Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

It’s hilarious Ocasio-Cortez was a bartender in the Bronx a year ago and today she’s a clear and present danger to the neo-fascist capitalists.

God I love America.

[Jack Burton 35]

In regards to SS, vote for politicians who will make it work and not cast it off as helpless waste.

 

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by Jack Burton

[Clob94 121]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

And there it is. Selfishness, the guiding light of the American voter.

So it's selfish to pay into something your entire adult life and to be told that one day you'll get something back? 

 

Only to find out that you won't be getting something back and being pissed about it? 

 

That's your idea of selfish? I'm selfish as fuck then. 

[Huckleberry 34,626]

14 minutes ago, Clob94 said:

So it's selfish to pay into something your entire adult life and to be told that one day you'll get something back? 

 

Only to find out that you won't be getting something back and being pissed about it? 

 

That's your idea of selfish? I'm selfish as fuck then. 

He said the entire program is garbage if he doesn't get anything out of it. He didn't say anything about anyone else getting anything out of it. So if the program helps millions of his fellow Americans but not him then the program is garbage.

Yes that's selfish as fuck and if you agree then you're selfish as fuck, too.

Also, anyone intelligent who is under the age of 45 should have been planning for decades not to get a dime out of Social Security. That's not to say it's guaranteed we don't get anything, but if you've been planning on it then you're an idiot.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

9 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Also there is a moral hazard for all these entitlement things, in my opinion. Not for the extremes of the bell curve; the lazy will still be lazy and they Type-A's will still strive for greatness, but the vast majority of those who do and succeed, whether by luck, privilege, hard work, whatever, will be stuck subsidizing those who don't do and succeed. And to me, that is a bum deal.

The moral hazard is in not subsidizing the needy.  A man with food in his belly is a passive man.  A starving man is just about the most dangerous thing possible.  To increase the numbers of starving Americans would be a recipe for a drastic increase in crime, and perhaps even revolution.

You're always going to subsidize people in some way or another.  So when you have that 70 year old who didn't save, who isn't physically strong anymore, and who got phased out of his/her job, then what?  Are you man enough to look them in the eyes, put a gun to their head, and pull the trigger yourself?  

Its also strange how prison never comes up in these "subsidy" conversations, but you're paying for 3 hots and a cot for nearly 2.5 million people there.  Maybe granny would be better off stealing from you, so she can go to a minimum security prison where you will happily pay for her.

As for single payer, everyone would be better off.  It isn't like it will be entirely without premiums.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Anyone old enough to have been paying into SS for 30+ years bears a share of responsibility for the fiscal situation that will ultimately prevent us from saving SS.   Consider all of the spending and tax cuts from your reps to be your payment, because that's where the money went. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

It's the essence of fair.  The boomers who fucked us financially should bear the consequences.   What's not fair is a millennial having to bear the current debt they inherited, plus having to pay for the SS of the people who created that debt, plus not getting SS themselves when they retire.  

[Clob94 121]

24 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

He said the entire program is garbage if he doesn't get anything out of it. He didn't say anything about anyone else getting anything out of it. So if the program helps millions of his fellow Americans but not him then the program is garbage.

Yes that's selfish as fuck and if you agree then you're selfish as fuck, too.

Also, anyone intelligent who is under the age of 45 should have been planning for decades not to get a dime out of Social Security. That's not to say it's guaranteed we don't get anything, but if you've been planning on it then you're an idiot.

To believe that a pyramid scheme would last is Pollyanna at best. And yes, I've begrudgingly paid into that system knowing I would never see a dime. But I'm still entitled to be pissed about it because it was all based on shitty math and population growth calculations that were not sustainable. But hey, I guess I can just shrug it off as another failed government idea. 

 

And now you see, just one of the many reasons why I don't trust the government. 

[Js1 87,178]

19 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

The moral hazard is in not subsidizing the needy.  A man with food in his belly is a passive man.  A starving man is just about the most dangerous thing possible.  To increase the numbers of starving Americans would be a recipe for a drastic increase in crime, and perhaps even revolution.

You're always going to subsidize people in some way or another.  So when you have that 70 year old who didn't save, who isn't physically strong anymore, and who got phased out of his/her job, then what?  Are you man enough to look them in the eyes, put a gun to their head, and pull the trigger yourself?  

Its also strange how prison never comes up in these "subsidy" conversations, but you're paying for 3 hots and a cot for nearly 2.5 million people there.  Maybe granny would be better off stealing from you, so she can go to a minimum security prison where you will happily pay for her.

As for single payer, everyone would be better off.  It isn't like it will be entirely without premiums.

But we should definitely continue subsidizing corporations making record profits.  More corporate welfare.  Or to use the right wing's terms - ENTITLEMENT.

[Washpark 176]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

But I'm the millennial in your take. And having to pay 30+ (which is from 23 to 53 give or take and as I'm speaking in future tense this doesn't mean I've paid 30+ years, but projecting to. I've practically only paid in like 10 which is enough to have some skin in the game and complain about it, in my opinion) and not getting anything back is paying for the sins of your father.

So we agree as it pertains to my post, your take is not fair.

SS, medicare, etc aren't pay what you get. they are taxes. all the taxes don't come reimbursed to you. SS, medicare, etc should be seen as insurance policies that in case you fall below a certain threshold then you receive. 

Republicans have been saying SS, medicare, etc is going broke for over 30+ years. It hasn't and won't. If Republicans cared about fiscal responsibility, they would cut military spending and stop giving tax breaks to billionaires and companies  

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

2 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

But I'm the millennial in your take. And having to pay 30+ (which is from 23 to 53 give or take and as I'm speaking in future tense this doesn't mean I've paid 30+ years, but projecting to. I've practically only paid in like 10 which is enough to have some skin in the game and complain about it, in my opinion) and not getting anything back is paying for the sins of your father.

So we agree as it pertains to my post, your take is not fair.

My take was in the present, given the fiscal situation that has developed over the last 40 years.   If you millennials don't fix it, and try to pass the buck onto their grandchildren, my take will be equally applicable to you.  

But that's a moot point.  You aren't going to get social security.  You're going to continue paying in for awhile, to pay for your grandparents who demand it because they paid in for 30+ years, but it won't be there for you.

If that's what you were saying, I agree that isn't fair.  Just recognize that the argument you are making is the same one that the boomers are making, and the unfairness is not simply about not getting back what you paid into it.   It's not a savings account where your money is stored; everyone is paying for their grandparents with a promise that your grandchildren will pay for you.   The unfairness is boomers expecting that to continue for their benefit alone while fucking up our fiscal situation to destroy our ability to continue it for the very people who will be subsidizing them. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

My take was in the present, given the fiscal situation that has developed over the last 40 years.   If you millennials don't fix it, and try to pass the buck onto their grandchildren, my take will be equally applicable to you.  

But that's a moot point.  You aren't going to get social security.  You're going to continue paying in for awhile, to pay for your grandparents who demand it because they paid in for 30+ years, but it won't be there for you.

If that's what you were saying, I agree that isn't fair.  Just recognize that the argument you are making is the same one that the boomers are making, and the unfairness is not simply about not getting back what you paid into it.   It's not a savings account where your money is stored; everyone is paying for their grandparents with a promise that your grandchildren will pay for you.   The unfairness is boomers expecting that to continue for their benefit alone while fucking up our fiscal situation to destroy our ability to continue it for the very people who will be subsidizing them. 

Social security isnt going anywhere. It will be modified somewhat, but millennials will get it as long as there is still a United States.

Even in it's current state, when the Boomers finally fucking die, millennials and gen z will be paying in while the much smaller gen x collects. It will start to be in the black again then. Depending on future generations, it should be fine for millennials too.  The only thing that will kill it entirely is some groundbreaking longevity breakthrough that allows us to live past 125 or a catastrophic decrease in population. 

Edited July 23, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[RDCanecutter 26,881]

4 hours ago, relapse98 said:

2, 3, 1

You're drunk.

[RDCanecutter 26,881]

I think we should worry about ¡OCASIO!-Cortez's man-bun Brooklyn boyfriend.

Any day now, he's gonna look up from his laptop, and realize she's gone.

[Js1 87,178]

This is why she and more progressive policies appeals to Millenials. No one else has the guts to address this and just tells them to stop eating avocados.

Cue the "back in my day, I worked summers and paid for my tuition, graduated and bought a house."

Cool. Median income hasn't changed in nearly 40 years, but college is 2.5 times more expensive and graduating with 3x more debt. BUT THE AVOCADO TOAST!

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by Js1

[David Dennison 19,530]

1 hour ago, pepper brooks said:

Given the track record of epic failure of progressive legislation I cannot fathom anyone wanting more of it. 

Do you have any examples of successful conservative legislation?

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

8 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

You're drunk.

O-C is a Congress 10, but a NY14 5.  Crazy that the latina has the worst ass in that pic. 

[Cacti 191]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s hilarious Ocasio-Cortez was a bartender in the Bronx a year ago and today she’s a clear and present danger to the neo-fascist capitalists.

First and foremost she's a danger to the Democratic Party. As I mentioned earlier, the Republicans would love to be able to portray her and her socialist agenda as the face and agenda of the Democratic Party.  It matters little that she isn't the presidential candidate; association alone can be a powerful tool---just ask Democrats about the Willie Horton effect.

[David Dennison 19,530]

1 minute ago, Cacti said:

First and foremost she's a danger to the Democratic Party. As I mentioned earlier, the Republicans would love to be able to portray her and her socialist agenda as the face and agenda of the Democratic Party.  It matters little that she isn't the presidential candidate; association alone can be a powerful tool---just ask Democrats about the Willie Horton effect.

She's not a danger to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party needs more candidates like her.

[Js1 87,178]

7 minutes ago, Cacti said:

First and foremost she's a danger to the Democratic Party. As I mentioned earlier, the Republicans would love to be able to portray her and her socialist agenda as the face and agenda of the Democratic Party.  It matters little that she isn't the presidential candidate; association alone can be a powerful tool---just ask Democrats about the Willie Horton effect.

Donald Trump is the fact of the Republican Party. He's the fucking President of the United States.

AOC is a candidate for one of 435 members of the House of Representatives from the Bronx.  Go ahead and plaster her face in every race, weirdos.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

13 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

She’s more likely neither the next big thing for the Dems nor a magnificent boon to the GOP.  

Is it too sexist if I posit that she’s only getting so much attention because she’s young and pretty and from NYC?  That’s a story that will pass in time, not one that’s going to change the course of politics.

Can anyone even name, without looking it up, the person who primaried Eric Cantor?  That was a bigger political story, but lacking the young pretty woman from NYC.

The more important race is NY19. It's a swing district with a GOP rep who is racistly dog whistling his ass off these days. His opponent, Antonio Delgado, is an African American who is a Harvard law grad who also has a progressive platform, but doesnt get caught up in buzzwords like O-C.  If he wins, he should be the new face of the Dem party. 

Edited July 23, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[GSU&UT 1,799]

21 minutes ago, Cacti said:

First and foremost she's a danger to the Democratic Party. As I mentioned earlier, the Republicans would love to be able to portray her and her socialist agenda as the face and agenda of the Democratic Party.  It matters little that she isn't the presidential candidate; association alone can be a powerful tool---just ask Democrats about the Willie Horton effect.

Protip: The GOP is going to make a boogeyman out of someone. For years it was Pelosi, now it will be AOC. It's time to stop this mess of constantly worrying about how an evil party is going to portray you and how you actually get people energized and motivated.

Edited July 23, 2018 by GSU&UT

[Js1 87,178]

13 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Protip: The GOP is going to make a boogeyman out of someone. For years it was Pelosi, now it will be AOC. It's time to stop this mess of constantly worrying about how an evil party is going to portray you and how you actually get people energized and motivated.

Yup.

Every Democrat is an evil socialist devil regardless.  So maybe run progressive candidates who aren't scared of their own policies to energize and motivate the base and show people that these policies are not out of the mainstream when communicated in the correct manner.

The Democrats have to stop recruiting, campaigning and governing with one hand tied behind their back to appease the pearl-clutching Fox News crowd. 

[David Dennison 19,530]

2 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

TBD. If I reach SS age and don't get any despite paying into it for 30+ years. Yes, garbage.

This is a completely irrational fear. Social Security isn't going anywhere. If need be, we'll just eliminate or raise the limit on income subject to SS taxation.

[Aqua Buddha 14,806]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

This is why she and more progressive policies appeals to Millenials. No one else has the guts to address this and just tells them to stop eating avocados.

Cue the "back in my day, I worked summers and paid for my tuition, graduated and bought a house."

Cool. Median income hasn't changed in nearly 40 years, but college is 2.5 times more expensive and graduating with 3x more debt. BUT THE AVOCADO TOAST!

 

This.  If you want millennials to value capitalism, they have to see that it values them.  All they see is stagnation while Jeff Bezos is the richest person in history.

[Aqua Buddha 14,806]

I like how the right thinks she's a threat to the Republic but they were ready to put a child molester from Alabama into the US Senate.

[Js1 87,178]

14 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

This.  If you want millennials to value capitalism, they have to see that it values them.  All they see is stagnation while Jeff Bezos is the richest person in history.

I'd be blasting the shit out of what I posted above and being like "THIS. DOESN'T. WORK. ANYMORE. YOUR ENTIRE GENERATION IS GETTING SCREWED SO JEFF BEZOS CAN GET RICHER AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DOESN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT EXCEPT MAKE BEZOS AND HIS FRIENDS RICHER AT YOUR EXPENSE."

 

[RomaVicta 30,571]

2 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's the essence of fair.  The boomers who fucked us financially should bear the consequences.   What's not fair is a millennial having to bear the current debt they inherited, plus having to pay for the SS of the people who created that debt, plus not getting SS themselves when they retire.  

I agree with just about everything you're saying except for the broad generational blame. The political right won power and enacted the legislation that starved government and robbed Social Security. The political right is transgenerational as are the other parts of the political spectrum.

I'm a boomer and history will likely say that a white man born in America when I was lived the best life a common person could have ever expected. I am too young to have been called to Vietnam and wasn't even conscripted as much of the boomer generation was.

America's share of the world market was wildly out of proportion to the nation's size after WWII. The so-called greatest generation got to ride the train as did their children (if you were white you had it best of all).

Those days are gone and the post boomers face a rougher road and have indeed been screwed by rapacious school costs and subsidized bank loans. They graduate with what is essentially a home loan before they even get started. 

I didn't vote for any of that shit. I wasn't consulted and fully agree that it's not right. The cold-blooded exploitation of citizens seeking an education that is required for advancement originated with cynical fucks. The generation to which those fucks belong is somewhat irrelevant.

Blaming another generation is a diversion from finding the people who actually bear the blame. The political right. They lied about the market curing all ills and government ruining everything it touches. They said lowering taxes for the rich would make us all more prosperous. They cast any people opposing that philosophy as Juden to be hated as the danger that they are.

I've never voted for the new breed of conservative. I agree with post-boomers about the state of the nation that is left to them. I don't tremble that new anti-conservative voices may change things. Other countries seem to be doing just fine with a little more socialism. 

[American Swindle 102]

She has no sense of basic economics and is a bit too socialist for my taste.  I mean, her main policies are centered around the below:

 

Medicare for All

Free Public University

Universal Jobs Guarantee

Housing as a human right

All ideas then are big government in nature and are not based in the realm of free market capitalism. All require government intervention, central planning, and an unquestioned faith in the State.  No Thanks. 

[bad_teammate 13,511]

I love the "leftists don't understand economics" shit from people who constantly butcher a basic understanding of tax brackets and swear that, any day now, that wealth is gonna trickle on down.

[Hank Scorpio 17,924]

The Dems need to distance themselves from the radicals like Cortez. It's just like Chuck Schumer said before the 2016 election: 

"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin" 

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

5 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I agree with just about everything you're saying except for the broad generational blame. The political right won power and enacted the legislation that starved government and robbed Social Security. The political right is transgenerational as are the other parts of the political spectrum.

I'm a boomer and history will likely say that a white man born in America when I was lived the best life a common person could have ever expected. I am too young to have been called to Vietnam and wasn't even conscripted as much of the boomer generation was.

America's share of the world market was wildly out of proportion to the nation's size after WWII. The so-called greatest generation got to ride the train as did their children (if you were white you had it best of all).

Those days are gone and the post boomers face a rougher road and have indeed been screwed by rapacious school costs and subsidized bank loans. They graduate with what is essentially a home loan before they even get started. 

I didn't vote for any of that shit. I wasn't consulted and fully agree that it's not right. The cold-blooded exploitation of citizens seeking an education that is required for advancement originated with cynical fucks. The generation to which those fucks belong is somewhat irrelevant.

Blaming another generation is a diversion from finding the people who actually bear the blame. The political right. They lied about the market curing all ills and government ruining everything it touches. They said lowering taxes for the rich would make us all more prosperous. They cast any people opposing that philosophy as Juden to be hated as the danger that they are.

I've never voted for the new breed of conservative. I agree with post-boomers about the state of the nation that is left to them. I don't tremble that new anti-conservative voices may change things. Other countries seem to be doing just fine with a little more socialism. 

But that's the deal with a democratic republic.   We stand and fall together.  You may not have specifically voted for certain policies, but it was your government that did it, and you had a voice, and you got the benefits, so you should bear the burdens.   And me, as I get older as a Gen Xer, and my share of responsibility grows.   Because somebody has to pay the bill.  Between the people who were sitting at the table eating the meal, even under protest, and people who weren't even alive yet, let alone in the restaurant, the moral choice is pretty damn clear to me. 

For those of us who agree that the political right is primarily to blame, it is incumbent on us to stop them and enact better policy.   And if we fail, as the boomers on the left did for many years, we should bear the burdens of our failure.  In my opinion. 

[RomaVicta 30,571]

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

But that's the deal with a democratic republic.   We stand and fall together.  You may not have specifically voted for certain policies, but it was your government that did it, and you had a voice, and you got the benefits, so you should bear the burdens.

So, we're all Trumpkins?

[bad_teammate 13,511]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

So, we're all Trumpkins?

We're not all Trumpkins, but we're all varying levels of responsible for him.

Edited July 23, 2018 by bad_teammate

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Just now, RomaVicta said:

So, we're all Trumpkins?

No, but we all share some responsibility.  Those on his side have the most, but those who failed to stop him hold some as well.  We didn't do enough.  Didn't donate enough, didn't pick a better Dem candidate, didn't canvas enough, failed to focus enough on state races for years leading to gerrymandering and voter suppression, failed to fight enough for our policies under Obama and let the Rs get a stranglehold on Congress, and on and on.  And between me and my young children, I should pay the price for that before they do. 

[bad_teammate 13,511]

Dem Strategy is So Powerful

No one cares, DNC. Why do you focus on shit no one cares about?

[bad_teammate 13,511]

Back to the issues that polls tell us the American people DO NOT FUCKING CARE ABOUT AT ALL.

The people care about kids in concentration camps. (DNC: "Well, uh... we don't have a position on immigration writ large so...let's avoid that.)

The people care about the fatten-the-rich tax cuts. (DNC: "Capitalism is great and did you see how cool all these billionaires are? Besides, we have fund raisers with them.")

[Clob94 121]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Back to the issues that polls tell us the American people DO NOT FUCKING CARE ABOUT AT ALL.

The people care about kids in concentration camps. (DNC: "Well, uh... we don't have a position on immigration writ large so...let's avoid that.)

The people care about the fatten-the-rich tax cuts. (DNC: "Capitalism is great and did you see how cool all these billionaires are? Besides, we have fund raisers with them.")

Man BT..... you really fucking hate rich people. 

 

Is it all rich people? Or just those with an R next to their name? 

 

In before "I don't HATE rich people....".

Edited July 23, 2018 by Clob94

[bad_teammate 13,511]

Won't someone... SOMEONE... think of the feelings of the billionaires!?

[American Swindle 102]

3 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

There is a moral hazard in not subsidizing the needy as well. I think there is a point where, again, a minimally viable line exists. Just look at any advanced economic graph where the supply/demand lines and the break-even costs and all those other lines are modeled and find it. It feels to me like we are there now and adding "free" stuff is a drag on me and my ilk (read: Surly demographic). 

Subsidizing prison is akin to subsidizing the minimum for the poor, old and feeble. The bare minimum should be provided for prisoners. 

Then again, if what you say is true about single payer making everyone, including myself, better off then I'd be open to it-- perhaps the issue is I don't understand it. What I do know is that ACA is a horrible option for almost everyone I know. it's expensive and the coverage sucks and that is what I think of when I think of single payer. So it could just be an ignorance thing.

Why not go back to what we had pre-ACA?  Insurance premiums were affordable then.  The harsh reality is that the ACA's mandate that insurers insure those with pre-existing conditions no matter what caused two things:

1)Younger, healthy people didn't join thus shrinking the pool of those that paid in (because hell, why pay in when you can get insurance when you get sick!)

2)Those that paid in had to cover the immensely large risk pool of those that should be paying the higher premiums (essentially distorting the health insurance market) so this results in massive premiums for those in the middle class and upper class.  

Couple those two things with the compounding effects of inefficient 3rd party billing and hospital overcharging (because yeah, they know insurance will pay for it), then you have quite the unsustainable, economic conundrum.  

[American Swindle 102]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I love the "leftists don't understand economics" shit from people who constantly butcher a basic understanding of tax brackets and swear that, any day now, that wealth is gonna

59 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

But that's the deal with a democratic republic.   We stand and fall together.  You may not have specifically voted for certain policies, but it was your government that did it, and you had a voice, and you got the benefits, so you should bear the burdens.   And me, as I get older as a Gen Xer, and my share of responsibility grows.   Because somebody has to pay the bill.  Between the people who were sitting at the table eating the meal, even under protest, and people who weren't even alive yet, let alone in the restaurant, the moral choice is pretty damn clear to me. 

For those of us who agree that the political right is primarily to blame, it is incumbent on us to stop them and enact better policy.   And if we fail, as the boomers on the left did for many years, we should bear the burdens of our failure.  In my opinion. 

Democratic Replublic?  More like Constitutional Republic no?  Also, we are in reality an oligarchy (laden with corporatism and crony capitalism).

 

[wildcat09 29,579]

14 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Why not go back to what we had pre-ACA?  Insurance premiums were affordable then.  The harsh reality is that the ACA's mandate that insurers insure those with pre-existing conditions no matter what caused two things:

 1)Younger, healthy people didn't join thus shrinking the pool of those that paid in (because hell, why pay in when you can get insurance when you get sick!)

2)Those that paid in had to cover the immensely large risk pool of those that should be paying the higher premiums (essentially distorting the health insurance market) so this results in massive premiums for those in the middle class and upper class.  

Couple those two things with the compounding effects of inefficient 3rd party billing and hospital overcharging (because yeah, they know insurance will pay for it), then you have quite the unsustainable, economic conundrum.  

Or, and call me crazy here, we could try a system where everyone pays in, everyone is in one big risk pool, and the inefficient 3rd party billing issues don't exist.

[Clob94 121]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Or, and call me crazy here, we could try a system where everyone pays in, everyone is in one big risk pool, and the inefficient 3rd party billing issues don't exist.

Is everyone in for the same amount across the board or do people that make 6 figures and above have to pay for themselves and others? 

[bad_teammate 13,511]

35 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Why not go back to what we had pre-ACA?  Insurance premiums were affordable then.  

My God.

[Dropout 355]

Username checks out

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

38 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Why not go back to what we had pre-ACA?  Insurance premiums were affordable then.  The harsh reality is that the ACA's mandate that insurers insure those with pre-existing conditions no matter what caused two things:

1)Younger, healthy people didn't join thus shrinking the pool of those that paid in (because hell, why pay in when you can get insurance when you get sick!)

2)Those that paid in had to cover the immensely large risk pool of those that should be paying the higher premiums (essentially distorting the health insurance market) so this results in massive premiums for those in the middle class and upper class.  

Couple those two things with the compounding effects of inefficient 3rd party billing and hospital overcharging (because yeah, they know insurance will pay for it), then you have quite the unsustainable, economic conundrum.  

Or, hear me out here, we penalize healthy people who choose not to buy insurance as an incentive to keep them in the pool. 

Also, going back to pre-ACA and denying people with pre-existing conditions coverage doesn't magically solve the problem, those sick people who will no longer have coverage are still going to go to the emergency room and get treated, they will just be stuck with the 6 figure bill that they will not be able to pay. Who do you think eats those costs when that happens? Why do you think hospitals charge $10 for a cough drop? The larger question is, should insurance companies bear those costs or the consumers?  

[Washpark 176]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Yup.

Every Democrat is an evil socialist devil regardless.  So maybe run progressive candidates who aren't scared of their own policies to energize and motivate the base and show people that these policies are not out of the mainstream when communicated in the correct manner.

The Democrats have to stop recruiting, campaigning and governing with one hand tied behind their back to appease the pearl-clutching Fox News crowd. 

 

3 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

Protip: The GOP is going to make a boogeyman out of someone. For years it was Pelosi, now it will be AOC. It's time to stop this mess of constantly worrying about how an evil party is going to portray you and how you actually get people energized and motivated.

Dem candidates aren't going to convert Fox news watches and should stop trying to appeal to them. Those voters will always vote for any candidate with a R next to their name as seen by Trump, Moore, etc. 

Dems need to find a new base from the subset of disenfranchised voters and motivate them to become active in politics. I'd argue that is why Ocasio -Cortez won and how Obama did too. Dem leadership is afraid of this, because they are basically Republican lite and want to maintain the status quo. 

Appealing to moderates is a losing strategy from an election and policy position because those moderates won't switch or already support dem policies which dem leadership are too afraid to defend. 

[David Dennison 19,530]

1 hour ago, American Swindle said:

Why not go back to what we had pre-ACA?  Insurance premiums were affordable then.  The harsh reality is that the ACA's mandate that insurers insure those with pre-existing conditions no matter what caused two things:

1)Younger, healthy people didn't join thus shrinking the pool of those that paid in (because hell, why pay in when you can get insurance when you get sick!)

2)Those that paid in had to cover the immensely large risk pool of those that should be paying the higher premiums (essentially distorting the health insurance market) so this results in massive premiums for those in the middle class and upper class.  

Couple those two things with the compounding effects of inefficient 3rd party billing and hospital overcharging (because yeah, they know insurance will pay for it), then you have quite the unsustainable, economic conundrum.  

Which is why we're closer to single payer health care than we are the system we had before the ACA. Single payer is what we're going to wind up with, it's just a matter of when it happens.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 minute ago, Washpark said:

 

Dem candidates aren't going to convert Fox news watches and should stop trying to appeal to them. Those voters will always vote for any candidate with a R next to their name as seen by Trump, Moore, etc. 

Dems need to find a new base from the subset of disenfranchised voters and motivate them to become active in politics. I'd argue that is why Ocasio -Cortez won and how Obama did too. Dem leadership is afraid of this, because they are basically Republican lite and want to maintain the status quo. 

Appealing to moderates is a losing strategy from an election and policy position because those moderates won't switch or already support dem policies which dem leadership are too afraid to defend. 

There seems to be a lot of "if she can do it, anybody can," but that isn't accurate. 

Nobody appeals to moderates in NY14.  Most of the city council members whose districts overlap NY14 make O-C seem like a libertarian.  Ocasio Cortez won a +29 Dem district while benefiting from an indifferent incumbent and from being the only race on the ballot.  She lives in a Dem landslide district like the one Sheila Jackson Lee wins every election.  (SJL is also far more ineffective than Crowley, so I'm not sure why the DSA doesn't focus on getting someone decent there).

Only 27,658 votes were cast of which she won 15,897.  I think more than that signed the petition for her to run.  Still not sure what Crowley was thinking with his non-existent campaign.  178,000 votes were cast in the 2016 general election for NY14 with a President on the ballot.  The 2014 general election had 67,000 total voters with a Governor race on the ballot.  I'd estimate that we'll get 90,000 in this general because of a Governor race and anti-Trump fury.  Either way, the district continues to have an anemic turnout which will always make it primed for the picking in the Democratic primary.  It isn't out of the realm of possibility for another young person to run O-C's playbook against her successfully in 2020 or 2022.  If exit polling was accurate, she also didn't turn out historically disenfranchised people.  Latinos still didn't turn out very well at all and most of her voters were primarily young, white, and middle class who are primarily gentrifiers who want rent concessions while being the ones who are driving up the rents in the first place.  Nearly every last one of her canvassers were white or Asian.  If someone does start to turn out Latino voters next time, it could get really interesting.  And really, she didn't and couldn't win a statewide or national election.  At least not right now.   I don't expect her to be entirely progressive in voting though. 

I do get why she's concerned about Crowley being on the general ballot with a 3rd party, but nobody in the district knows who either of them are really.  She only has 15,897 sure votes.  The rest are a crap shoot, but she would probably be safer if everyone quit talking about her, so the general election voters in NY14 can come in and vote for all the (D)s without really knowing any of the names like they always do.

Obama was a moderate from the outset.  Not even a progressive.