Bernie/Biden task force presents suggestions

[Silvanus]

The end result of Biden's plan would be nothing except a bunch of pork to energy companies, while no substantive advances are made and climate change proceeds apace regardless. Because Democrats always cave to their own right flank, let alone the Republican party, and Biden's plank by merit of its own weakness is pre-signaling that intent.

Alright. Pray tell how a premium and deductible cap, and a public option with a federally-capped maximum cost, would increase the margins made by private insurance companies.

Yes, I do, because I can tell you exactly how Biden's plan would be enacted. It would be a public option in name only, it would be structured the same as TRICARE except as government-subsidized health care as administered by private insurance companies through contract. Which is the worst of all worlds, because not only would it increase market share, it retains private insurance corporations' overhead, certainly wouldn't include profitability caps or restrictions, and private insurers would soak the government through GSM status. The cost wouldn't be born by the individual consumer but rather the tax base, it would be inherently unsustainable, and we'd end up in the same situation we are now with SSA. That's if BIden were to somehow get everything he wanted, which he wouldn't because it wouldn't even survive the blue dogs.

Which is why you don't give away the store before it's even open.

Private insurance has to go, period.

...Right, so you're just outright assuming the premium and deductible caps are lies, then?

I need to establish a baseline. If you're saying that the Dem platform isn't ambitious enough, but also saying that anything sufficiently ambitious must be a lie, then... we're at the point where nothing can get your vote.

Fighting for it and losing, regardless of what Democratic platforms say or don't say.

Who has better success than Sanders over the last 8 years, pray tell? Ralph Nader?

Keep ignoring the thirty-eight years between then and when Trump took office, and Biden's vocal support between then and now. Including the proposed expansion in the crime bill, '98 expansion, and PATRIOT Act. Biden's on the record about this.

The utter meaninglessness of that clip should speak for itself. It's a pure example of "gotcha" argumentativeness, almost puerile on Biden's behalf. There's nothing of substance there.

The assault weapons ban that did jack shit, you mean. Because the overwhelming percentage of firearm homicides are committed by weapons the AWB didn't cover in the first place, and the firearm homicide rate went down during the '90s because the violent crime rate altogether went down. All because the economy improved, not because of a nominal ban on polymer tacticool shit that has fuck-all to do with how firearms operate.

And fuck Bernie. This is a "but Bernie!"-free zone. But since you brought it up, why did Biden hold domestic violence victims hostage by nesting VAWA inside the crime bill?

Oh, lord. If it's a comparison-free zone entirely, then I don't know how to possibly approach this line of argument. Keep hoping for a universally-accepted Rosa Luxemburg to bail out the American political system, I suppose. "Wish in one hand" taken to the absurd extreme, if you like.

Of course not. We wouldn't want to talk about the effects of austerity and the impact it might have had for the working classes, would we.

Since I'm a strongly left-wing, exceptionally hostile person towards austerity economics and monetarism in general, I'd love to have that conversation, if it could move beyond internal recrimination for 20 minutes.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Alright. Pray tell how a premium and deductible cap, and a public option with a federally-capped maximum cost, would increase the margins made by private insurance companies.

Stop playing dumb, I just explained it.

...Right, so you're just outright assuming the premium and deductible caps are lies, then?

Yes.

I need to establish a baseline. If you're saying that the Dem platform isn't ambitious enough, but also saying that anything sufficiently ambitious must be a lie, then... we're at the point where nothing can get your vote.

It's not ambitious. It and the other key planks I stated aren't even close to the policy opinions of three-quarters of Democrats. That's the exact opposite of ambitious. Even if it were, Democrats are proven bad faith actors. They can't be trusted to make good on the promises they already make in bad faith.

The Democratic party is no longer legitimate, that's my whole-ass point and has been from the beginning. That's why I keep saying the platform is pointless in response to you and others bringing it up in defense of Biden.

The utter meaninglessness of that clip should speak for itself. It's a pure example of "gotcha" argumentativeness, almost puerile on Biden's behalf. There's nothing of substance there.

Biden taking credit for the PATRIOT Act, being based on the '95 Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of '95 which he wrote but failed to pass, is meaningless. Even though this is a position he has repeatedly stated for nearly twenty years.

Oh, lord. If it's a comparison-free zone entirely, then I don't know how to possibly approach this line of argument. Keep hoping for a universally-accepted Rosa Luxemburg to bail out the American political system, I suppose. "Wish in one hand" taken to the absurd extreme, if you like.

Backing down on your own point? You wanted to have this out and you wanted the constituent parts of the crime bill on the table, you explain why Biden put VAWA in the crime bill.

Since I'm a strongly left-wing, exceptionally hostile person towards austerity economics and monetarism in general, I'd love to have that conversation, if it could move beyond internal recrimination for 20 minutes.

And you and I both know it'll lead to the same conclusion as US politics: the "left" party's own right flank drove the car off the cliff, threw a tantrum when someone else tried to take the wheel, threw the election, and tried to blame the left for their own fuck-ups.

 

[Agema]

That's actually the common theme among most of the left (except accelerationists), the problem is that there's debate on whether Biden will stop making things worse. Some of us point out Trump isn't special, he's just a continuation, and there's no reason to believe Biden won't be a continuation of Trump. And we bring up history from the last few election cycles, as well as further history in general, to show how Trump isn't all that unique and the veneer of improvement under Dem presidents is a facade of PR divorced from the reality of their policies in how it actually effects the people in the world.

This depends what we mean by "continuation".

Both the Republicans and Democrats are "establishment" parties who operate within a relatively narrow window formed by mainstream political views in the USA, and also under the general institution of US government, which goes a long, long way beyond political parties. The Democratic Party is what is is in large part because of how the whole US system is: if you want a radical change and decisive break with all this, there's a world of problems you need to overcome, and they go deep into the heart of the very institutions of US governance, not just the Democratic Party. In a simple sense, how do you pass a radical agenda through a government system designed to make radical agendas difficult to pass? The corollary of that is how do you win a victory so big you can push past that inertia? In a worst case scenario, progressives may never get the revolution in governance they want in a reasonable timescale, because it really might be that difficult. In the meantime, there's still a better world to fight for.

Significant differences do exist and can be fought for. The ACA is in ways a big disappointment. It is also a huge achievement that really has enabled healthcare for millions, and a massive signal of what can be done that the Republicans would never have even attempted. I fail to see how anyone observing Trump destroying environmental protections and opening up vast swathes of the USA for even more fossil fuel drilling can argue that the Democrats wouldn't be an improvement on the environment. The Democrats have been extraordinarily relaxed about rich Americans making huge amounts of money, but they really don't tend to give the rich the sort of welfare giveaways that the Republicans do such as the innumerable tax cuts. Even as they're debating more stimulus, Trump wants to do it in ways that heavily benefit richer people who need it least. When covid-19 ends, which demographics will be paying off that national debt? Whether the Democrats or Republicans are in charge will make a substantial difference.

All these things matter. They might be small beans to someone who wants a radical overhaul, and in a spectrum that runs from anarchocapitalism to communism. But they still mean something. $30 a week is a lot of money to millions of Americans. Healthcare slipping back out of reach means a lot to millions of Americans. 4cm of sea level rise by 2050 makes a difference to vast amounts of the US coastline and its inhabitants, and an extra 20ppm irritants in the air makes a difference to lots of people with breathing problems. Sure, you might still be bombing foreign countries, and failing to constrain multinationals, and having pompous billionaires feathering their nests and bribing politicians, but in so many small ways life might be better for millions of Americans, and the Democrats are, in my opinion, much more likely to deliver them even as fudging middleists.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

This depends what we mean by "continuation".

Both the Republicans and Democrats are "establishment" parties who operate within a relatively narrow window formed by mainstream political views in the USA, and also under the general institution of US government, which goes a long, long way beyond political parties. The Democratic Party is what is is in large part because of how the whole US system is: if you want a radical change and decisive break with all this, there's a world of problems you need to overcome, and they go deep into the heart of the very institutions of US governance, not just the Democratic Party. In a simple sense, how do you pass a radical agenda through a government system designed to make radical agendas difficult to pass? The corollary of that is how do you win a victory so big you can push past that inertia? In a worst case scenario, progressives may never get the revolution in governance they want in a reasonable timescale, because it really might be that difficult. In the meantime, there's still a better world to fight for.

Significant differences do exist and can be fought for. The ACA is in ways a big disappointment. It is also a huge achievement that really has enabled healthcare for millions, and a massive signal of what can be done that the Republicans would never have even attempted. I fail to see how anyone observing Trump destroying environmental protections and opening up vast swathes of the USA for even more fossil fuel drilling can argue that the Democrats wouldn't be an improvement on the environment. The Democrats have been extraordinarily relaxed about rich Americans making huge amounts of money, but they really don't tend to give the rich the sort of welfare giveaways that the Republicans do such as the innumerable tax cuts. Even as they're debating more stimulus, Trump wants to do it in ways that heavily benefit richer people who need it least. When covid-19 ends, which demographics will be paying off that national debt? Whether the Democrats or Republicans are in charge will make a substantial difference.

All these things matter. They might be small beans to someone who wants a radical overhaul, and in a spectrum that runs from anarchocapitalism to communism. But they still mean something. $30 a week is a lot of money to millions of Americans. Healthcare slipping back out of reach means a lot to millions of Americans. 4cm of sea level rise by 2050 makes a difference to vast amounts of the US coastline and its inhabitants, and an extra 20ppm irritants in the air makes a difference to lots of people with breathing problems. Sure, you might still be bombing foreign countries, and failing to constrain multinationals, and having pompous billionaires feathering their nests and bribing politicians, but in so many small ways life might be better for millions of Americans, and the Democrats are, in my opinion, much more likely to deliver them even as fudging middleists.

But the problem comes when you analyze these things done.

You're right that the ACA is a disappointment, it didn't actually effect the rate of medical bankruptcy.

Despite Promises of ACA, Study Shows Two-Thirds of Personal Bankruptcies Still Caused by Illness and Medical Bills

"We need to move ahead from the ACA to a single-payer, Medicare for All system that assures first-dollar coverage for everyone."

www.commondreams.org

CO2 emissions started dropping before Obama took office, and didn't really lower while he was in office

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks | US EPA

The national greenhouse gas inventory is developed each year to track trends in U.S. emissions and removals. Find emissions by source, economic sector and greenhouse gas.

www.epa.gov

And if we judge recoveries by Obama, it'll be the poor who will pay for anything and everything.

How Obama Destroyed Black Wealth

The nation's first African-American president was a disaster for black wealth.

jacobinmag.com

The problem is that these touted advantages to a Dem president are themselves smoke and mirrors. They look like small beans and further, they're not even real. It's the absolute definition of a placebo.

 

[Silvanus]

Stop playing dumb, I just explained it.

You provided various assumptions about how you think it'll work, which rely on outright dismissing various sections of the plan.

Yes.

Well, in that case we're at the point where discussion is pointless, because bad faith will be assumed regardless.

It's not ambitious. It and the other key planks I stated aren't even close to the policy opinions of three-quarters of Democrats. That's the exact opposite of ambitious. Even if it were, Democrats are proven bad faith actors. They can't be trusted to make good on the promises they already make in bad faith.

Sorry, 2 trillion isn't even close to the opinions of three-quarters of Democrats? Where are you getting this from? I've very rarely seen larger proposals seriously put forward, including by left-wingers. There wasn't any definitive figure on the GND resolution.

Biden taking credit for the PATRIOT Act, being based on the '95 Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of '95 which he wrote but failed to pass, is meaningless. Even though this is a position he has repeatedly stated for nearly twenty years.

Insofar as we're talking about credit, and not substance, it's pretty empty-- that's what I meant. The initial question, remember, was whether you consider FISA in 1978, or the surveillance provisions in the '94 Crime Bill, as worse than the surveillance state as it exists today-- given that mass surveillance and incarceration are significantly higher.

Backing down on your own point? You wanted to have this out and you wanted the constituent parts of the crime bill on the table, you explain why Biden put VAWA in the crime bill.

I "wanted to have this out", but you keep refusing to engage with any comparison. We can't "have this out" if you insist on defining the terms of engagement to suit yourself.

If you want to talk about the election-- which will necessitate comparisons, I'm afraid-- please, by all means! If you just want to wax lyrical about how much of a shit Biden is in a vacuum, then I don't have much interest in doing so, since we both think he's a shit.

And you and I both know it'll lead to the same conclusion as US politics: the "left" party's own right flank drove the car off the cliff, threw a tantrum when someone else tried to take the wheel, threw the election, and tried to blame the left for their own fuck-ups.

This is so simplistic I scarcely know where to start.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Well, in that case we're at the point where discussion is pointless, because bad faith will be assumed regardless.

I'm going to cut everything else out, because now you get it.

The time for Democrats to have engaged in an iota of introspection and made attempts to course correct was four years ago. That's when Democrats faced their legitimacy crisis. Democrats not only failed to face that legitimacy crisis eyes-forward, they went that extra mile and doubled down on every strategic and ethical failure that led to 2016.

The damage is already done, it's been over for four years. Assumption of bad faith is the default for Democrats, because they've proven themselves beyond doubt time and again to be bad-faith actors. Period, that's it. Democrats simply no longer have credibility, authority, legitimacy, and due to Democrats' own decades-long behavior, they're not entitled to trust, faith, excuses, or votes. As far as I'm concerned, they may as well have nominated Baby Doc Duvalier's corpse.

I'll consider voting for the Democratic party again after they've proven beyond doubt they at least realize the problem might be them. No refunds on a ballot.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Gonna go for a round 2 here to catch up on by-point responses.

Sorry, 2 trillion isn't even close to the opinions of three-quarters of Democrats? Where are you getting this from?

That it's going to cost between $2-4 trillion globally to meet Paris Agreement goals. Per year. Even if the US only funds its obligations as a percentage of global GDP (15%), and doesn't subsidize LDC's or countries failing to meet goals, two trillion would only fund US obligations until 2028 at the latest. Biden's shitty little climate plan you think is so great doesn't even meet Paris Agreement standards.

Emissions Gap Report 2019

As the world strives to cut greenhouse gas emissions and limit climate change, it is crucial to track progress towards globally agreed climate goals. For a decade, UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report has compared where greenhouse gas emissions are heading against where they need to be, and highlighted...

www.unenvironment.org

That would be the same Paris Agreement that's no longer even sufficient.

UN chief warns Paris climate goals still not enough

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres took his global message urging immediate climate action to officials gathered in the United Arab Emirates on Sunday, where production of hydrocarbons remains a key driver of the economy.

apnews.com

$50 trillion in global spending by 2050 is on the more conservative end of cited figures, but it tracks with the UN Gap Report's low end. Two trillion is a promise to fix a car with a cracked engine block by changing the spark plugs.

Stopping Global Warming Will Cost $50 Trillion: Morgan Stanley Report

A new report estimates that $50 trillion of investment is needed in the next three decades.

www.forbes.com

Estimates on the GND are between $51-93 trillion in spending before 2030.

How Much Will the 'Green New Deal' Cost? - FactCheck.org

Since the ambitious and controversial Green New Deal debuted last month, Republicans and Democrats have sparred over the cost of the resolution, sometimes erring in their descriptions of the proposal and the costs of climate action and inaction.

www.factcheck.org

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

https://westerncaucus.house.gov/uploadedfiles/costs_of_the_green_new_deal.pdf

If Biden were talking $3-4 trillion per year until 2030, then yeah, his proposal could be remotely considered serious. And that's assuming he gets every damn thing he wants out of the proposal, which he would never. Anteing up with a proposal of $5-6 trillion per year -- which is the Green New Deal -- gets enough wiggle room in negotiation to actually make it to law and still matter, assuming Biden were to employ the bully pulpit and bring out every political hardball trick in the book to beat conservative Democrats and Republicans alike into submission, Roosevelt-style.

The initial question, remember, was whether you consider FISA in 1978, or the surveillance provisions in the '94 Crime Bill, as worse than the surveillance state as it exists today-- given that mass surveillance and incarceration are significantly higher.

It's an irrelevant question and you're trying to reframe the topic, because Biden cheerled each and every last expansion along the way. He consistently argued those expansions you think matter weren't enough, which is what Biden crowed about when he said he PATRIOT Act was a rewrite of what he tried to pass in '95. Biden was an architect of the surveillance state as it exists today, starting all the way back in '78.

I "wanted to have this out", but you keep refusing to engage with any comparison. We can't "have this out" if you insist on defining the terms of engagement to suit yourself.

No, you keep wanting to talk about AOC and Bernie. Neither of them are the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020. Biden is the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020, his record has to stand on its own. I'm judging Joe Biden by what Joe Biden has done and said in the past, you want to judge Joe Biden by what everyone not Joe Biden has done and said in the past.

If you want to start bringing other legislation into this, you'd best be prepared to discuss them on their failures as well as merits, because I'm not letting you get away with praising shit legislation that didn't work as advertised.

If you want to talk about the election-- which will necessitate comparisons, I'm afraid-- please, by all means! If you just want to wax lyrical about how much of a shit Biden is in a vacuum, then I don't have much interest in doing so, since we both think he's a shit.

You're right, the only other individual in this debate who Biden ought be compared to, is Trump. And I've made my position clear: Trump's not the problem, he's a symptom, Biden and politicians like him are the cause. You're not fixing the problems that led to Trump by electing the cause of those problems, you're making the problems worse by kicking the can down the road.

 

[Agema]

The problem is that these touted advantages to a Dem president are themselves smoke and mirrors. They look like small beans and further, they're not even real. It's the absolute definition of a placebo.

That graph is quite interesting. What it seems to show to me is that the Democrats raise the incomes of the poor, and then the Republicans take power and undo those gains (or don't protect them from downturns).

Obama destroyed black wealth

Opinion dressed as fact with an insultingly clickbait title. Obama didn't destroy wealth, the financial crash did. Obama may have enacted a policy intended to protect homes that failed, but that's a very different thing from claiming "Obama destroyed... wealth".

As for carbon emissions, these are often complex, because usually require long-term time scales. You can't, for instance, just knock down a coal power station and replace it with wind turbines in a few months: it'll take years from the order to the completion. You can open up an area to drilling, but it might be years before the oil actually comes out in large quantities. And so on.

I'm really not going to argue Obama was any great shakes on green policy (he was pretty middling on most things), but again, his superiority in comparison to Trump shouldn't be remotely controversial.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

That graph is quite interesting. What it seems to show to me is that the Democrats raise the incomes of the poor, and then the Republicans take power and undo those gains (or don't protect them from downturns).

Not under Obama at least. There's a brief spike before he got elected only for it to go down and then get a sharp spike after Trump's election.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

That graph is quite interesting. What it seems to show to me is that the Democrats raise the incomes of the poor, and then the Republicans take power and undo those gains (or don't protect them from downturns).

I see the gap growing wider and wider no matter who's in power, Democrats being complicit in empowering the rich at the expense of the poor.

Opinion dressed as fact with an insultingly clickbait title. Obama didn't destroy wealth, the financial crash did. Obama may have enacted a policy intended to protect homes that failed, but that's a very different thing from claiming "Obama destroyed... wealth".

It's rather apt when it seems his plans were designed specifically to protect bankers and screw over poor people, which will of course disproportionally effect blacks. Because Obama's policy did take away Black people's equity, destroying their wealth.

As for carbon emissions, these are often complex, because usually require long-term time scales. You can't, for instance, just knock down a coal power station and replace it with wind turbines in a few months: it'll take years from the order to the completion. You can open up an area to drilling, but it might be years before the oil actually comes out in large quantities. And so on.

Not wrong and probably why it's hard to find charts on this, but you would expect there to be data showing some effect of his 'superior policies'.

I'm really not going to argue Obama was any great shakes on green policy (he was pretty middling on most things), but again, his superiority in comparison to Trump shouldn't be remotely controversial.

You would think there would be something to show for it.

And that's the common theme, there's a lot of policy made under Obama showing progress, but absolutely no demonstrations that it accomplished anything. ACA saves no money and as far as I can tell didn't effect the morbidity rates of some of the most common diseases, so what did it do? Obama enacted policies to help the poor, but you can't really tell by looking at any final data, and in fact you can find plenty of evidence that he hurt the poor. You can go down lists of his middling policies and find that they don't really do anything at all or were actually policy disasters.

And Biden is somehow worse than that.

 

[Agema]

Not under Obama at least. There's a brief spike before he got elected only for it to go down and then get a sharp spike after Trump's election.

If you might recall, there was quite a big economic crash in 2007-8 with years of subsequent turmoil. And the recovery starts before Trump.

I see the gap growing wider and wider no matter who's in power, Democrats being complicit in empowering the rich at the expense of the poor.

The wealth gap has been increasing, ever since ~1980. But the Democrats are still the party getting money to the poor, and that something is a lot better than nothing.

It's rather apt when it seems his plans were designed specifically to protect bankers and screw over poor people, which will of course disproportionally effect blacks. Because Obama's policy did take away Black people's equity, destroying their wealth.

No, the baseline is that poor people were screwed by an economic collapse. The question was whether they could be saved by the government, and the government in large part failed. Obama, as the man at the top, ultimately carries the responsibility for that. However, the claim the intent was to let the poor go down and save the banks is inflammatory opining.

Not wrong and probably why it's hard to find charts on this, but you would expect there to be data showing some effect of his 'superior policies'.

He made a load of wildlife sanctuaries and attempted to protect certain species, although that won't show up on a lot of environmental measures like CO2. Other pollution restrictions you might likewise have to look for some very specific charts. There were measures for increased vehicle fuel efficiency (subsequently inhibited by Trump). In fact Trump also attempted to remove the ability of states to impose higher standards than the federal government, didn't he? There was a big scheme to reduce pollution from power generation, but its opponents have mired it under legal challenges and - of course - the Trump administration is trying to wreck that, too. Obama also used federal funding to subsidise green power generation technologies and adoption - which Trump also canned. Trump of course also pulled out of international treaties.

I think there's actually a lot there, but no, it might not necessarily be obvious just looking at the last few years of a CO2 emissions chart.

And that's the common theme, there's a lot of policy made under Obama showing progress, but absolutely no demonstrations that it accomplished anything. ACA saves no money and as far as I can tell didn't effect the morbidity rates of some of the most common diseases, so what did it do?

Analyses suggest the ACA has decreased overall mortality in the USA by up to 5%. Outside the opinions of the usual laissez-faire, anti-government suspects, it seems to broadly have been viewed cheaper premiums on average for for the US public, and reduced government expenditure, albeit not by much in either case. Sure, it hasn't changed bankruptcies much. I think there's a big danger here of going into it with a "glass half empty" approach.

But I would suggest one of the biggest advantages of the ACA was that it established, for the first time ever, a precedent that the government could and should ensure all Americans have healthcare.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

If you might recall, there was quite a big economic crash in 2007-8 with years of subsequent turmoil. And the recovery starts before Trump.

So you're saying the reason income gains change is nuanced and effected by multiple things and not just because having a democrat or republican as the president in and of itself magically changes economics?

 

[Avnger]

So you're saying the reason income gains change is nuanced and effected by multiple things and not just because having a democrat or republican as the president in and of itself magically changes economics?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The wealth gap has been increasing, ever since ~1980. But the Democrats are still the party getting money to the poor, and that something is a lot better than nothing.

That doesn't bare out in the data though. There's no way to tell statistically that they do anything meaningful.

No, the baseline is that poor people were screwed by an economic collapse. The question was whether they could be saved by the government, and the government in large part failed. Obama, as the man at the top, ultimately carries the responsibility for that. However, the claim the intent was to let the poor go down and save the banks is inflammatory opining.

Obama Makes First Appearance in Wikileaks, Receives Admin List From Big Banker

Former Wall Street executive played a significant role in choosing key staff members of Obama’s administration.

observer.com

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions | Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald: A new PBS Frontline report examines a profound failure of justice that should be causing serious social unrest

www.theguardian.com

Inside Obama's bank CEOs meeting

Obama tells the CEOs that his administration "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

www.politico.com

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

It's also absolutely accurate.

He made a load of wildlife sanctuaries and attempted to protect certain species, although that won't show up on a lot of environmental measures like CO2. Other pollution restrictions you might likewise have to look for some very specific charts. There were measures for increased vehicle fuel efficiency (subsequently inhibited by Trump). In fact Trump also attempted to remove the ability of states to impose higher standards than the federal government, didn't he? There was a big scheme to reduce pollution from power generation, but its opponents have mired it under legal challenges and - of course - the Trump administration is trying to wreck that, too. Obama also used federal funding to subsidise green power generation technologies and adoption - which Trump also canned. Trump of course also pulled out of international treaties.

I think there's actually a lot there, but no, it might not necessarily be obvious just looking at the last few years of a CO2 emissions chart.

There are a few things there I would have to dig deeper to see if there was something meaningful, but CO2 is the big one, the one that really needs to be tackled now, and Obama's policies weren't doing it. And that's the problem, there's a back and forth on the little things that make talking about the big crises "too much".

Analyses suggest the ACA has decreased overall mortality in the USA by up to 5%. Outside the opinions of the usual laissez-faire, anti-government suspects, it seems to broadly have been viewed cheaper premiums on average for for the US public, and reduced government expenditure, albeit not by much in either case. Sure, it hasn't changed bankruptcies much. I think there's a big danger here of going into it with a "glass half empty" approach.

But I would suggest one of the biggest advantages of the ACA was that it established, for the first time ever, a precedent that the government could and should ensure all Americans have healthcare.

I'd like to know how they got those numbers because I can see two of the most widespread causes of death that the ACA could address be unaffected by the ACA.

US life expectancy stalls due to cardiovascular disease, not drug deaths

After decades of robust growth, the rise in US life expectancy stalled after 2010. Explanations for the stall have focused on rising drug-related deaths. Here we show that a stagnating decline in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality was the main culprit, outpacing and overshadowing the effects...

www.pnas.org

Admittedly, CVD is an obvious problem with an obvious solution and admittedly the best fix for it wouldn't come out of any healthcare program, however the point remains that the ACA isn't even a bandaid there. You can quibble about premium costs being milder, but that's not really a meaningful metric of... well anything. Some people might feel better about having their premiums lowered, but they're just as likely to go bankrupt and/or die, and it was a massive disruption to large swaths of the population for this minor gain for some (already well off people if they had premiums to go down with), and has presented a perfect cudgel to beat back M4A with "But we have to rescue the ACA first!"

 

[Agema]

That doesn't bare out in the data though. There's no way to tell statistically that they do anything meaningful.

There's plenty of evidence that the poor receive a greater proportion of national GDP growth under Democratic presidents than Republican.

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

It's also absolutely accurate.

Yes. And this is what I would mean by a wider institutional issue with the country. Banks are important. Incredibly important. Also, as major employers of financial experts, a huge source of manpower suitable for government to hire in order to run economic matters, with the increasing "revolving door" between the private and public sectors.

Herein lies both a plus a minus. Banks really are central to the economy, and they and their ex-employees help get things done. The downside is that banks also expect stuff in return, as the entities shuffling around money in a world that increasingly revolves around money have grown increasingly powerful, and that their ex-employees might not be as neutral as we'd like. I would quite like a world where banks were more under the government heel. But I'm very mindful of the fact it's one thing to say it, and another to do it. If you want to face down the banks, bring them to heel, ignore them, that's potentially one hell of a fight and - without due care - potentially very damaging to your administration and possibly the country.

Just as a note, when some of these ex-bank wonks departed the Obama administration, it's reported Biden said to them something like "Where do you guys come from, and have you ever lived in the real world?" I'm pretty sure that wasn't a compliment. He might not be willing to fight them, but he might not be their patsy either.

There are a few things there I would have to dig deeper to see if there was something meaningful, but CO2 is the big one, the one that really needs to be tackled now, and Obama's policies weren't doing it. And that's the problem, there's a back and forth on the little things that make talking about the big crises "too much".

Well, I think as above he made three substantial policies that would achieve long term results; but the key issues are a) "long term" and that b) Trump has substantially impeded them such the gains aren't materialising.

I'd like to know how they got those numbers because I can see two of the most widespread causes of death that the ACA could address be unaffected by the ACA.

Did the ACA Medicaid expansion save lives?

We estimate the effect of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion on county-level mortality in the first four years following expansion using restr…

www.sciencedirect.com

Medicaid Expansion and Infant Mortality in the United States

Objectives. To explore the effect of Medicaid expansion on US infant mortality rate.Methods. We examined data from 2010 to 2016 and 2014 to 2016 to compare infant mortality rates in states and Washington, DC, that accepted the Affordable Care Act Medicaid ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.nber.org/papers/w26081.pdf

Expanded Medicaid States See Steeper Decline in Cancer Mortality Rate Under ACA

States that expanded Medicaid coverage saw a steeper decline in cancer mortality rate, compared to those that didn’t follow the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010.

www.cancernetwork.com

Association of Medicaid Expansion With Cardiovascular Mortality

This difference-in-differences analysis investigates the association of Medicaid expansion with cardiovascular mortality rates for middle-aged adults using data from 48 states and Washington, DC.

jamanetwork.com

etc.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

There's plenty of evidence that the poor receive a greater proportion of national GDP growth under Democratic presidents than Republican.

And yet the fundamental problem gets worse with every president, not just Republican ones.

Yes. And this is what I would mean by a wider institutional issue with the country. Banks are important. Incredibly important. Also, as major employers of financial experts, a huge source of manpower suitable for government to hire in order to run economic matters, with the increasing "revolving door" between the private and public sectors.

Herein lies both a plus a minus. Banks really are central to the economy, and they and their ex-employees help get things done. The downside is that banks also expect stuff in return, as the entities shuffling around money in a world that increasingly revolves around money have grown increasingly powerful, and that their ex-employees might not be as neutral as we'd like. I would quite like a world where banks were more under the government heel. But I'm very mindful of the fact it's one thing to say it, and another to do it. If you want to face down the banks, bring them to heel, ignore them, that's potentially one hell of a fight and - without due care - potentially very damaging to your administration and possibly the country.

And it signals that banker are legally untouchable no matter the crimes they commit, the Obama administration continued the core problem that bankers are more important than people.

Just as a note, when some of these ex-bank wonks departed the Obama administration, it's reported Biden said to them something like "Where do you guys come from, and have you ever lived in the real world?" I'm pretty sure that wasn't a compliment. He might not be willing to fight them, but he might not be their patsy either.

That's plain laughable considering he's the senator and architect of the biggest on-shore tax haven in America who has spent decades fighting for the big banks and their ability to screw over everyone else.

One of the key positions of the left, student loans being an unreasonable anchor around people's necks, is very specifically Biden's fault, as he pushed through legislation to make student loans, specifically, not able to be settled through bankruptcy. He is 200% a patsy for bankers.

Joe Biden Serves Wall Street, Not Main Street

He has relied and continues to rely on the campaign contributions of Wall Street and billionaires, including union busting law firms.

www.commondreams.org

Well, I think as above he made three substantial policies that would achieve long term results; but the key issues are a) "long term" and that b) Trump has substantially impeded them such the gains aren't materialising.

There's not really a long term anymore though. There can't be a long term. It's already too late in many respects.

Did the ACA Medicaid expansion save lives?

We estimate the effect of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion on county-level mortality in the first four years following expansion using restr…

www.sciencedirect.com

Medicaid Expansion and Infant Mortality in the United States

Objectives. To explore the effect of Medicaid expansion on US infant mortality rate.Methods. We examined data from 2010 to 2016 and 2014 to 2016 to compare infant mortality rates in states and Washington, DC, that accepted the Affordable Care Act Medicaid ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.nber.org/papers/w26081.pdf

Expanded Medicaid States See Steeper Decline in Cancer Mortality Rate Under ACA

States that expanded Medicaid coverage saw a steeper decline in cancer mortality rate, compared to those that didn’t follow the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010.

www.cancernetwork.com

Association of Medicaid Expansion With Cardiovascular Mortality

This difference-in-differences analysis investigates the association of Medicaid expansion with cardiovascular mortality rates for middle-aged adults using data from 48 states and Washington, DC.

jamanetwork.com

etc.

This part's hard, the ACA is more than the Medicaid expansions, but the Medicaid expansions are the strongest area of the ACA. The plan overall can't be said to have helped America, but there is something to be said that it has helped some of the people who needed help. It's both the strongest argument you can make, but also you'll find very very little talk about how the marketplace and subsidized private insurance have changed things. It's easily the worst part about the ACA and a lot of the problem with the plan.

It is however telling when the ACA has very mixed reception, but Medicaid expansions are approved of in red states. It's almost like the entire advantage of the ACA could be replicated and strengthened by M4A, and it would be more popular than the Frankenstein's monster of compromise and mixed outcomes of the ACA. It is further telling that Biden isn't here to defend that part of the ACA. He will by proxy of it being part of the ACA, even I don't think he would sabotage the Medicaid expansions, but he's not a fan of Medicare/Medicaid and what he wants is to further strengthen the parts of the ACA that don't work, like the marketplace and COBRA expansions.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

In other Biden news, racism!


More racism, and an ironic flub in trying to say "mental fitness" when defending his mental fitness!

 

[Seanchaidh]

Then do not pretend to be more moral or just than those you fight. You are merely playing the game of power for power sake and not some greater goal. You are as malicious as those you fight and you will have to live with that

This is an incredible summation of the pathology that exists within the Democratic Party today. Deathly allergic to pursuing or exercising power, morally confused to the point of equating self-defense with aggression. Thank you.

Spoiler: gigantic image

 

[Seanchaidh]

In other Biden news, racism!

Ah, but have you seen the context? It makes it so much bet-- just kidding, he rambles incoherently about stuff and then drops that out of basically nowhere.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Ah, but have you seen the context? It makes it so much bet-- just kidding, he rambles incoherently about stuff and then drops that out of basically nowhere.

Well at least he apologized and walked it back.


JK he said it again later in the day.