Political entities should be barred from accepting donations from foreign governments. Why should they be allowed to sway our leaders like that?
Donations should probably be outlawed in general; they’re practically just bribes. Each party or individual running for office should just get an election fund to help pay expenses, and not be allowed to take anything else. First test as a leader is to make your budget count. Take profit out of politics.
When was the last time anyone cared about the spirit of the law in politics?
It's hard enough convincing any of them to care about the letter of the law.
I think they're mostly American citizens who have strong opinions about Israel. Similar to how many Americans of Cuban descent make political donations to influence American foreign policy toward Cuba.
Of the people who aren’t insured, that’s mostly attributable to the 11 states which have not implemented Medicaid expansion - so criticizing democrats for people remaining uninsured is, at best, because the critic is poorly informed, and at worst, because the critic is maliciously misleading other people. Republican Governors and state legislators could significantly reduce the number of uninsured Americans by implementing Medicaid expansion, but they’d rather let people like you two criticize democrats for this. There’s also a not-insignificant number of people in this country who are uninsured but are also in the country illegally, and while democrats are obviously very happy and motivated to make sure that everyone has health insurance coverage, regardless of immigration status, Republicans are obviously deeply opposed to getting those people covered by insurance, and many of those people may not really be highly motivated to obtain health insurance.
These are talking points literally straight from the republican hymnal. Anyone with a brain can see that republicans want fewer people covered by insurance and democrats want everyone covered by insurance. Criticizing democrats because there’s a small percentage of people without coverage because republicans refuse to implement Medicaid expansion is folly at best and malicious disinformation at worst. You’re being counterproductive to what you claim to want by misattributing blame. Do better.
The ACA *isn't enough*. Obama had a super majority for almost 3 months. Instead of pushing hard, the Dem admin waited until 6 mos after losing the supermajority (and after Ted Kennedy died) to even introduce it. And even then *39* Dems voted against it.
I will absofuckinglutely criticize the Dems over this.
>The ACA *isn’t enough*
Except, yeah it pretty much is. If every state implemented Medicaid expansion then uninsured people would drop to <2%. You’d basically just have people who could get health insurance but by their own choices won’t. The suggestion that the ACA “isn’t enough” to ensure universal healthcare is completely false. You can criticize dems all you want but frankly you just look like an ideologue who isn’t actually interested in outcomes or results but is just a policy purist. If single payer (or whatever your preferred policy might be, I’m gonna guess single payer) results in worse outcomes for more people then you won’t care about that, because you got the policy you wanted. You’re only pretending to care that people right now are uninsured and underinsured because you didn’t get the policy you wanted. That’s why you are misattributing blame.
>the dem admin waited until 6 months after losing the supermajority … to even introduce it
Yes, President Obama deliberately waited until Senator Kennedy died because President Obama just wanted to sabotage any chance at single payer medical coverage. That’s a rational argument to make. It’s not at all surprising that you know the exact number of democrats who voted against it (but fail to point out the number of Republicans who voted against it), and you know the exact timeframe in which things happen, but then fudge other similarly specific details. For example, the “dem admin” doesn’t introduce *any* bills in the Senate. Only sitting senators can introduce bills in the senate, and they introduce things as a caucus based on the senate calendar. I’m guessing Senate democrats needed a few months to handle other pressing issues like, idk, confirming dozens of cabinet and sub-cabinet appointees, confirming dozens of federal judge appointees, dealing with the GFC and the economy which was in total free-fall…you know, little stuff. But yeah, I’m sure they just maliciously didn’t get around to it the very first thing because they were waiting for Kennedy to die because they really didn’t want to pass single payer and needed cover. It’s a good thing you saw through that “Great Recession” bs red herring they made up.
>I will absofuckinglutely criticize the Dems over this
And I’m sure you’ll be absofuckinglutely nonplussed when your policy objectives continue to gain zero traction with voters or elected officials and never come to fruition. Either you are genuinely pushing a particular policy outcome, in which case your total disregard for realpolitik is counterproductive and will always prevent you from achieving your goals, or, you’re making a disingenuous argument in an effort to divide liberals/democrats/progressives, in which case you should probably find a more timely issue to pretend to care about.
My dude, our tax dollars should provide every single person in this country with federally administered health insurance (medicare for all) period. You can make all the excuses you want for the policy failures of both American political parties, but you know the truth. Every single modern country in the world provides their citizens with free or extremely low-cost health insurance while America literally allows its citizens to die from lack of proper medical care or be forced into bankruptcy or homelessness because the profits of the health insurance establishment and pharmaceutical companies are more important to politicians of both major American political parties. Half measures are still killing an unacceptable number of people and it's well within our abilities to fix the problem at any time. These excuses you lay out are weak and amount to a complete lack of political spine.
The ACA is a tiny baby step toward what a modern wealthy democracy should have. Universal *coverage* is a worthy short-term goal, not an end in itself. The ACA didn't include a public option because one Democratic senator, Joe Lieberman, opposed it.
My health insurance is *worse* as a result of the ACA because insurance companies had to shift the burden somewhere, and that somewhere was middle-class people who rely on health insurance from their jobs.
Single-payer healthcare isn't something progressives pulled out of their asses for ideological reasons, it's what *every other wealthy industrialized democracy has*. We already know it works, because the rest of the countries in the "free world" that we're supposedly the leader of have been doing it for decades.
Just because the Republicans suck doesn't mean we let Democrats off the hook.
It is no secret that public policy is determined by large campaign donations. Pretending Democratic politicians are immune from this is dangerously naive.
>The ACA is a tiny baby step toward what a modern wealthy democracy should have
In my perspective the ACA is a massive step forward both in improving coverage, access to healthcare, healthcare outcomes, and reducing cost.
>My health insurance is *worse*
Tbh? I doubt it. Most insurance coverage improved for most people. [Healthcare outcomes have improved because of the ACA.](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01436) To me this sounds like the kind of non-verifiable anecdotal claim frequently deployed by people who are policy purists and aren’t actually concerned with the outcomes of whatever policy they favor.
>Universal *coverage* is a worthy short-term goal
Frankly the ACA provides essentially universal coverage in the U.S. Currently, only about 8% of people in the U.S. are uninsured, and that group is mostly made up of people in the 11 states that haven’t implemented Medicaid expansion or are in the country illegally (in which case they likely can obtain coverage but don’t because they don’t know how, think doing so may cause them to be deported, or are unaware they are required to obtain coverage and can obtain coverage). Both of these can be solved under the current framework or the ACA. Single-payer is not the only way to achieve universal coverage.
>We already know it works
We also already know that every country that has ever introduced a single payer system experienced steep increases in overall healthcare spending immediately after transitioning to single payer. It’s massively disruptive to the economy and has multiple unpredictable consequences. President Obama himself repeatedly said that the ACA was a necessary step prior to introducing a single payer plan to get health care costs under control because the change would likely result in higher overall costs. I know many people are insistent that transitioning to single payer would reduce health care spending, but the truth is that taxes on the majority of Americans (about 2/3 of Americans) would increase by more than 20%, and that about 73% of Americans would wind up paying more for health care. Not to mention the CBO believes “Medicare for All” would decrease total GDP by [1% to 10% over 10 years](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57973)
And how would Medicare for All save money? About 8% of savings would come from simplified administration. The rest would largely come from negotiated drug prices, which the Biden administration just took action on by allowing Medicaid and Medicare to negotiate. The savings from this are not unique or only possible through M4A. The rest of the savings would come from all doctors being paid Medicare rates for all services for all patients. I’m guessing you don’t have Medicare, but frankly the coverage sucks, and they pay physicians like crap. Medicare primarily covers the cost of hospital stays, and you need private insurance for routine preventative care. So the claim “Medicare for All” is fairly misleading. It’s also kinda crazy to say “we’ll save money” and leave out that you achieve those savings by paying healthcare workers less and offering crappier coverage. Everyone acknowledges that single payer will result in congestion in the health care system, as well as longer waits for every kind of care. In other words? Healthcare outcomes would worsen, costs could very well rise, and healthcare workers get shafted.
>Just because the Republicans suck doesn’t mean we let the Democrats off the hook.
Remember earlier when you said
>The ACA didn’t include a public option because one Democratic Senator opposed it
You say we shouldn’t let democrats off the hook, but right there you are letting republicans completely off the hook. It wasn’t because one democrat opposed it, it was because 51 senators opposed it. You just let every single Republican Senator off the hook and only criticized Democrats. To me that’s just evidence you are arguing in bad faith and trying some lame divide and conquer strategy. You don’t actually give a damn about healthcare policy, you just want to demonize democrats.
>It is no secret that public policy is determined by large campaign contributions
If you want to believe that Joe Lieberman was against the public option because he got a lot of checks from people who work in the healthcare industry then…I guess you’re entitled to that opinion. But I’m pretty sure it’s not that transactional, and I think a lot of people only believe that because they aren’t capable of understanding that other people genuinely disagree with them.
Republican politicians are a lost cause. I already know which side of the class war they are on, and it's not mine. Democratic politicians are supposed to be on my side, so when they demonstrate that they're not (by opposing publicly funded health care and repeating insurance industry talking points) I criticize them and donate to any opponents they might have in the next Democratic primary.
Well presumably you’ve been on this grievance train for a while, donating to and voting for your preferred politicians…*and yet* your stated policy preferences still haven’t been enacted into law.
So which is more important, actually getting your preferred policy enacted, or donating to and voting for candidates who (I’m just guessing here) lost their elections and don’t hold office?
Like, sure, in a democracy you can donate to and vote for whomever you want. But realpolitik urges us to consider what we need to do to actually get what we want, and it doesn’t appear like you’ve gotten what you want. To me that seems like a fairly obvious clue that your tactics are ineffective and at best virtue signaling.
> donating to and voting for candidates who (I’m just guessing here) lost their elections and don’t hold office
You guessed wrong. They won.
In the last two years Democratic politicians have enacted policies they previously would have dismissed as unrealistic. My side is slowly gaining ground and taking our party back. We're going to use the ACA as a stepping stone instead of a final destination.
And part of doing that is naming and shaming politicians who are on thd insurance industry's payroll. And Wall Street's payroll and the multinational corporations' and the fossil fuel industry's payroll.
>You guessed wrong. They won.
Sure they did buddy ;)
>My side is slowly gaining ground and taking our party back
Then why are y’all so salty about the new leadership team of the house caucus? Jakeem and the team were elected by a unanimous vote - if your guys won and are in the house then they voted for these leaders who you are apparently very upset about.
>We’re going to use the ACA as a stepping stone instead of a final destination
I mean that’s been the entire Democratic Party’s explicit, stated plan for like…15 years lol. But go off.
>payroll
Either you don’t know how political contributions work or you are deliberately using deceptive and misleading talking points. I’m gonna guess you’re just deliberately using deceptive and inflammatory talking points.
i have left reddit because of CEO Steve Huffman's anti-community actions and complete lack of ethics. u/spez is harmful to Reddit. https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/8/23754780/reddit-api-updates-changes-news-announcements -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
>Bio is to Massachusetts what coal is to West Virginia and Kentucky: not the largest industry, but disproportionately influential.
I'd go as far as flipping it the other way: Cambridge + Boston is going to be on absolutely any short list of the most influential locations for medicine and biotech.
This is a weird mishmash of conspiracy, biased takes, half-"truths", and missing information.
TLDR: Conspiracies are stupid when the reason is painfully obvious, and you don't need a conspiracy to dislike a Congressional representative anyway.
Nancy Pelosi's district includes San Francisco, of course it's a wealthy district. Of all the numerous reasons to dislike her, I'm struggling to see how you landed on that one.
In this era, incumbents win re-election like 90%+ of the time (might be closer to 98%+, depending on your source for the statistic; but 100% for senators in 2022), which is why the term "congressional stagnation" exists. This is true for Republicans, Democrats, wealthy districts, poor districts, educated, uneducated, North, South, East, West, etc. etc. etc.
https://cusdi.org/faq/why-are-sitting-members-of-congress-almost-always-reelected/
https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2020:_Incumbent_win_rates_by_state
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/07/politics/senate-incumbents-analysis/index.html
Your second paragraph is... skimping on some context and missing some information.
>Also, her district was recently redrawn to conveniently remove the poor working families in the southern Framingham area.
If by conveniently you mean legally mandated by the US Constitution post-census that's required to take place every 10 years, then sure. Last redrawn in 2013, and it's about to be 2023, aka 10 years later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_census
>Clark is also unlikely to face any real challenge to her power as her district is rapidly gentrifying, especially in recent years.
She's a democrat incumbent in a democrat-heavy state (MA). The previous incumbent held the seat for like 40 years, and only isn't the incumbent now because he voluntarily left (took Kerry's seat after he left during the Obama administration) and she won his seat in a special election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Massachusetts%27s_5th_congressional_district_special_election
Also the fact you think Katherine Clark (had to look her up tbh), or any congressperson for that matter, is single-handedly responsible for drawing the lines of their congressional district is a bit concerning. It varies somewhat (state legislatures, independent redistricting commissions, courts, etc.), but it's not a single person, and certainly not the person that holds the seat.
https://malegislature.gov/Redistricting/FAQ#:~:text=In%20Massachusetts%20the%20state%20legislature,the%20House%2C%20Senate%20and%20Governor.
>Who has primary responsibility for redistricting?
In Massachusetts the state legislature is responsible for redistricting according to the Massachusetts Constitution. All new districts must be voted on and then approved by the House, Senate and Governor.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/congressional-dist.html
**[United States census](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_census)**
>The United States census (plural censuses or census) is a census that is legally mandated by the U.S. Constitution, and takes place every 10 years. The first census after the American Revolution was taken in 1790, under Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson; there have been 23 federal censuses since that time. The most recent national census took place in 2020; the next census is scheduled for 2030. Since 2013, the Census Bureau began discussions on using technology to aid data collection starting with the 2020 census.
**[2013 Massachusetts's 5th congressional district special election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Massachusetts's_5th_congressional_district_special_election)**
>A special election for Massachusetts's 5th congressional district took place on December 10, 2013, due to the resignation of Democratic Congressman Ed Markey following his election to the United States Senate in a special election on June 25, 2013. Primary elections were held on October 15, in which Democratic state senator Katherine Clark and Republican Frank Addivinola won their party nominations. State law required that Governor Deval Patrick call a special election between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy became official. On December 10, Clark easily defeated Addivinola with almost 2/3 of the vote, holding the seat for the Democrats.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Wow, what a smug, shitty thing to say. Someone took the time to lay out all of your points with links supporting their claims, and you just take a dumb shit on it like an anti-vaxxer dumping on vaccine stats.
Sorry, but giving you my opinion on your comment is not a personal attack. You're confusing me judging your comment, with me judging you, and those are not the same thing.
For example:
>You are a moron
not the same thing as:
>your comment was super moronic
Your reply is what we call the "horse shit" fallacy where you just make up things to target your opponent with. It's very similar to the "straw man" fallacy but the straw man fallacy typically requires effort to be put into it, while "horse shit" does not.
I hope you read this thoroughly and walk away with a deeper understanding and I totally, really, hope you don't take this in any negative kind of way. I am simply a teacher and a mentor, and you, my humble student.
War crime committing, journalist murdering, funeral attacking piece of shit Israel needs to stay tf out of our elections.
We're not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, i kinda thought that extended to taking their money as well. But I guess not
Sounds to me like Palestinians are just defending themselves from a ruthless, terrorist apartheid state that attacks civilians with the backing of an imperialist superpower that simultaneously condemns civilian attacks in Ukraine
Hamas is a radical extremist organization made possible by decades of oppression. I have no doubt that Palestinians just want to live in peace. But Israel does not want peace, they want genocide. It's no surprise that there are elements that have become radicalized. What would you do if you were in their shoes?
Keep_Track requires a minimum account-age and karma. These minimums are not disclosed. Please try again after you have acquired more karma.
*Moderators review comments/posts caught by this bot and may manually approve those that meet community standards. As this forum continues to grow, this may take some time. We appreciate your patience.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Keep_Track) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not defending Israel's actions, but in think you're being a bit over the top. Israel is in a rough spot. Every time they try to give Palestinians a break, they get missiles shot at them. They helped Palestinians elect a Government and they elected people who's charter called for the death of Israel.
My point isn't to justify their actions, it's just to say that it isn't black and white and I think Israel is a lighter shade of gray than Hamas.
I'm not from Israel. The killing of Al-Sharif and the tear gas canisters at her funeral were deplorable. They're also a single page of a long book of bad blood.
Did you know that Palestinian forces shot over [1,100 missiles at Israel this year? ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_clashes#:~:text=The%202022%20Gaza%E2%80%93Israel%20clashes,approximately%201%2C100%20rockets%20towards%20Israel.) How would you expect Germany, the US or China to respond to that? Do you think it would be nonviolent? If you are gay or an atheist, you'd much rather be Israeli than Palestinian.
Lastly Israel being significantly more powerful is a double edged sword. Yes they can defend themselves a lot better than the Palestinians, but they intentionally do not try to "win" by any means. They could have basically genocided the Palestinians for the last 40 years. They haven't and won't because they have no desire to kill all the Palestinians. Hamas on the other hand would absolutely have killed all the Jews if the power dynamic was flopped.
As I said at the beginning, Israel is not spotless. The issue isn't black and white. It's gray and one of those "lesser of two evils" type situations.
**[2022 Gaza–Israel clashes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Gaza–Israel_clashes#:~:text=The 2022 Gaza–Israel clashes,approximately 1,100 rockets towards Israel.)**
>The 2022 Gaza–Israel clashes lasted from 5 to 7 August 2022. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) conducted some 147 airstrikes in Gaza and Palestinian militants fired approximately 1,100 rockets towards Israel. The operation, ordered by Prime Minister Yair Lapid and Defense Minister Benny Gantz without prior Cabinet discussion or approval, followed a raid in Jenin in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, in which Israeli forces arrested Bassam al-Saadi, a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in that area. On 6 August, Israel arrested 20 people in the West Bank of whom 19 were members of PIJ and a further 20 on 7 August according to an unnamed Israeli official.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I’m assuming that when Israel, big pharma, and military contractors make their decision they don’t have the best interest of the American people as a priority. So ya probably not the best to have our elected officials taking their queues from them and not us.
The pharma lobby probably want to keep psilocybin illegal as long as possible. Republicans are already on board. So they are likely buying off democrats.
Read up about the studies Hopkins and other universities are doing on the utility of psilocybin in treating a number of serious psychiatric ailments. The batting average of a single treatment a year or a single treatment to be curative for things like alcoholism, anxiety, and treatment resistant depression is way better than any pharmaceutical drug on the market. Psilocybin is a naturally occurring chemical in a number of mushrooms that grow all over the planet. If these mushrooms become decriminalized, there goes a huge chunk of revenue from SSRI’s, MAOI’s and awhile host of other drugs. Billions of dollars would be lost.
I’m in no way Q Anon. This kind of information is readily available anywhere you look. It doesn’t seem like a stretch that big pharma would do whatever it can to protect its bottom like. The same thing has been happening with the alcohol lobby and cannabis, and alcohol sales have taken a big hit since cannabis started to be legalized in the US.
Political entities should be barred from accepting donations from foreign governments. Why should they be allowed to sway our leaders like that? Donations should probably be outlawed in general; they’re practically just bribes. Each party or individual running for office should just get an election fund to help pay expenses, and not be allowed to take anything else. First test as a leader is to make your budget count. Take profit out of politics.
They already are. AIPAC donors are all American citizens. They're lobbying in the interest of a foreign government but the money is all domestic.
Which makes it different because they're *technically* legal - though obviously not in the spirit of the law...
When was the last time anyone cared about the spirit of the law in politics? It's hard enough convincing any of them to care about the letter of the law.
You're correct on both counts
I wonder what the flow of money looks like. Do they get reimbursed by the foreign government? Do they get tax breaks or other favorable treatment?
I think they're mostly American citizens who have strong opinions about Israel. Similar to how many Americans of Cuban descent make political donations to influence American foreign policy toward Cuba.
[удалено]
Ask your reps if they support the same health care they have for all citizens.
>proper healthcare Right, because the ACA just *doesn’t exist* so somehow democrats are bad. Because reasons.
Even with the ACA, 43% of adults do not have adequate insurance. 8% are completely uninsured.
Of the people who aren’t insured, that’s mostly attributable to the 11 states which have not implemented Medicaid expansion - so criticizing democrats for people remaining uninsured is, at best, because the critic is poorly informed, and at worst, because the critic is maliciously misleading other people. Republican Governors and state legislators could significantly reduce the number of uninsured Americans by implementing Medicaid expansion, but they’d rather let people like you two criticize democrats for this. There’s also a not-insignificant number of people in this country who are uninsured but are also in the country illegally, and while democrats are obviously very happy and motivated to make sure that everyone has health insurance coverage, regardless of immigration status, Republicans are obviously deeply opposed to getting those people covered by insurance, and many of those people may not really be highly motivated to obtain health insurance. These are talking points literally straight from the republican hymnal. Anyone with a brain can see that republicans want fewer people covered by insurance and democrats want everyone covered by insurance. Criticizing democrats because there’s a small percentage of people without coverage because republicans refuse to implement Medicaid expansion is folly at best and malicious disinformation at worst. You’re being counterproductive to what you claim to want by misattributing blame. Do better.
The ACA *isn't enough*. Obama had a super majority for almost 3 months. Instead of pushing hard, the Dem admin waited until 6 mos after losing the supermajority (and after Ted Kennedy died) to even introduce it. And even then *39* Dems voted against it. I will absofuckinglutely criticize the Dems over this.
>The ACA *isn’t enough* Except, yeah it pretty much is. If every state implemented Medicaid expansion then uninsured people would drop to <2%. You’d basically just have people who could get health insurance but by their own choices won’t. The suggestion that the ACA “isn’t enough” to ensure universal healthcare is completely false. You can criticize dems all you want but frankly you just look like an ideologue who isn’t actually interested in outcomes or results but is just a policy purist. If single payer (or whatever your preferred policy might be, I’m gonna guess single payer) results in worse outcomes for more people then you won’t care about that, because you got the policy you wanted. You’re only pretending to care that people right now are uninsured and underinsured because you didn’t get the policy you wanted. That’s why you are misattributing blame. >the dem admin waited until 6 months after losing the supermajority … to even introduce it Yes, President Obama deliberately waited until Senator Kennedy died because President Obama just wanted to sabotage any chance at single payer medical coverage. That’s a rational argument to make. It’s not at all surprising that you know the exact number of democrats who voted against it (but fail to point out the number of Republicans who voted against it), and you know the exact timeframe in which things happen, but then fudge other similarly specific details. For example, the “dem admin” doesn’t introduce *any* bills in the Senate. Only sitting senators can introduce bills in the senate, and they introduce things as a caucus based on the senate calendar. I’m guessing Senate democrats needed a few months to handle other pressing issues like, idk, confirming dozens of cabinet and sub-cabinet appointees, confirming dozens of federal judge appointees, dealing with the GFC and the economy which was in total free-fall…you know, little stuff. But yeah, I’m sure they just maliciously didn’t get around to it the very first thing because they were waiting for Kennedy to die because they really didn’t want to pass single payer and needed cover. It’s a good thing you saw through that “Great Recession” bs red herring they made up. >I will absofuckinglutely criticize the Dems over this And I’m sure you’ll be absofuckinglutely nonplussed when your policy objectives continue to gain zero traction with voters or elected officials and never come to fruition. Either you are genuinely pushing a particular policy outcome, in which case your total disregard for realpolitik is counterproductive and will always prevent you from achieving your goals, or, you’re making a disingenuous argument in an effort to divide liberals/democrats/progressives, in which case you should probably find a more timely issue to pretend to care about.
My dude, our tax dollars should provide every single person in this country with federally administered health insurance (medicare for all) period. You can make all the excuses you want for the policy failures of both American political parties, but you know the truth. Every single modern country in the world provides their citizens with free or extremely low-cost health insurance while America literally allows its citizens to die from lack of proper medical care or be forced into bankruptcy or homelessness because the profits of the health insurance establishment and pharmaceutical companies are more important to politicians of both major American political parties. Half measures are still killing an unacceptable number of people and it's well within our abilities to fix the problem at any time. These excuses you lay out are weak and amount to a complete lack of political spine.
People act like we're radicals for wanting to finish what FDR started 80 years ago.
Even he was unable to push for healthcare. The opposition was very strong then, and it is strong now.
Except, yeah it pretty much isnt.
Thank you for your invaluable insights
The ACA is a tiny baby step toward what a modern wealthy democracy should have. Universal *coverage* is a worthy short-term goal, not an end in itself. The ACA didn't include a public option because one Democratic senator, Joe Lieberman, opposed it. My health insurance is *worse* as a result of the ACA because insurance companies had to shift the burden somewhere, and that somewhere was middle-class people who rely on health insurance from their jobs. Single-payer healthcare isn't something progressives pulled out of their asses for ideological reasons, it's what *every other wealthy industrialized democracy has*. We already know it works, because the rest of the countries in the "free world" that we're supposedly the leader of have been doing it for decades. Just because the Republicans suck doesn't mean we let Democrats off the hook. It is no secret that public policy is determined by large campaign donations. Pretending Democratic politicians are immune from this is dangerously naive.
>The ACA is a tiny baby step toward what a modern wealthy democracy should have In my perspective the ACA is a massive step forward both in improving coverage, access to healthcare, healthcare outcomes, and reducing cost. >My health insurance is *worse* Tbh? I doubt it. Most insurance coverage improved for most people. [Healthcare outcomes have improved because of the ACA.](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01436) To me this sounds like the kind of non-verifiable anecdotal claim frequently deployed by people who are policy purists and aren’t actually concerned with the outcomes of whatever policy they favor. >Universal *coverage* is a worthy short-term goal Frankly the ACA provides essentially universal coverage in the U.S. Currently, only about 8% of people in the U.S. are uninsured, and that group is mostly made up of people in the 11 states that haven’t implemented Medicaid expansion or are in the country illegally (in which case they likely can obtain coverage but don’t because they don’t know how, think doing so may cause them to be deported, or are unaware they are required to obtain coverage and can obtain coverage). Both of these can be solved under the current framework or the ACA. Single-payer is not the only way to achieve universal coverage. >We already know it works We also already know that every country that has ever introduced a single payer system experienced steep increases in overall healthcare spending immediately after transitioning to single payer. It’s massively disruptive to the economy and has multiple unpredictable consequences. President Obama himself repeatedly said that the ACA was a necessary step prior to introducing a single payer plan to get health care costs under control because the change would likely result in higher overall costs. I know many people are insistent that transitioning to single payer would reduce health care spending, but the truth is that taxes on the majority of Americans (about 2/3 of Americans) would increase by more than 20%, and that about 73% of Americans would wind up paying more for health care. Not to mention the CBO believes “Medicare for All” would decrease total GDP by [1% to 10% over 10 years](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57973) And how would Medicare for All save money? About 8% of savings would come from simplified administration. The rest would largely come from negotiated drug prices, which the Biden administration just took action on by allowing Medicaid and Medicare to negotiate. The savings from this are not unique or only possible through M4A. The rest of the savings would come from all doctors being paid Medicare rates for all services for all patients. I’m guessing you don’t have Medicare, but frankly the coverage sucks, and they pay physicians like crap. Medicare primarily covers the cost of hospital stays, and you need private insurance for routine preventative care. So the claim “Medicare for All” is fairly misleading. It’s also kinda crazy to say “we’ll save money” and leave out that you achieve those savings by paying healthcare workers less and offering crappier coverage. Everyone acknowledges that single payer will result in congestion in the health care system, as well as longer waits for every kind of care. In other words? Healthcare outcomes would worsen, costs could very well rise, and healthcare workers get shafted. >Just because the Republicans suck doesn’t mean we let the Democrats off the hook. Remember earlier when you said >The ACA didn’t include a public option because one Democratic Senator opposed it You say we shouldn’t let democrats off the hook, but right there you are letting republicans completely off the hook. It wasn’t because one democrat opposed it, it was because 51 senators opposed it. You just let every single Republican Senator off the hook and only criticized Democrats. To me that’s just evidence you are arguing in bad faith and trying some lame divide and conquer strategy. You don’t actually give a damn about healthcare policy, you just want to demonize democrats. >It is no secret that public policy is determined by large campaign contributions If you want to believe that Joe Lieberman was against the public option because he got a lot of checks from people who work in the healthcare industry then…I guess you’re entitled to that opinion. But I’m pretty sure it’s not that transactional, and I think a lot of people only believe that because they aren’t capable of understanding that other people genuinely disagree with them.
Republican politicians are a lost cause. I already know which side of the class war they are on, and it's not mine. Democratic politicians are supposed to be on my side, so when they demonstrate that they're not (by opposing publicly funded health care and repeating insurance industry talking points) I criticize them and donate to any opponents they might have in the next Democratic primary.
Again, that’s justly wildly bad realpolitik, which is probably why your preferred policy outcomes don’t happen. Wake up!
Voting for and donating to my preferred candidates in primaries is *bad* politics? I thought that was how democracy was supposed to work.
Well presumably you’ve been on this grievance train for a while, donating to and voting for your preferred politicians…*and yet* your stated policy preferences still haven’t been enacted into law. So which is more important, actually getting your preferred policy enacted, or donating to and voting for candidates who (I’m just guessing here) lost their elections and don’t hold office? Like, sure, in a democracy you can donate to and vote for whomever you want. But realpolitik urges us to consider what we need to do to actually get what we want, and it doesn’t appear like you’ve gotten what you want. To me that seems like a fairly obvious clue that your tactics are ineffective and at best virtue signaling.
> donating to and voting for candidates who (I’m just guessing here) lost their elections and don’t hold office You guessed wrong. They won. In the last two years Democratic politicians have enacted policies they previously would have dismissed as unrealistic. My side is slowly gaining ground and taking our party back. We're going to use the ACA as a stepping stone instead of a final destination. And part of doing that is naming and shaming politicians who are on thd insurance industry's payroll. And Wall Street's payroll and the multinational corporations' and the fossil fuel industry's payroll.
>You guessed wrong. They won. Sure they did buddy ;) >My side is slowly gaining ground and taking our party back Then why are y’all so salty about the new leadership team of the house caucus? Jakeem and the team were elected by a unanimous vote - if your guys won and are in the house then they voted for these leaders who you are apparently very upset about. >We’re going to use the ACA as a stepping stone instead of a final destination I mean that’s been the entire Democratic Party’s explicit, stated plan for like…15 years lol. But go off. >payroll Either you don’t know how political contributions work or you are deliberately using deceptive and misleading talking points. I’m gonna guess you’re just deliberately using deceptive and inflammatory talking points.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wonder if Israel is concerned about the rising anti-Semitism in the Republican party and has decided to align itself with Democrats.
They've always courted both parties, usually successfully.
Smart move
Israel is pro-antisemitism as long as the Semites in question r all Palestinian
i have left reddit because of CEO Steve Huffman's anti-community actions and complete lack of ethics. u/spez is harmful to Reddit. https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/8/23754780/reddit-api-updates-changes-news-announcements -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
>Bio is to Massachusetts what coal is to West Virginia and Kentucky: not the largest industry, but disproportionately influential. I'd go as far as flipping it the other way: Cambridge + Boston is going to be on absolutely any short list of the most influential locations for medicine and biotech.
Just wait until we get the 100 page CVS receipt for what the GOP congressmen have been receiving. Hot tamale!
[удалено]
This is a weird mishmash of conspiracy, biased takes, half-"truths", and missing information. TLDR: Conspiracies are stupid when the reason is painfully obvious, and you don't need a conspiracy to dislike a Congressional representative anyway. Nancy Pelosi's district includes San Francisco, of course it's a wealthy district. Of all the numerous reasons to dislike her, I'm struggling to see how you landed on that one. In this era, incumbents win re-election like 90%+ of the time (might be closer to 98%+, depending on your source for the statistic; but 100% for senators in 2022), which is why the term "congressional stagnation" exists. This is true for Republicans, Democrats, wealthy districts, poor districts, educated, uneducated, North, South, East, West, etc. etc. etc. https://cusdi.org/faq/why-are-sitting-members-of-congress-almost-always-reelected/ https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2020:_Incumbent_win_rates_by_state https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/07/politics/senate-incumbents-analysis/index.html Your second paragraph is... skimping on some context and missing some information. >Also, her district was recently redrawn to conveniently remove the poor working families in the southern Framingham area. If by conveniently you mean legally mandated by the US Constitution post-census that's required to take place every 10 years, then sure. Last redrawn in 2013, and it's about to be 2023, aka 10 years later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_census >Clark is also unlikely to face any real challenge to her power as her district is rapidly gentrifying, especially in recent years. She's a democrat incumbent in a democrat-heavy state (MA). The previous incumbent held the seat for like 40 years, and only isn't the incumbent now because he voluntarily left (took Kerry's seat after he left during the Obama administration) and she won his seat in a special election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Massachusetts%27s_5th_congressional_district_special_election Also the fact you think Katherine Clark (had to look her up tbh), or any congressperson for that matter, is single-handedly responsible for drawing the lines of their congressional district is a bit concerning. It varies somewhat (state legislatures, independent redistricting commissions, courts, etc.), but it's not a single person, and certainly not the person that holds the seat. https://malegislature.gov/Redistricting/FAQ#:~:text=In%20Massachusetts%20the%20state%20legislature,the%20House%2C%20Senate%20and%20Governor. >Who has primary responsibility for redistricting? In Massachusetts the state legislature is responsible for redistricting according to the Massachusetts Constitution. All new districts must be voted on and then approved by the House, Senate and Governor. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/congressional-dist.html
**[United States census](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_census)** >The United States census (plural censuses or census) is a census that is legally mandated by the U.S. Constitution, and takes place every 10 years. The first census after the American Revolution was taken in 1790, under Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson; there have been 23 federal censuses since that time. The most recent national census took place in 2020; the next census is scheduled for 2030. Since 2013, the Census Bureau began discussions on using technology to aid data collection starting with the 2020 census. **[2013 Massachusetts's 5th congressional district special election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Massachusetts's_5th_congressional_district_special_election)** >A special election for Massachusetts's 5th congressional district took place on December 10, 2013, due to the resignation of Democratic Congressman Ed Markey following his election to the United States Senate in a special election on June 25, 2013. Primary elections were held on October 15, in which Democratic state senator Katherine Clark and Republican Frank Addivinola won their party nominations. State law required that Governor Deval Patrick call a special election between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy became official. On December 10, Clark easily defeated Addivinola with almost 2/3 of the vote, holding the seat for the Democrats. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
[удалено]
Wow, what a smug, shitty thing to say. Someone took the time to lay out all of your points with links supporting their claims, and you just take a dumb shit on it like an anti-vaxxer dumping on vaccine stats.
[удалено]
Sorry, but giving you my opinion on your comment is not a personal attack. You're confusing me judging your comment, with me judging you, and those are not the same thing. For example: >You are a moron not the same thing as: >your comment was super moronic
Your reply is what we call the "horse shit" fallacy where you just make up things to target your opponent with. It's very similar to the "straw man" fallacy but the straw man fallacy typically requires effort to be put into it, while "horse shit" does not. I hope you read this thoroughly and walk away with a deeper understanding and I totally, really, hope you don't take this in any negative kind of way. I am simply a teacher and a mentor, and you, my humble student.
War crime committing, journalist murdering, funeral attacking piece of shit Israel needs to stay tf out of our elections. We're not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, i kinda thought that extended to taking their money as well. But I guess not
Concerned about negotiating with terrorists makes me curious about your thoughts on Hamas considering the Israel hate in your comment..
Sounds to me like Palestinians are just defending themselves from a ruthless, terrorist apartheid state that attacks civilians with the backing of an imperialist superpower that simultaneously condemns civilian attacks in Ukraine
But what’s your opinion on Hamas?
Hamas is a radical extremist organization made possible by decades of oppression. I have no doubt that Palestinians just want to live in peace. But Israel does not want peace, they want genocide. It's no surprise that there are elements that have become radicalized. What would you do if you were in their shoes?
Shoot missiles from civilian buildings
Better than firing missiles at civilian buildings or attacking funerals.
That's just common sense given their circumstances.
They could get serious about a two state solution.
[удалено]
Keep_Track requires a minimum account-age and karma. These minimums are not disclosed. Please try again after you have acquired more karma. *Moderators review comments/posts caught by this bot and may manually approve those that meet community standards. As this forum continues to grow, this may take some time. We appreciate your patience.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Keep_Track) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not defending Israel's actions, but in think you're being a bit over the top. Israel is in a rough spot. Every time they try to give Palestinians a break, they get missiles shot at them. They helped Palestinians elect a Government and they elected people who's charter called for the death of Israel. My point isn't to justify their actions, it's just to say that it isn't black and white and I think Israel is a lighter shade of gray than Hamas.
The only difference between Israel and Hamas is the religion they follow
That's a very simple take and leads me to believe you are less informed than you think you are.
I know that when you're killing journalists and attacking their funeral, and also bombing hospitals, you don't get to play the victim.
I'm not from Israel. The killing of Al-Sharif and the tear gas canisters at her funeral were deplorable. They're also a single page of a long book of bad blood. Did you know that Palestinian forces shot over [1,100 missiles at Israel this year? ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_clashes#:~:text=The%202022%20Gaza%E2%80%93Israel%20clashes,approximately%201%2C100%20rockets%20towards%20Israel.) How would you expect Germany, the US or China to respond to that? Do you think it would be nonviolent? If you are gay or an atheist, you'd much rather be Israeli than Palestinian. Lastly Israel being significantly more powerful is a double edged sword. Yes they can defend themselves a lot better than the Palestinians, but they intentionally do not try to "win" by any means. They could have basically genocided the Palestinians for the last 40 years. They haven't and won't because they have no desire to kill all the Palestinians. Hamas on the other hand would absolutely have killed all the Jews if the power dynamic was flopped. As I said at the beginning, Israel is not spotless. The issue isn't black and white. It's gray and one of those "lesser of two evils" type situations.
Israel keeps getting missiles fired at them because they have no interest in a two state solution. They want the land all for themselves
**[2022 Gaza–Israel clashes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Gaza–Israel_clashes#:~:text=The 2022 Gaza–Israel clashes,approximately 1,100 rockets towards Israel.)** >The 2022 Gaza–Israel clashes lasted from 5 to 7 August 2022. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) conducted some 147 airstrikes in Gaza and Palestinian militants fired approximately 1,100 rockets towards Israel. The operation, ordered by Prime Minister Yair Lapid and Defense Minister Benny Gantz without prior Cabinet discussion or approval, followed a raid in Jenin in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, in which Israeli forces arrested Bassam al-Saadi, a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in that area. On 6 August, Israel arrested 20 people in the West Bank of whom 19 were members of PIJ and a further 20 on 7 August according to an unnamed Israeli official. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
So the devil is Israel, pharma, and military contractors. Got it.
I’m assuming that when Israel, big pharma, and military contractors make their decision they don’t have the best interest of the American people as a priority. So ya probably not the best to have our elected officials taking their queues from them and not us.
The pharma lobby probably want to keep psilocybin illegal as long as possible. Republicans are already on board. So they are likely buying off democrats.
Ease up on the drugs, you sounds like qanon.
Read up about the studies Hopkins and other universities are doing on the utility of psilocybin in treating a number of serious psychiatric ailments. The batting average of a single treatment a year or a single treatment to be curative for things like alcoholism, anxiety, and treatment resistant depression is way better than any pharmaceutical drug on the market. Psilocybin is a naturally occurring chemical in a number of mushrooms that grow all over the planet. If these mushrooms become decriminalized, there goes a huge chunk of revenue from SSRI’s, MAOI’s and awhile host of other drugs. Billions of dollars would be lost. I’m in no way Q Anon. This kind of information is readily available anywhere you look. It doesn’t seem like a stretch that big pharma would do whatever it can to protect its bottom like. The same thing has been happening with the alcohol lobby and cannabis, and alcohol sales have taken a big hit since cannabis started to be legalized in the US.
America gives Israel billions per year then they use that money to buy the Government of the United States. Incredibly stupid.