guillaumeb
guillaumeb's JournalThe relatively quick acceptance of the ACA shows why Medicare for All will win.
For years the GOP campaigned on "repeal and replace". All we heard in the endless Bills submitted by the House, 60 or so if memory serves, was that the ACA was collapsing, and that the GOP had a plan.
We knew, of course, that the GOP had no actual plan for replacement, and no chance for repeal as long as they could not overcome a veto by then President Obama.
And then came 2016, and the stolen election, another stolen election, and the GOP would soon control all three branches of Government. So what happened? Repeal and replace was a disaster for the GOP, and now both parties are talking of strengthening the ACA. Why? Because people realize that we cannot return to the bad old days of 37 million with no healthcare.
That acceptance did not take decades to accomplish, it simply took the example of millions receiving healthcare for the first time. And those millions are in GOP controlled southern and western states as well as northern states.
Similarly, by titling the Bill Medicare for All, the Democrats are framing the issue in terms that are known and acceptable to all voters. Medicare is an American plan, and it is familiar and trusted by millions of voters for 50 plus years. People like Medicare.
Any talk of higher taxes must be met by Democrats with the fact that these higher taxes will replace what people are already paying in the form of insurance premiums. And Medicare operates on a lower overhead basis than does private, for profit insurance. And if Medicare is coupled with price regulation for drugs, as most other countries already do, there will be savings there also.
Faith groups provide the bulk of disaster recovery, in coordination with FEMA
From the article:
To read more:
http://religionnews.com/2017/09/11/faith-groups-provide-the-bulk-of-disaster-recovery-in-coordination-with-fema/
That is, of course, good news, but given that approximately 85% of US citizens identify as religious, it stands to reason that most of the volunteers and donors are religious.
Nuanced news: Stop the presses! Theres a next generation for mainline Protestantism
From the article:
To read more:
http://religionnews.com/2017/09/08/stop-the-presses-theres-a-next-generation-for-mainline-protestantism/
The (D) should not stand for defeatist. It should stand for determined.
I have read a number of replies that talk of the unfeasibility of single payer, or free college, or a living wage instead of a minimum wage. These responses generally insist that no matter the issue, the country is not ready for it, or a plan needs to be devised, or there is no political will for it.
Have some Democrats devolved from determined individuals to defeatists?
In 1850, blacks were slaves. Abolitionists were scorned as being unrealistic.
And in 1865 the South was defeated, as was slavery. So who was unrealistic?
In 1900, the eight hour work day was an unrealistic dream. Most workers worked 10 plus hours a day, six days a week.
In 1917, the SCOTUS constitutionalized the Adamson Act to establish an eight hour day fro railroad workers. Other unions and industries followed. So who was unrealistic?
In 1916, women could not vote. Suffragettes were the unrealistic ones.
In 1918, women finally won the right to vote. So who was unrealistic?
In 1963, segregation and grossly unequal treatment was the rule in the South. The Civil Rights marchers were unrealistic.
In 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed. The fight is ongoing, but who was unrealistic?
In 2010, marriage equality was not the law of the land. Advocates were derided as unrealistic.
In 2015, marriage equality was the law. That fight also is ongoing, but who was unrealistic?
====================================
People who talk of a living wage are called unrealistic. People who talk of single payer are called unrealistic. People who talk of expanding Social Security to provide better benefits are called unrealistic. But when talking of what is realistic, we must remember that the term "realistic" in all of these instances refers not to the literal ability of something being actually accomplished, but to the political will to accomplish something.
What is the "hard left"?
I read a response that talked of the hard left in the context of US politics, and I wondered what constitutes this hard left.
And if there is a hard left, what influence does it have in a country where both major parties embrace capitalism?
How does one define the term "progressive candidate"?
In my view:
If it includes an emphasis on corporate centered and corporate friendly trade agreements, it is not progressive.
If it does not include much higher taxes on the very highest earned and unearned incomes, it is not progressive.
If it does not include a single payer healthcare system, it is not progressive.
If it does not include large cuts to the US war budget to free up money for social spending, it is not progressive.
If it does not include massive spending on renewable energy sources and elimination of subsidies for oil and nuclear, it is not progressive.
If it does not include free college for students, it is not progressive.
Edited to add:
This is the actual ending.
More could be added, but to me this represents the minimum position.
Note that it indicates that this list is not complete. Many other points could have been added. Any responses that accuse me of ignoring social issues represent a misreading of the post.
In 2009, Max Baucus Had People Arrested for Demanding Single Payer. Now He Supports It
From the article:
In 2009, Baucus was singing a rather different tune when he was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, one of the most powerful positions in Congress during the healthcare debate that year. Baucus declared single payer "off the table" and had single-payer proponents arrested after they disrupted a committee hearing. Those arrested were later called the "Baucus 8."
To read more:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/09/08/2009-max-baucus-had-people-arrested-demanding-single-payer-now-he-supports-it
Who was the real threat in Berkeley?
From the article:
Corporate media outlets predictably followed suit, with, for example, neoconservative commentator Marc Thiessen writing in the Washington Post that Antifa "are no different than neo-Nazis." ...
Even some segments of the left piled on. Truthdig published an August 27 commentary by author and journalist Chris Hedges in which he wrote that anti-fascists and the Black Bloc are motivated by "the same lust for violence" as the neo-Nazis of the alt-right....
THE TIDE of criticism of left-wing violence following the counterprotests in Berkeley obscures four basic facts that need to be remembered.
-- First, the political violence deployed by the far right has been much more extreme than anything the left is responsible for.
To read more:
https://socialistworker.org/2017/09/07/who-was-the-real-threat-in-Berkeley
The media, and many politicians, love to promote the false equivalence argument, but given the history of police provocation and false flag operations that have been directed against progressives, we should hesitate before automatically condemning people who demonstrate against the actual fascists.
Eid al-Adha: A Muslim holiday to honor Prophet Abrahams ultimate sacrifice
From the article:
For present-day Muslims, the holiday requires sacrifice, but of a different sort than that asked by the God of Abraham.
To read and learn more:
http://religionnews.com/2017/09/01/eid-al-adha-a-muslim-holiday-to-honor-prophet-abrahams-ultimate-sacrifice/
Study Details Why Climate 'Criminals' Like Exxon Should Pay for Hurricane Destruction
From the article:
"We should be naming these hurricanes after Exxon and Chevron, not Harvey and Irma."
According to a "landmark" study published in the journal Climatic Change on Thursday, the answer is clear: Big Oil.
To read more:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/09/07/study-details-why-climate-criminals-exxon-should-pay-hurricane-destruction
One major way that capitalists increase their profits at the expense of workers is by externalizing costs that should be absorbed by the capitalists and requiring that workers bear those costs.
WalMart, and the Walton family, is a prime example of this tactic. They pay their associates so little that many qualify for public assistance.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Jan 26, 2015, 06:15 PMNumber of posts: 42,641
