Put-Our-Rich-Criminals-in-Check Global Emporium

[CameronH1403]

Exactly!!

Ours is red cause red = SPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!

[AndyHilmer]

Paul, for fuck sake, fucking finally.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset primary victory has produced a huge amount of punditry about the supposed radicalization of the Democratic party, how it’s going to hurt the party because her positions won’t sell in the Midwest (and how well would Steve King’s positions sell in the Bronx?), etc., etc… But I haven’t seen much about the substance of the policies she advocates, which on economics are mainly Medicare for All and a federal job guarantee.

So here’s what you should know: the policy ideas are definitely bold, and you can make some substantive arguments against them. But they aren’t crazy. By contrast, the ideas of Tea Party Republicans are crazy; in fact, Ocasio-Cortez’s policy positions are a lot more sensible than those of the Republican mainstream, let alone the GOP’s more radical members.

Opinion | Radical Democrats Are Pretty Reasonable

Since Ocasio-Cortez is being compared to Dave Brat, who unseated Eric Cantor, consider this: Brat favors a constitutional amendment forcing a balanced budget every year, which 96 percent of economists think is a really bad idea. Also, by the way, remember that Republicans won big in the midterms that followed Cantor’s demise.

So, about Ocasio-Cortez’s positions: Medicare for all is a deliberately ambiguous phrase, but in practice probably wouldn’t mean pushing everyone into a single-payer system. Instead, it would mean allowing individuals and employers to buy into Medicare – basically a big public option. That’s really not radical at all.

[Purplecat]

He’s no longer angling for a job in the (ahem) Clinton administration, so the attacks on the Berniecrats can stop.

[gadgetgirl]

[Shakes head at the notion that single payer is a radical policy]

[Wisconsin_Platt]

My view of the whole “Shun the Progressive Left” by the DNC is their knee-jerk reaction to watching the GOP after they embraced the Tea Party.

Sure, if the welcome the “radical left” into their fold, they might bring in some voters, but the whole raison d’être for the DNC could be put in peril with those … others

[LearnedCoward]

The non -radical left is okay I guess, if you think everything is okay and your position is more or less the same no matter who’s in charge and you don’t really have any emotional connection to those getting fucked over all around you.

Otherwise we will need to be radical just to hold steady. The right wing in this country is reactionary, and has been steadily eroding the safeguards that protect us from tyranny for at least as long as I’ve been alive. So, it would require some amount of radicalism to get us back to Reagan era Republicanism, let alone the type of social democracy that literally every other developed country has.

On the subject of social democracy : it’s considered bat shit crazy leftist here in the US, but centrist in Canada. Maybe we’re the crazy ones.

[nimelennar]

Maybe we’re the crazy ones.

Of course not. CNN went around asking leaders of various countries whether the U.S. had gone crazy, and the response was, pretty much unanimously, “No, not at all! _{Please don’t kill us.}”

[AndyHilmer]

He’s no longer angling for a job in the (ahem) Clinton administration, so the attacks on the Berniecrats can stop.

Krugman’s never been on the list for any administration.

[Crashproof]

My view of the whole “Shun the Progressive Left” by the DNC is their knee-jerk reaction to watching the GOP after they embraced the Tea Party.

I’m with Thomas Frank on this – the Democratic Party intentionally turned away from the working class and poor, with Bill Clinton as one of the leaders of that charge, to court campaign donors. It was an intentional rightward shift of the Overton Window.

And that opened the doors to Trumpist populism IMHO, as well as de-inspiring voter participation and trust.

[AndyHilmer]

It opened the doors to populism in the way that the new slavers wanted.

[MalevolentPixy]

Thread. Just a reminder, though I think most here are quite convinced.

Squidlarkin System 🦑 #pluralgang (squidlarkin)

[nimelennar]

We have never needed pterry more than we do right now.

I know the popular expression is “Fuck cancer,” but fuck Alzheimer’s, too.

[smulder]

The non -radical left is okay I guess, if you think everything is okay

[AndyHilmer]

Not left. Not really even center except when pandering.

[CameronH1403]

For the US where the “I don’t want to pay for lazy people!!” attitude is king, single payer health IS a radical policy.

I want it and it’s about fucking time we had it.

[gadgetgirl]

One thing I didn’t know until I read some USians looking at moving to Canada talking about it on Twitter: it drives overall costs down.

So it works out to be cheaper just to have everyone on it. Certainly all those assessments for pre-existing conditions go away, so there’s one level of bureaucracy right there.

[Wisconsin_Platt]

so there’s one level of bureaucracy right there.

The clinic my partner once worked for would take 30% off the bill if you paid cash and choose to deal with your insurance company on your own (or just wanted to not involve Insurance)

The regulations and bullshit that InsCompanies make the medical facilities go through is insane. Add to that the additional layer of Government Regs (many are well meaning, but flawed) and it is no wonder so many rural healthcare providers are going under. Or operating in a “grey” area.

If the ACA is fully gutted, then there are going to be only a few outcomes if you are outside a major population center:

• Regulations for health care facilities will be ignored even more and $Diety help you if you have to go to one of these places
• Rural Healthcare will evaporate. Or replaced by the McHealthMart Conglomerate. Both are bad.

[MarjaE]

No healthcare means no abortions. So it’s win-win for the Mo Brooks wing.

[nimelennar]

The regulations and bullshit that InsCompanies make the medical facilities go through is insane.

IIRC, those facilities love dealing with Medicare patients, because there’s one standardized list of coverage, one standardized price list, one standardized set of forms to fill out, one standardized process for submitting claims…

Not as profitable, surely, but just simpler in every way.

[CameronH1403]

And all of the “healthcare” companies could switch from handling claims for themselves to handling Medicare claims instead. No jobs could be lost if done right. But they would really have to step up the investigation of fraud to keep the costs down.

Nice to dream.