The Problem of Health Care

That you think they've made "serious progress" merely illustrates how low you've set your sights.

What a load of guff! The Dems and Republicans, until Trump, embraced consensus politics. The perceived differences were largely illusionary. That's a big reason why populism won through. And the Dems haven't learned their lesson, as shown by the repeated efforts to sideline Bernie.

 

I like Bernie, but if he were president today he could not cause the Senate to move toward Medicare for All or any other single payer system. Law isn't made in the executive branch of our government.

He COULD stop the executive branch assault on our healthcare system - thus ending the number of citizens that Republicans are removing from healthcare coverage.

I think you don't understand how our system works.

BTW: Trump has done NOTHING that could possibly be considered consensus. NONE of his methods or ideas have involved even the possibility of bipartisan participation. For example, the Trump stab at healthcare and the Trump stab at immigration reform legislation were concocted by Republicans in groups that totally excluded Democrats.

 

Think about this:

Republicans have voted more than 60 times to kill the ACA. They have sued against the ACA through the courts on multiple occasions, including the one at present. They have done this while they have had a majority in both the House and the Senate and a Republican president.

Yet, we still have the ACA!!

What you should learn from that is having one party rule is pretty much an impossibility.

As our founders designed it, congress is where the sides need to come together. And, the idea of single party radicalism just doesn't work.

 

These are games politicians play in all countries in order to get elected. There is no reason whatsoever that America should avoid the same.

Besides, I was addressing an entirely different subject - not less important but just as important. And it is the wacky manner in which the popular-vote is mishandled in America.

From top-to-bottom - that is, from mayor to PotUS - it is the raw-popular vote of the people that counts most and not any machination of that vote as in gerrymandering or the Electoral College.

Period ...

 

A WEE BIT OF AMERICA'S ECONOMIC HISTORY!

Get used to it in this forum. That is ALL the rube-defenders of Replicant candidates have to say in defense of an ostensibly awful Replicant administration - that has solely reduced upper income-taxation (to finance Donald Dork's next election)!

They are utterly devoid of any reason whatsoever to feel proud that Donald Dork had any say in the matter of the American recovery from the Great Recession (see reference below). Which had already begun during Obama's first administration as a hand-me-down from the previous George Bush.

The American people just got fed up with the previous 4/5 years of economic-stagnation. So, they started buying again - trying to forget the Subprime Mess that had started it all in 2008.

It's human nature and happens very often - despite the politicians who rush to claim the credit!

As I said above, the American economy started creating jobs once again in Obama's 2nd administration - see the Employment-to-population Ratio from the BLS* here and note the turnaround in the ratio in January of 2014 (after 4 years of economic stagnation) - during Obama's second tenure.

Historical Fact: The Replicants that controlled the HofR as of 2010 HAD REFUSED any further stimulus-spending that created jobs as they tried to out-Obama at the end of his first administration!

*Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

I'd worry about them. Because they seem on Facebook to have had an important impact upon political sentiment that impacted Hillary's non-election!

See here: Trump digital director says Facebook helped win the White House

Really scary stuff that ...

 

Defending our democracy is a sworn duty of our president. And, we have laws against foreign contribution to our elections.

So, this above is just plain false. And, I'm shocked that anyone could even think that.

This is also false. The raw popular vote for the president is TOTALLY irrelevant.

Regardless of what the heck you're talking about by "mishandled", there NO question that it's an impeachable offense for the president using our tax dollars and foreign policy to coerce a foreign government to smear an opposing candidate.

 

Amen on all counts.

Republicans stonewalled work on our economy for partisan political reasons - at a time when America could have used their help.

Now, they want to pretend they have the answers.

And, their answer is more money for the rich and a TRILLION dollar deficit - translating to 2% growth.

 

OK - I totally agree that the fake news part.

We have foreign countries, Breitbart, FOX and others spewing fake news including through Facebook.

And, we have an administration that refuses to take action to protect our democracy.

 

CIVICS TESTING

Donald Dork has only one concern: Me, Myself and I.

Americans seem really quite ambivalent about their democracy. I guess they think "it happens all by itself". Well, it doesn't!

It's broken! Passing a Civics Test - written and updated by Congress - should be a state-requirement for any secondary-school degree throughout the country.

It was broken from the get-go when the 12th Amendment foolishly allowed a Very Loose control by states of the Electoral College. Historically, in 1812 when that amendment was passed, there were not even trains connecting major states. So getting the vote to Congress in DC was all overland.

Given such circumstances it is understandable why the EC was created to conduct the presidential vote in-situ since the states were already responsible for Congressional voting (HofR & Senate). The HofR vote at the time also gave preferential numbers to both smaller and southern states - because the South threatened to leave the "US" without such!

This "convention" has since remained and is worsened by the "first-past-the-post" rule of the Electoral College!

We are now more than two centuries beyond that historical time. Rather than trying to rewrite Amendment 12, we can simply change the way it is "instrumented". That is, the EC vote-count will still be determined by an official every-decade estimate of population. BUT - there should be no manipulation of that count by "first-past-the-post winner takes all EC votes".

Whyzat? Because such a manipulation is FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR! The vote for the US-presidency should exact a full-count of the popular-vote (and only a full-count) to be reported directly to Congress. Congress then tallies the votes of all the states and announces the winner.

I heartily recommend one to read this report from the NYT: Should the U.S. Get Rid of the Electoral College? - excerpt:

Each state would have its voice in the selection of the presidency according to its population size and nothing else - the popular-vote must be the ultimate and sole universal determinant ... !

 

As I have said many-a-time, no country (after solid reflection) has adopted the "Electoral College" as a national voting procedure. Not one and Europe is the latest since WW2 to face the challenge of rebuilding a functional voting system. They have ALL reverted to a popular-vote that elects the dominant party the head of which becomes the Head of government.

Here follow the country members that still use the Electoral College (from here):

Not quite the company in which I prefer to see Uncle Sam ...

 

Deliberately or not, you've misrepresented my post. I stated two obvious points. First, until the lunacy of Trump, consensus politics was followed. Second, the efforts by the Democrat establishment to keep Bernie at bay, illustrates how far they go with their elitest orthodoxy.

 

I'm not sure what you consider to be consensus politics

My point is that bills are created and passed by congress. The president can propose stuff. For example, Obama wanted a single payer system. Trump wanted tens of billions for his wall. Etc. Having a Dem president totally wound up about Medicare for all is a positive, but the president doesn't direct congress.

Also, a solid majortiy of Dems sees healthcare as a top issue today. Dem candidates are well aware of that.

With McConnell running the senate, we're not going to see ANY improvement in healthcare regardless of who is president. It will be congress that decides what will be done. And, McConnell has interest in NOTHING other than parisan victory - with no regard for how that might be defined.

 

I agree with all of that.

However, I don't see the electoral college as the worst of several serious flaws with how we allow representation in our government. We have FAR too many citizens who have no representation in federal law (such as taxes).

Take a look at what countries allow citizens no representation in issues such as taxes.

Do you like being a member of THAT group?

 

Already given hints: both parties supporting neoliberalism; both parties supporting aggressive foreign policy.

Let's not play pretend. You didn't have a point. You completely misrepresented my post.

Easy to play lip service. Harder to actually do something. If they put as much effort in progressive action as they do in trying to stop Bernie, perhaps they'd get somewhere

You're not going to see any improvement as the Democrats are feckin useless. Crikey, even their pathetic attempts at attacking the populist has only empowered his position. For establishment figures supported by the rich, you'd think they'd be a little less clueless in their petty power games.

 

I certainly could have misunderstood your poisition, but I didn't do so intentionally.

I don't believe there is party aparatus that is trying to stop Bernie right now. There are certainly a lot of candidates who are tryng to do so!

I voted for Bernie in the last election primary. I'm not so sure he would do well in the coming election. He's pretty attackable as a socialist extremist - positions I like, by the way. But, I'm more focuse on finding a candidate that can beat Trump. I don't believe there is ANY issue even remotely as important as is that. Every one of the Dem candidates would make a solid president. And, given some victories in congress we could start moving in the right direction again.

I have NO idea what your last paragraph is about.

 

Donald Dork unilaterally reduced upper-income taxation in order to feed his reelection committee. It seems that the American people went right along. Was there any moaning?

I didn't see it.

The fact of the matter is that our present system of governance - as warped as it is in this country - allowed a PotUS who had lost the popular-vote reduce taxation for those most important in financing his next election - namely the Very Rich.

And, even given that fact, today 49% of electorate feel that he's doing a fine job! Wow, THAT requires some explanation ...

My explanation: The American people don't give a damn about who is running the country as long as they are making a living. They are politically neutral. Unless something happens to their job, which sets a fire under their you-know-what.

This was not what they were taught in Civics Class. But, frankly, they never gave a damn about Civics anyway ...

 

Not much of an apology

Sorry, but that's rather naive.

Socialist extremist? Hahahaha! What drivel. Neoliberalism is the extremism and that's what ultimately delivered Trump. Do you think the Dems will ever admit that or continue to play fibbing games over the progressives?

I didn't think you would! Self-reflection is an ugly business.

 

Iowa sure didn't hurt Bernie.

And, he's raking in money at a high rate.

What evidence do you see of Dem establishment holding him back?

 

He's not raking in corporate money, he's raking in money from people who want change and are sick of the Dems being a neoliberal bucket of ****! Try this for some background reading:

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...-may-still-pass-the-first-2020-election-test/

Of course the establishment will largely rely on their 'corporate media' attack dog to do their dirty work...

 

"We are taking on the entire political establishment, both the Republican establishment and the Democratic establishment. We are taking on Wall Street and the insurance companies and the drug companies and the fossil fuel industry and the military-industrial complex and the prison-industrial complex and the whole damn 1%."
Bernie Sanders.

I agree with that. It's just a FACT that the level of change he wants is stupendous.

It's totaly reasonable for significat numbers of Democrats to not choose him as the Democratic candidate. There is ample reason to believe that he could be more vulnerable to attack by Trump. There is the "socialist" word, and fact that change always engenders fear. He wants to change the lives of pretty much every American - and definitley NOT for the better in large numbers of cases. Every one of those industries he talks about attacking are going to fight for their lives.

And, the concern about the composition of the nominating committee hits me as overblown. If he wins in the primaries, that committee isn't going to boot him.

Also, let's face it. Iowa REALLY screwed up. And, it wasn't the national party that did that. It was Iowa and the absoltue morons making decisions there.

 

Its only the radicals that can engineer change. The "prance around the edges" moderates are really just playing lip service.

The real fear is neoliberalism. How many lives has that destroyed? How many have been killed? There really shouldn't be a choice in a supposed progressive party. It just shows you how far right wing economics has infected the Democrat Party that progressivity isn't automatic.

Its a mere example of what goes on. While more is behind the scenes and vindictive, the corporate media is their main attack. Weird that a corporate media would back a corporate-backed establishment pretending to be progressive? Not really. It is, however, indicative how a right wing cliche have made the Dems irrelevant.

The extent we should raise an eyebrow at Shadow Inc? I don't think it matters. That the Dem establishment want their comfort zone protected and election of a non-progressive is clear. Let's hope they don't get their wish, as their last one ended in Trump's election...

 

Nope.

The fringe do not get elected by the masses.

And, what YOU think is progressive isn't necessarily what others see as progressive.

The person we are looking for is someone who can work within the system to cause change over time.

That's just a fact of politics.

This isn't a revolution. Nobody is going to get shot. The election won't change the constitution and it won't cause a congress where agreement isn't required.

I know that sounds boring, but let's not pretend we're in some other reality, as that would be disastrous.

Elections are about the percentage in the middle. What are Bernie and the rest saying to entice those who are in the middle - those NOT looking for a revolution?

Trump didn't attack Bernie - he attacked Biden. And, that's because he saw Biden as the larger threat.

 

The Dems aren't progressive. That isn't under question; that's why Bernie is so shocking.

Was Dem President supporting neoliberalism "working within the system"? Was Dem President supporting aggressive foreign policy "working within the system"? You're having a laugh!

No, its consensus politics run by corporations.

You do seem terribly keen to support the Dem corporate establishment. Seems weird to me, but each to their own.

You even went there? I've already referred to the stupidity used by the Dems and their bogus application of the median voter model. Given the election of Trump, catch up!

He doesn't have to attack Bernie. Your Dems and the corporate media are doing that! Grow up.

 

I cannot imagine feeling entitled to a good or service such as medicine or medical care. How is that any different than the entitlement a thief feels?