[GT] US election - It's 2020, what could possibly go wrong?

[Titan]

I don't expect actual exec. orders on Jan 20. But I do expect to see a relatively detailed plan setting out what they intend to do and how to do it. I also think that the situation in Georgia changes the playbook significantly. If they can win those races it is a different four years. Coming out with a bunch of 'progressive' policies that would hurt the Dems in those races makes no sense. It is easy to message the delay on actioning border issues by stating how messed up things are, they don't even know where families are, etc.

[GGG]

The left is doing exactly what they should be doing.

To enact change step 1 was get rid of Trump. Step 2 was protest just as passionately against Biden as they did against Trump. It’s seems weird people are now saying it’s not justified. Hoping that Biden follows through is not a plan.

Placing unrealistic demands in Biden is exactly what the left should be doing. It does to things. It pushes Biden left and it makes Biden look more moderate when he implements policy to the right of the crazy wing of his party.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by GGG

The left is doing exactly what they should be doing.

To enact change step 1 was get rid of Trump. Step 2 was protest just as passionately against Biden as they did against Trump. It’s seems weird people are now saying it’s not justified. Hoping that Biden follows through is not a plan.

Placing unrealistic demands in Biden is exactly what the left should be doing. It does to things. It pushes Biden left and it makes Biden look more moderate when he implements policy to the right of the crazy wing of his party.

Well, I am giving the guy a break until he's actually in office for one. Especially under a global pandemic exacerbated by a economic crisis...

Campaigning as passionately against Biden as they did Trump? That's myopic and often the reason the Republican Monolith was in power the last 4 years and secured 74 million votes.

Biden may not be perfect, but he's a damn lot better than Trump - ANY EPA policy that Biden puts forward is going to be 1000x better than Trump...

The democratic base is fractured as well; you're not going to please everyone, especially those that make perfect the enemy of good...

that's not even considering the fact the Democrats might not even control the Senate...

[Red Slinger]

On the one hand it's very important to keep those in power accountable and therefore there's merit to criticizing Biden and his administration, even now. The Republicans, however, don't tend to do this. Generally speaking, they circle the wagons and speak with a more unified voice and treat the process more like a team sport. In the past, the combination of the left holding their own to account with the right being more monolithic has created the impression among the more malleable and less fact-based voters that the Democrats are imbeciles and worse at governing. The risk being with the current Biden administration, that the internal criticism along with the luke-warm support from the progressives to begin with, and the distant memory of how bad Trump really was, will result in a Republican President (maybe even Trump) in four years. So, there is a pragmatic case to be made for keeping the criticism to a low hum. But unless you have a truly progressive President (which Biden isn't), a lack of criticism encourages the status-quo which defeats the purpose of having a left-leaning party in charge. It's the status-quo that led to the backlash that fueled populism and helped to get Trump elected.

I don't know what the answer is but it's a problem that all progressives face in the real world that conservatives usually don't have to contend with.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

On the one hand it's very important to keep those in power accountable and therefore there's merit to criticizing Biden and his administration, even now. The Republicans, however, don't tend to do this. Generally speaking, they circle the wagons and speak with a more unified voice and treat the process more like a team sport. In the past, the combination of the left holding their own to account with the right being more monolithic has created the impression among the more malleable and less fact-based voters that the Democrats are imbeciles and worse at governing. The risk being with the current Biden administration, that the internal criticism along with the luke-warm support from the progressives to begin with, and the distant memory of how bad Trump really was, will result in a Republican President (maybe even Trump) in four years. So, there is a pragmatic case to be made for keeping the criticism to a low hum. But unless you have a truly progressive President (which Biden isn't), a lack of criticism encourages the status-quo which defeats the purpose of having a left-leaning party in charge. It's the status-quo that led to the backlash that fueled populism and helped to get Trump elected.

I don't know what the answer is but it's a problem that all progressives face in the real world that conservatives usually don't have to contend with.

Progressives in America will always face this conundrum unless/until their numbers increase in a big way. Currently they have to contend with 2 different groups at the same time in the political arena (both groups much larger than they are), one being Trump cultists and the other being centrist neoliberals. Progressives just don't have the numbers they need to have any major sway in national politics... at least not yet.

The left is doing exactly what they should be doing.

Placing unrealistic demands in Biden is exactly what the left should be doing. It does to things. It pushes Biden left and it makes Biden look more moderate when he implements policy to the right of the crazy wing of his party.

I think you're conflating two different things. Placing unrealistic demands is not the same thing as trying to push him to the left. For example, pushing Biden to implement some form of universal healthcare (something that every major country on Earth already has) is a push to the left, but hardly an unrealistic demand. An unrealistic demand is expecting him to completely fix the border situation within a few days or weeks. It's going to take time.

[afc wimbledon]

The extremes of the right have the advantage that they know they are wack jobs propounding utterly unelectable policies that the voters wont touch with a ten foot pole, no one in the Proud Boys thinks if the GOP was just more openly racist and violent that the average voter will get on board with their ideas, on the left though they honestly think that the world is just gagging for their policies.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

on the left though they honestly think that the world is just gagging for their policies.

Does every major country on Earth not have some form of guaranteed healthcare for all? Please enlighten me if I'm mistaken on this?

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Does every major country on Earth not have some form of guaranteed healthcare for all? Please enlighten me if I'm mistaken on this?

The United States does not have a healthcare system, only a health insurance system.

And it's costly

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Does every major country on Earth not have some form of guaranteed healthcare for all? Please enlighten me if I'm mistaken on this?

Public option is not the current progressive position is it?

I thought Medi-care for all was. Medicare for all goes much farther then most European nations.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

The United States does not have a healthcare system, only a health insurance system.

And it's costly

With one of the biggest issue (maybe) being that insurance is tied to employment.
Lose your job = lose your insurance.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by GGG

Public option is not the current progressive position is it?

I thought Medi-care for all was. Medicare for all goes much farther then most European nations.

You need to qualify for Medicare, it's available if you meet one of three categories:

1. You are 65 or older
2. You have received Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) checks for at least 24 months; or
3. Or, you have been diagnosed with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)

https://www.medicareinteractive.org/...those-under-65

Medicaid is available for some people with limited income and resources, but you have to qualify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

You need to qualify for Medicare, it's available if you meet one of three categories:

1. You are 65 or older
2. You have received Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) checks for at least 24 months; or
3. Or, you have been diagnosed with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)

https://www. Seemedicareinteractive....those-under-65

Medicaid is available for some people with limited income and resources, but you have to qualify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

I know that, that doesn’t have anything to do with the two policy proposal for public health insurance in the US

My understanding of the current US health care debate amount democrats is there are two basic positions Medicare for all (Single Payer) which essentially ends the US insurance industry and goes to a Canadian style system and there is public option I. Which the government would sell medical insurance and subsidize based on income while the rest of the system remains intact.

The progressive position is single payer / Medicare for all.

This type of single payer system is not found in most advanced democracies which was what Mathgod was suggesting in his response to AFC.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

Public option is not the current progressive position is it?

I thought Medi-care for all was. Medicare for all goes much farther then most European nations.

Originally Posted by GGG

I know that, that doesn’t have anything to do with the two policy proposal for public health insurance in the US

My understanding of the current US health care debate amount democrats is there are two basic positions Medicare for all (Single Payer) which essentially ends the US insurance industry and goes to a Canadian style system and there is public option I. Which the government would sell medical insurance and subsidize based on income while the rest of the system remains intact.

The progressive position is single payer / Medicare for all.

This type of single payer system is not found in most advanced democracies which was what Mathgod was suggesting in his response to AFC.

Medicare for all is a bad plan. Medicare is actually really ####ty insurance and requires additional coverage to have any value. It provides minimal coverage for even the most basic services, and then you have to find a doctor who will accept the insurance, where that market is drying up. Medicare is a #### show and a god awful idea as a framework for a healthcare solution.

[Harry Lime]

I always assumed that "medicare for all" was just a simple way to sell the idea to the average person, but the plan itself would eliminate many of the obvious loopholes. The weird part for me is that there is any argument at all for the current system, which is basically "medical care only for rich people".

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by rubecube

These strawmen are getting even less intelligent.

I for one am impressed how quickly it went from “shut up and vote for Biden, the country is at stake!” to “just shut up.”

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I always assumed that "medicare for all" was just a simple way to sell the idea to the average person, but the plan itself would eliminate many of the obvious loopholes. The weird part for me is that there is any argument at all for the current system, which is basically "medical care only for rich people".

Yep Medicare for all is the term used because “socialized medicine” and “single-payer” scare people in the US but in general they love their Medicare. It all means the same thing but two of those things are scary boogey man phrases and the other is something people are used to hearing.

[FanIn80]

The first step to recovering from anything is first getting rid of the toxin itself. I don't think Biden would have ever won any kind of a normal election, but this wasn't about voting for Biden. It was about getting rid of the toxin.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GGG

I know that, that doesn’t have anything to do with the two policy proposal for public health insurance in the US

My understanding of the current US health care debate amount democrats is there are two basic positions Medicare for all (Single Payer) which essentially ends the US insurance industry and goes to a Canadian style system and there is public option I. Which the government would sell medical insurance and subsidize based on income while the rest of the system remains intact.

The progressive position is single payer / Medicare for all.

This type of single payer system is not found in most advanced democracies which was what Mathgod was suggesting in his response to AFC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al_health_care

Notably absent from that list... the US of A.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I for one am impressed how quickly it went from “shut up and vote for Biden, the country is at stake!” to “just shut up.”

There is a lot at stake in Georgia right now. Asking people to set aside their criticisms of Biden and the Democratic candidates until after those elections are over, seems like a perfectly reasonable ask.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al_health_care

Notably absent from that list... the US of A.



There is a lot at stake in Georgia right now. Asking people to set aside their criticisms of Biden and the Democratic candidates until after those elections are over, seems like a perfectly reasonable ask.

But progressives don’t just support any universal health care. They (based on primaries) want single payer and are opposed to public option. So the argument that progressives support policy that the majority wants (where I believe this started) is well founded. There is support in theUS for universal health care. There is not support for single payer

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

There is support in theUS for universal health care. There is not support for single payer

Do tell! Do tell!!! I'm looking forward to the support for this claim, especially where you provide proof that Americans understand the nuance between the two. Frankly, both concepts are foreign to Americans and they don't understand either let alone being able to contrast the two or identify strengths and weaknesses of both.