object lesson in what the worst that could happen is.