I dislike the shouty old man as much as anyone else, but I think Medicare for All is a fantastic way to sell universal health insurance. Dems have long made the mistake of being too wordy and specific in how we attempt to sell things to the masses. It doesn’t work. Campaigning requires easy to remember phrases that vaguely suggest the underlying policy details. Even people who hate ‘socialism’ and ‘health care is a basic human right’ think Medicare sounds pretty great - so why not let us all in on it?
I dislike the shouty old man as much as anyone else, but I think Medicare for All is a fantastic way to sell universal health insurance. Dems have long made the mistake of being too wordy and specific in how we attempt to sell things to the masses. It doesn’t work. Campaigning requires easy to remember phrases that vaguely suggest the underlying policy details. Even people who hate ‘socialism’ and ‘health care is a basic human right’ think Medicare sounds pretty great - so why not let us all in on it?
Yes campaigning means slogans and getting people's attention. But the truth is, you can't dumb down the actual policy because people don't want to absorb it. The "how" and the "what" and the "when" behind Medicare for All literally does not exist. You can't just flip a switch and now everyone gets Medicare. Anyone who claims to be progressive who demonizes other candidates or elected officials because they say "hang on we need to figure this out" is NOT moving progressive policies forward. It just makes it harder.
I dislike the shouty old man as much as anyone else, but I think Medicare for All is a fantastic way to sell universal health insurance. Dems have long made the mistake of being too wordy and specific in how we attempt to sell things to the masses. It doesn’t work. Campaigning requires easy to remember phrases that vaguely suggest the underlying policy details. Even people who hate ‘socialism’ and ‘health care is a basic human right’ think Medicare sounds pretty great - so why not let us all in on it?
My issue is not with the interest in selling universal health care.
My issue is with the insistence that it HAS to be this particular method, that it has to be single-payer, and that any incrementalism in the meantime is to be shot down as centrism.
Since this particular proposal will not/can not be implemented in the short term (or possibly in the long term) it is frustrating to be basically backed into a corner over an unwillingness to compromise on details that *don't matter* to the end result. The inability to have a dialogue that actually fleshes out a realistic way forward because of the fanaticism of this segment is going to sink the Democratic Party on our health care platform.
I dislike the shouty old man as much as anyone else, but I think Medicare for All is a fantastic way to sell universal health insurance. Dems have long made the mistake of being too wordy and specific in how we attempt to sell things to the masses. It doesn’t work. Campaigning requires easy to remember phrases that vaguely suggest the underlying policy details. Even people who hate ‘socialism’ and ‘health care is a basic human right’ think Medicare sounds pretty great - so why not let us all in on it?
My issue is not with the interest in selling universal health care.
My issue is with the insistence that it HAS to be this particular method, that it has to be single-payer, and that any incrementalism in the meantime is to be shot down as centrism.
Since this particular proposal will not/can not be implemented in the short term (or possibly in the long term) it is frustrating to be basically backed into a corner over an unwillingness to compromise on details that *don't matter* to the end result. The inability to have a dialogue that actually fleshes out a realistic way forward because of the fanaticism of this segment is going to sink the Democratic Party on our health care platform.
I mean, I agree that it’s completely stupid to shoot down incrementalism as centrism, but I think there’s room to conceptualize the steps involved as ‘the path to Medicare for All.’ Even when the end result is not really Medicare. Average voters cannot handle policy nuance. I think dems need to focus on big picture ideas and getting elected more than sorting out policy detail in public.
My issue is not with the interest in selling universal health care.
My issue is with the insistence that it HAS to be this particular method, that it has to be single-payer, and that any incrementalism in the meantime is to be shot down as centrism.
Since this particular proposal will not/can not be implemented in the short term (or possibly in the long term) it is frustrating to be basically backed into a corner over an unwillingness to compromise on details that *don't matter* to the end result. The inability to have a dialogue that actually fleshes out a realistic way forward because of the fanaticism of this segment is going to sink the Democratic Party on our health care platform.
I mean, I agree that it’s completely stupid to shoot down incrementalism as centrism, but I think there’s room to conceptualize the steps involved as ‘the path to Medicare for All.’ Even when the end result is not really Medicare. Average voters cannot handle policy nuance. I think dems need to focus on big picture ideas and getting elected more than sorting out policy detail in public.
Let’s just say that this is not how it’s playing out in spaces where policy proposals are being developed. And the left flank is losing their shit criticizing every single thing that is not literally the transition of Medicare into a different, more comprehensive program and then offered to every American. Never mind that this proposal costs way more than could ever be realistically appropriated for this purpose, and likely is unimplementable, or at the very least will create far more problems than it solves.
I genuinely think the public is going to turn on Democrats when it becomes obvious that these campaign promises cannot be delivered on.
And part of the issue is that no matter what the end result policy proposal(s) are, there will always be people shouting them down saying they’re not what Bernie wanted and therefore not as progressive and everyone is a sellout. We will never win on health care and fixing the health care system if every realistic proposal is shot down for being less than some imaginary standard that isn’t even a policy. What is the point of getting elected if everything you ran on is just a fantasy that could never be realized? What is the point of electing policymakers so ignorant about the major tenants of policy in the areas they claim to care about that they can’t even come up with reasonable ideas and then get all pissed off when people ask for more details or point out flaws in an effort to jointly solve them?
All that said, I’m having some major personal trauma this week so I’m really not in a good place to get into a whole debate about this so that’s the last I’ll say.
I think it's great that we're talking about big things that will be hard to achieve, including both universal health insurance and a green new deal. I actually like some of Bernie's long-term policy goals.
I think it's easily possible to aspire to ideals like these without claiming that anyone who also prioritizes things like gun control and women's health is some sort of sell-out who fails your purity test.
Post by miniroller on Feb 24, 2019 15:52:16 GMT -5
Not to divert from Green New Deal talks, but Kamala slammed BS’s (heh) “identity politics” classification HARD on AM Joy this morning! (& made me fall even more in love by delivering an amazing answer) Kamala Harris Absolutely Torches Complaints About ‘Identity Politics’: Used to ‘Shut You Up’ www.mediaite.com/tv/kamala-harris-absolutely-torches-complaints-about-identity-politics-used-to-shut-you-up/ “We need to call it what it is, which is to try and divert away from a conversation that needs to happen in America,” she continued. “Why? One, because we must speak truth. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism are all real in this country, so we need to have that conversation and address it.”
“Two, and this is equally important,” Harris added, “how America deals with the issues and the disparities, and also the hate that can be — that causes these issues to become lethal in proportion — how America deals with these issues is a matter of American identity. This is not about identity politics, and if it is, it’s about the identity of the United States of America. How we handle the issues will be about our collective identity.”
Post by downtoearth on Feb 25, 2019 11:33:12 GMT -5
I don't like Bernie - can I agree that he has moved the conversation left and still he fails in so many ways, yes. I also think a lot of my Bernie hatred doesn't come from what he isn't (a woman, or a woman of color, etc.), but from his inability to discuss details and nuances in policy. He is a big-picture person who has big ideas, but so much of the big ideas are already out there and I feel like he isn't unique in his big ideas anymore and that many others are actually doing the detailed work of how to get there and how to be inclusive as they do that. Bernie is a has been IMO - and he shouts when he talks. He reminds me of years of meetings with old white men at work - they are loud and have big ideas, but who ends up doing all the work? Hmmmm...
Post by downtoearth on Feb 25, 2019 13:07:05 GMT -5
Oh and as far as the Green New Deal. I know AOC worked with Bernie, but how strange that she rolls our her Green New Deal that was developed with leading economists and now Bernie is planning to roll out a different Green New Deal for his 2020 campaign. Not using AOC's plan, but it will have details and be even better. (Rolls eyes b/c so far I've never seen details in Bernie's plans)
However, Sanders' proposal will be slightly different from the Green New Deal resolution developed by Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who worked as an organizer for Sanders' 2016 primary campaign. Sanders' full plan should be released in the next few months, The Washington Post reported, explaining the difference between the two:
The upcoming Sanders plan is expected to contain significantly more details on how a Green New Deal would move America's economy to one that zeroes out carbon emissions, according to aides to the Senator, while the Ocasio-Cortez resolution supported by the other 2020 candidates mostly laid out ambitious targets for carbon reduction.
In 2016, Sanders promoted a carbon tax and a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, The Guardian reported at the time
I also dislike how the article makes it sound like this Green New Deal of Ocasic-Cortez's is a tired, main-stream plan b/c the other candidates like it. Ugh.