Joe Biden backs away from a public option.

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
29,309
1,194
118
I've had the same position since the fucking start. You've hallucinated other political positions and projected them onto me, because you seemingly can't comprehend that disagreement on something like probability can come from a place that isn't despicable centrist heresy.

And then, when I'm forced to disown a position I never advocated in the first place, that's "nitpicking". Okay, what-the-fuck-ever.
What fucking probability?! This is the first time you've brought up anything like that! Like everything else you say, it comes out of nowhere.

EDIT: Like I'm not crazy right?

Pretty disappointing.

But it's worth noting the article is specifically about how the COVID-19 response/ vaccination plan doesn't include a public option & lifts from private insurers. It's not his long-term healthcare plan, which still includes a public option according to his website.

That's kind of to be expected, really. Complete healthcare overhaul is direly overdue, but it's simply not going to be immediate due to the legislative process in the US. It was never going to be ready to go in time for the emergency vaccination provision, which needs to happen immediately.
Your first post in this thread was to link the relief bill to the vaccine plan, which doesn't make sense, and use that to say it's okay that the relief bill shouldn't have medical relief in it?

Or is "That's kind of to be expected" code for something else?
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
1,745
1,189
118
Country
United Kingdom
What fucking probability?! This is the first time you've brought up anything like that! Like everything else you say, it comes out of nowhere.

Your first post in this thread was to link the relief bill to the vaccine plan, which doesn't make sense, and use that to say it's okay that the relief bill shouldn't have medical relief in it?

Or is "That's kind of to be expected" code for something else?
The issue is that you've interpreted that post (the one you've quoted, my first in this thread) as an endorsement of delay. It's not. "That's kind of to be expected" certainly doesn't indicate endorsement of any sort; it's just a lack of surprise.

Jacobin Mag appear to be concluding that because the public option wasn't in this bill, it indicates that it's been dropped. My argument was that it doesn't mean that, so we shouldn't 'abandon all hope' just yet. This wasn't meant to convey that I have immense faith in the corporate Dems to deliver it.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
29,309
1,194
118
The issue is that you've interpreted that post (the one you've quoted, my first in this thread) as an endorsement of delay. It's not. "That's kind of to be expected" certainly doesn't indicate endorsement of any sort; it's just a lack of surprise.

Jacobin Mag appear to be concluding that because the public option wasn't in this bill, it indicates that it's been dropped. My argument was that it doesn't mean that, so we shouldn't 'abandon all hope' just yet. This wasn't meant to convey that I have immense faith in the corporate Dems to deliver it.
That's kind of to be expected, really. Complete healthcare overhaul is direly overdue, but it's simply not going to be immediate due to the legislative process in the US. It was never going to be ready to go in time for the emergency vaccination provision, which needs to happen immediately.
You're going to have to explain real carefully how that's not an endorsement of delay and not more misinformation because the vaccine plan has nothing to do with the relief bill and there is already existing legislation that could have been included to indicate that he intends to keep his promise as well as put that first step forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,469
587
118
That's the thing, people vote for the 2 parties because they don't think anyone else can win (+ the other people don't have millions to throw at ads either) so they vote for against their "worst nightmare". You can vote for other people though, and if everyone did that (just like everyone does for the 2 parties), then other candidates can win.
Sure "if everyone did that", but everyone, or even a worthwhile proportion of everyone won't do that. People don't think the other parties can win, and because lots of them believe that, they are correct. Trying to get a viable third party is just taking votes from one of the big two, and they'd not allow that.

Now, fingers crossed that Trump causes the Republicans to splinter and then the Democrats to get their act together in response to the rules changing, but I still expect that it's the same two parties in the election indefinitely.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,757
2,687
118
Now, fingers crossed that Trump causes the Republicans to splinter and then the Democrats to get their act together in response to the rules changing, but I still expect that it's the same two parties in the election indefinitely.
I don't think the Republicans will splinter. One of the gifts of the right wing is their ability to have titanic, vicious internal disputes and then a split-second later march out for an election in lockstep behind whoever managed to grab power. I wonder if it's their tendency to love and respect authority.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,469
587
118
I don't think the Republicans will splinter. One of the gifts of the right wing is their ability to have titanic, vicious internal disputes and then a split-second later march out for an election in lockstep behind whoever managed to grab power. I wonder if it's their tendency to love and respect authority.
Most likely yeah, I'd be crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
1,745
1,189
118
Country
United Kingdom
You're going to have to explain real carefully how that's not an endorsement of delay
....well, it contains no... words that say we should delay. That would be how.

The basic argument is really pretty simple and has nothing to do with delay. Healthcare reform will, unavoidably, take a long time getting through the legislature, even with all the political will in the world from the top. I don't want it to; its a political reality that it will. If we presume that we need the relief bill to pass as quickly as possible, then including the former with the latter will delay the latter.

I suggested they introduce the reform bill separately, which would avoid this problem and would necessitate no delay. They could do so straight away. I also suggested the relief bill could include provisions for the state to temporarily take over existing infrastructure as an emergency measure to cut out the profit-gouging private medical companies in the meantime.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,034
377
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Sure "if everyone did that", but everyone, or even a worthwhile proportion of everyone won't do that. People don't think the other parties can win, and because lots of them believe that, they are correct. Trying to get a viable third party is just taking votes from one of the big two, and they'd not allow that.

Now, fingers crossed that Trump causes the Republicans to splinter and then the Democrats to get their act together in response to the rules changing, but I still expect that it's the same two parties in the election indefinitely.
It is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy thing. People need to stop thinking of associating with parties, just vote for the person they think is best.

The democrats have their act together, they aren't the party people think they are. And to think the democrats will get their act together is basically the quoted definition of insanity, you know, same thing over again expecting different results.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
29,309
1,194
118
....well, it contains no... words that say we should delay. That would be how.
I also suggested the relief bill could include provisions for the state to temporarily take over existing infrastructure as an emergency measure to cut out the profit-gouging private medical companies in the meantime.
There are many other options available. Democratic lawmakers could choose to rally around existing legislation to enact an emergency Medicare for All program, or they could press for a public option, as the party and its incoming president promised.


Biden could use his executive authority to expand Medicare during the pandemic, using emergency provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Democrats could also seek to expand Medicaid to cover more people.


Instead, Biden is pushing a health insurance expansion that would further enrich insurers and put people on insurance plans that will be too expensive for many of them to use. Democrats should reject this insurance industry cash grab.
Congratulations on being late and not reading the OP? That was literally what was suggested from the start and you threw a fucking hissy fit over it. The whole argument was that there was practical steps Biden could have taken but actively chose not to. What, did you think we were asking for the entire thing all in one go overnight?

You spent this thread arguing against even taking the first step, so I presumed you were talking about delays. since you were constantly saying "it couldn't be done now"

I interpret "it couldn't be done now" as "it'll be done later", which is a delay. Stop the doublespeak.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
373
479
68
Country
Ireland
Congratulations on being late and not reading the OP? That was literally what was suggested from the start and you threw a fucking hissy fit over it. The whole argument was that there was practical steps Biden could have taken but actively chose not to. What, did you think we were asking for the entire thing all in one go overnight?

You spent this thread arguing against even taking the first step, so I presumed you were talking about delays. since you were constantly saying "it couldn't be done now"

I interpret "it couldn't be done now" as "it'll be done later", which is a delay. Stop the doublespeak.
Vote Blue! Drink Coke!



Yeah,yeah a they live reference puts me about on par politically with a 14 year old who still takes the Sex Pistols seriously but honestly it's really not worth trying any harder. If the Chuck Taylor fits.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
May 4, 2020
1,862
634
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
Now, fingers crossed that Trump causes the Republicans to splinter and then the Democrats to get their act together in response to the rules changing, but I still expect that it's the same two parties in the election indefinitely.
All that would happen is the Democrats would start eating each other since they would no longer be united against a single enemy.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
29,309
1,194
118
Vote Blue! Drink Coke!



Yeah,yeah a they live reference puts me about on par politically with a 14 year old who still takes the Sex Pistols seriously but honestly it's really not worth trying any harder. If the Chuck Taylor fits.
They Live references are fine.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenixmgs

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,810
316
88
Country
USA
How many people are actually real democrats or republicans though? If you take the labels off and just looked at what they've done in the past or their current platform, I bet most people wouldn't associate with either party. The republicans screw over most of their voters so do the democrats. All my friends that are left leaning and vote democratic don't really like many democrats. I also think conservative and progressive labels are stupid. I'm a fan whatever policy makes the most sense, I don't care if it's conservative or not. Nuclear power is way better (and greener) than the green energy stuff for example; is that conservative or progressive? What does it even matter? I guess I'm not conservative just based on the fact there's probably better ideas now than past ideas so why stick to past ideas that just aren't the best ideas anymore? Plus conservative values never made America great, it was stuff like slavery (free labor) or WWII where every country but the US basically had to rebuild, every time the US was great, we kinda cheated basically.
Conservative and progressive are philosophically the same position. Conservative seeks to preserve the things we do out of belief those things make society better. Progressive seeks to change policies intending to make society better. All conservative policies were once progressively implemented. All successful progressive policies become conservative. In theory, you can't really be one of the two without being the other without being massively self-contradicting. Why would anyone fight for a progressive policy if they are no longer willing to defend it once it becomes accepted?

The truth of those words gets messed up because most people who consider themselves progressive, outside of weirdos like me, are actually just socially transgressive, and don't understand that indiscriminate opposition to existing social norms does not automatically make progress.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,757
2,687
118
Ooh, Garth Marenghi's Darkplace. Now that's a little known but much loved comedy series.

Conservative and progressive are philosophically the same position.
They are not, and your argument is sophistry.

It is a bit like arguing that limestone is the same as sea life, because at some point sea life died, their remains sank and littered the sea floor, and over the eras these remains coalesced into stone. But this really does not mean that limestone is the same as sea life.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,810
316
88
Country
USA
They are not, and your argument is sophistry.

It is a bit like arguing that limestone is the same as sea life, because at some point sea life died, their remains sank and littered the sea floor, and over the eras these remains coalesced into stone. But this really does not mean that limestone is the same as sea life.
I didn't argue that they are entirely identical things, so your analogy doesn't dispute me. You can absolutely say that limestone and sea life are the same in a sense, the same way I argued conservative and progressive are the same in a sense.

The two positions are the same philosophically. They are both, at heart, pragmatic politics, which is a very different thing than almost every other political philosophy. Liberalism, socialism, communism, anarchism, nationalism... you know, all those -isms, are philosophies with specific ideals that do not change dependent on what the status quo currently is, which is not the same as conservatism and progressivism. Those two are specifically the same in that aspect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,407
1,210
118
Country
United States of America
The two positions are the same philosophically. They are both, at heart, pragmatic politics, which is a very different thing than almost every other political philosophy. Liberalism, socialism, communism, anarchism, nationalism... you know, all those -isms, are philosophies with specific ideals that do not change dependent on what the status quo currently is, which is not the same as conservatism and progressivism. Those two are specifically the same in that aspect.
If what you're saying is that the things you describe as 'conservative' and 'progressive' aren't philosophies at all, that is more or less correct in the sense that 'conservative' and 'progressive' are ways to describe philosophies rather than being philosophies.

Pragmatism without any real goal isn't a philosophy. It's barely even an excuse. In fact, it's not even possible to be pragmatic without a goal-- which is to say, a(t least one) specific ideal.
 

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,070
849
118
Country
Sweden
The two positions are the same philosophically. They are both, at heart, pragmatic politics, which is a very different thing than almost every other political philosophy. Liberalism, socialism, communism, anarchism, nationalism... you know, all those -isms, are philosophies with specific ideals that do not change dependent on what the status quo currently is, which is not the same as conservatism and progressivism. Those two are specifically the same in that aspect.
That both chocolate pudding and shit are malleable and brown does not make them the same, it just means they have similar properties. Conservatism and progressivism hail from very different places, one wanting society to stay as it is the other wanting to change it into something else. That they are both contemporary and what ideas constitute them differs from time to time and place to place does not make them similar, it only means they are not a set of ideological ideas per say but rather two different ideals about what path society should take. As Agema said, your argument is sophistry.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
964
726
98
Country
United States
It's a definitional thing: little c conservative and Big C Conservatism: The Political Stance are two separate things. Same way with liberal, same way with progressive.
28974E6F-1024-42A5-877E-2C32AC6D0126.jpeg

Like, I'm pretty conservative, personally. Takes me a long while to warm up to new ideas and attitudes. But I'm definitely not a Conservative, and I'm not really a Liberal, and I'm sure as fuck not a Neoliberal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera