John McCain blames Republicans for Govt. Shutdown on Fox News Interview

Think hard about what Major posted just above.

 

Think hard about my answer to his responses that i saw after I posted what you responded to.

Ha. I have a rule against emoticons, but I think most people would put a smiley face here to show they are not trying to be rude.

 

Yes he did say that he would prefer a single payer system several times. Anyway you are falling into the common trap of making the perfect the enemy of the good. As I said before if you believed that Obama actually could've gotten a single payer system passed I have Astros' World Series tickets to sell you.

Like it or not this country is very diverse in its political views. While many people like the idea of a single payer system most do not and there is a significant portion of the country that would go to arms against such a system. Considering that they have already shutdown the government over a system that is primarily private in nature.

It's your right to not vote for the Democrats if you feel they aren't as liberal as you like and more power to you. What I would recommend is that instead of just withholding your vote though you get involved in the going to caucuses to get candidates and issues you want onto tickets and platforms. There is a reason why the Republicans have gotten so extremists is because the people showing up at their caucuses are the extremists.

 

Fair enough.

Absolutely - any flaws in the bill are attributable to Dems. I don't think either is remotely perfect or comprehensive, but I think both are leaps and bounds better than what we had and what the GOP was offering.

No, not at all - I didn't mean to imply that. But to say they did nothing isn't accurate. I assume (maybe wrongly) that you agree that FinReg and Health Reform and DADT repeal and things like that are positive steps forward. So it's hard for me to understand why you'd think that having that is no better than what the GOP offers. That's the part that I think is tea partyish. They oppose guys Orrin Hatch or Mitch McConnell - fairly hardcore conservatives - because they don't support everything they want, even though they have same general goals and views. That's what your post sounded like - since the Dems didn't accomplish everything you wanted, then they were useless and no better then the other guys.

Disliking the Dems is perfectly reasonable. But equating them as no better than the GOP because they only accomplished 50% of what you wanted seems more unreasonable to me.

Our system is just not designed for jarring change like you propose. You see that in totalitarian countries where the state just randomly takes over private industry and the like and it never really works. Can you point to a time in US history where we did anything like you're suggesting (involving any industry)?

 

This is very similar to the line of argument that Nader advanced in 2000 and 2004.

History has proven him to be quite wrong.

 

HamJam, if you followed the healthcare debate closely back when the bill was being formed, the "public option" was talked about nonstop for a long time. It was the single most talked about point in the beginning of the debate. It was very much a part of the initial bill.

Was the public option exactly the same as single payer? No, but not as far away as one would think. Let's keep in mind, that among all of the countries that employ universal care and single payer, there are only a couple in the world that don't also have private companies competing for your money. To repeat, almost the entire developed world employs publicly funded universal care and private healthcare together. In this case, the private companies are competing with a very efficient provider with a huge customer base, so what they do to compete is provide more/better care for at higher prices.

The public option would have been similar. A federal healthcare program would have provided inexpensive, comprehensive care for everyone that didn't buy private insurance. However, even though this would have been a huge change for the better in our nation, it was a bridge too far for moderates as well as conservatives, and it wasn't included in the final bill.

Even without the public option, only by using reconciliation on the budgetary elements of the bill were the democrats able to pass it.

My point is, if you think that we could have gotten a public option if Obama and congressional democrats just fought harder, you are dreaming.

Even in a wave election like 2008, when you get 60 "democratic" senators, you're getting at least 5 yellow dog democrats who represent red states and are more moderate.

To say that all democrats are bought and sold just the same as republicans is to ignore the fact that they put up the fight of their lives to get the ACA and finreg passed against the will of the healthcare industry and Wall Street, probably two of the most powerful forces in the nation.

 

Sorry for the long delay in replying to everyone. RL constraints and all. Maybe too late, but wanted to chime in anyway since everyone gave such good responses:

Great suggestion, and I am active politically. To be honest though it is with local initiative groups and with 3rd parties to the left of the dems. Do I think they could have passed a single payer system? Actually, with the support Obama had at the time, I think he could have made it happen if he would have struck right away. My main criticism is they did not try hard enough. Obama should have used the bully pulpit to move Dems to the left the way the tea party is moving the repubs to the right. You can disagree with me on either point (that they could have done it or did not try), but it is hypothetical we can't be sure really (kind of like asking if the Rockets would have been better without the Barkley trade...who knows).

My thought is that the Dems think they have everyone on the left. They think people on the left see them as the only option, and will vote for them no matter what. And then they take that in mind and start moving to the middle, and even to the right, in order to pick up swing voters. The result is a party that is as conservative as the Republicans used to be, and no leftist party.

If people like me that are dissatisfied with their policies vote for them, there will never be any incentive for them to offer policies I will agree with. I (and people like me) have to withhold my vote, vote 3rd party, organize against both parties and the entire system, etc., or there will be no shift to the left in our political system.

I am not saying they are NO better than the republicans. And they are much better than the anti-science irresponsible tea party faction. But they do not do enough to differentiate themselves to make me actively support or approve of them. FinReg was better than nothing, but it was so flawed that I thought it was a shameful bill given the anger of the populous and the circumstances. The repeal of DADT is good, but I can't believe they extended the patriot act. I am glad a Repub was not in charge of the bailout, but I was very disapointed in the Dem response.

It is kind of like game theory sort of. If people like me , who are dissatisfied with the Dems, support them anyway, then we will have republicans in power less (which is good), but we will never (EVER) have a party in power we like. If we withhold our support from the dems, then the repubs will rule more (which is bad), but perhaps it will move the dems to the left (which I thought it might have already done when I voted for Obama in 08, after voting 3rd party the previous 8 years). And if it does move the dems to the left, and people see the success of those policies, then maybe I can live in a country with a government I like.

It isn't likely, but I'd rather aim for satisfaction than accept what we currently have.

No system is designed for jarring changes. That is not in the nature of systems per se. Our country has not done that much, you are right, but that doesn't mean that it should not now. I mean, the end of slavery was a pretty jarring change affecting a huge percentage of the economy, no? But it had to be done for humanitarian reasons, and so that the suffering that took place was used for growing to a new healthier place, and not continuing inhumane inefficient practices. Actually -- a lot of that is applicable to the healthcare debate.

edit -- ooh, I thought of another one. Prohibition. Alcohol manufacturing was about 20% of the economy. But voters closed that down completely. Good example, huh?

This is honestly my point. You yourself outline the positives of a public option, and why the Dems should have done it. The fact that, even when they had control of the government, they could not (or would not) make it happen because they themselves were not commited to it as a party us why I am not satisfied with the Dems.

And I want a party that will combat the power of the industries like insurance and wall street, not work around or with them like both parties explicitly say they do and will.

Until we have a party not controlled by corporate interests, we will continue to see the apparatus of government, funded by the people of this country, be used to benefit the corporations and not the people. We will see corporate leaders named to positions that regulate the industries they worked and will work in. We will see no bid contracts, unlimited campaign contributions, and little change to our everyday lives.

The Dems and repubs are both controlled by corporations, and the arguments between them is one about how short to sheer the sheep. Their concerns, neither of theirs, is about the sheep, but about their ability to shore us again in the future.

How has history proven him to be quite wrong? Because he did not win? What?

 

That there was virtually no effective policy difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush - or more generally, the Democratic party and the Republican party - the principal, doomed argument of the Naderites of 2000 which is why they pretty much went extinct by 2004.

Wiht the exception of maybe Medicare Part D and maybe AIDS relief in Africa, GWB governed from the far right. On issue after issue, from foreign policy and a disastrous war of choice, to the environment, to the tangible consequences of the generally extreme right wing judicial appointments, the argument that it "makes no difference" was obviously and profoundly wrong.

If you're a one-to-few issue voter and you think that since Gore/Obama/whoever would have supported drone strikes so basically it's the same - good on you, enjoy alternate one-to-few-issue realityville.

 

One to few issue realityville? Is that anywhere near Argumentum ad populumville, which is the logical fallacy destination you seem to hail from.

Just because Nader does not have support does not mean that his agenda and policies is not superior to anything the Democrats have done or intended to do. Argumentum ad populum. It is fun to say.

And, I will point out, I never said there is "no effective policy difference", what I have been saying is that people should be dissatisfied with the Democrats as they are. If you are going to argue with me, don't make my argument something it is not. Explain to me why I should be satisfied with the Democrats, not how they are better than the Republicans. I agree they are better than the Republicans --you don't have to convince me of that. I never disagreed with that.

What I am saying is that they are still not good enough, that we as a populous need to demand better or we are never going to get better, and that people flag waving about the Democratic party just because the opposition is so completely r****ded need to have higher standards.

What we have in this country today is not good enough. And if we allow the far right to limit our demands for better than what the Democrats are giving us, then we deserve the sub par unsatisfactory government we will be (and are) getting.

In a democracy, if you don't voice and demonstrate your dissatisfaction with a party, then your opinion (and the opinion of people like you) will not get heard, and change will not occur. I hear people dissatisfied with both parties all the time, people who see both as a lesser of two evils, yet 3rd parties get little to no votes. I do not want to be part of this voiceless dissatisfaction. I am not going to be cowed into supporting a party I think is corrupt and too conservative just because the other popular party is even more corrupt and conservative.

I can't change the world by myself, but if people like me who are dissatisfied don't try then it will never change.

 

No, but you said it was at most "marginally better" - that's just wrong.

There's nothing marginal about the profound differences between the two major political parties at this point, and the depth and breadth of the consequences.

 

I am with you there. Obamacare is a confusing mess in many ways but for roughly 2/3 of the 50 million uninsured it is an improvement. To make it work well in the long run and hold down costs, it will probably have to be replaced with single payer or the insurance companies will have to be strictly limited. You can't have folks making tens of millions off healthcare and incentivsed to do wasteful things just to increase profits and hold down costs.

 

I disagree. Considering what is going on in other countries, I feel the differences between the Repubs and Dems is indeed marginal.

You can list the things they did the repubs would not have (or did not do that the repubs would have -- which is even scarier), but I can list the things that both parties continue to do or not do that I find unsatisfactory.

Both parties have the US spending more on the millitary than the next 7 countries combined (probably more than 7 actually). Neither has closed GTMO, ended the patriot act, fixed healthcare, fixed public schools, addressed the disparity of wealth in this country which has a ratio similar to many 3rd world countries now.

I mean, when you vote democratic, you are voting for a party that, even when in power, has not been able to get our healthcare or education ranking out of the thirties or above Puerto Rico. you can blame the Republicans for this (just as they blame the Democrats), but they are both to blame.

Yes the Republicans are worse, but mindsets like yours that are satisfied with the Democrats are why neither party has an initiative to fix things like education or healthcare, and why the US is shamefully behind other countries in this regard.

 

So basically since Europe elects social democrats it all doesn't matter. Congrats, I took comparative government classes decades ago in college too. Cool beans.

Currently though we don't live in Europe so it's irrelevant to the fact that the gulf betwen the two parties here in terms of policy consequences is enormous, probably more so than at any time in decades, and this obviously true for the millions who are profoundly affected by it.

Of course you can try to explain to somebody who is now insured but otherwise wouldn't be how it really isn't a big deal "since in FINLAND sh-t is totally different." They may disagree with you though.

 

Oh my god -- that is such a condescending response. I can't debate with you anymore, so I'll just stoop to your level -- (apologies to the rational posters like Major who disagreed with me but remained civil)

People like you are keeping us from progressing just as much as the people that you are afraid of and that are afraid of you.

Keep waving that Democratic flag, while your party argues with the other corporatist party about where to put the furniture on a ship that is sinking.I'll keep holding out for the people that have a plan on how to stop the ship from sinking.

I mentioned Europe (and Puerto Rico, but who actually reads what the pepple they are debating with write) to show how countries with a similar level of industrialization and material wealth are doing a lot better than we are, to show we can do more than what we are.

If you don't want to do better, then you keep rudely clinging to the lesser of two evils. I'll look for other people who can talk with sincerity and politeness with people they disagree with.

 

This reminds me of the time about 10 years ago at X-mas dinner in Vancouver that my sister - just out of her freshman seminar classes at her Midwestern liberal arts college - proclaimed that myself, my mother and my dad (Mexican from the valley) to be racists.

Good luck with your senior thesis. Keep holding out for that perfect rescue ship. You're gonna have a long wait so I suggest you grab some Alito opinions to pass the tim.

 

Puerto Rico isn't a country. It's a territory. A U.S. territory.

 

You have to look at what was going on when Obama came into office. The country was still grappling with a potential collapse of the banking system and in the depths of the worst economic crisis since the Depression. Healthcare wasn't a pressing issue and Obama and the Congress had to deal with getting a stimulus package passed to address the economy first. One that also was heavily opposed. At that moment he didn't have a lot of political capital to spend on something as profound as single payer. So yes we have no way of knowing for sure whether Obama and the Democratic Congress could've passed single payer if they had just started upon taking office and fought for it but given everything that was happening then and what happened in the following two years it seems very unlikely that it would've happened. To follow your Barkley example we don't know how the Rockets would've done without the trade but given that the Rockets couldn't get past the Sonics and that Barkley was universally acknowledged as one of the best players in the NBA it was a trade that most likely would improve the Rockets.

As far as supporting 3rd parties more power to you.

Have you considered though that most of the country though is actually to the left of you and that if the Democrats did what you recommend they would be stuck in minority status? As the Tea Party shows they are driving the GOP further to the right and while they are successful in already right leaning House districts they are failing when it comes to national and many state wide elections.

And you can certainly do that but at the same time you have to be prepared with the possibility that rather than making the country more leftward the Democrat coalition get's fractured and more Republicans win offices. While you might end up feeling satisfied ideologically that might not translate to winning offices.

And prohibition was a horrible failure. If anything it argues for why you shouldn't make jarring changes to society and major industries even though the aim is ultimately good.

At their heart both parties are about winning elections. Unfortunately it takes money to win elections but it also takes involvement. If more people got involved in the process instead of just throwing their hands up and saying things like "it is all about sheep" then things might be different.

Here is the way I look at things since I am a supporter of a third party, the Minnesota Independence Party, it is going to be easier to build third parties at the local level but at the national level coalition politics are what dominate. To win the presidency and to have a majority in Congress, especially the House where it really matters, major party politics are really the only way to get it done.

 

Canada built their system over many decades - they didn't just switch over to single payer like people are clamoring for here. Transitioning to that overnight would be extremely disruptive. Even now, the vast majority of their people have some type of private insurance in addition to their government insurance.

 

I think this part is incorrect. Historically, the party in power moves away from the center and eventually overreaches. The party out of power moves towards the center to gain more votes. The Tea Party and recent GOP craze is an exception. But look at the Bush admin and the policies they pursued which were unpopular. Or Clinton, when elected, pushed gun control and health reform before moderating when the party lost power. That's more the history of the country and why we bounce from party to party in leadership - the party out of power moves to the middle to gain power.

So if you don't vote for the Dems hoping they will move to the left - I think that's the opposite of what you'll get. They moved to the center because they were of out power during 2000-2006.