Party of Big Government Overrides States Rights to Confiscate Private Property

[danjuno]

Why does this discussion focus on the Republicans? A lot of conservatives hate drugs and the Republicans are reputedly the "law and order" party that is more easily pliant to the needs of the prison industry. But they had no control of government for two years. Why wasn't anything done then? Why does it "bug you most" that the party less friendly to drugs is against legalizing them, when the party supposedly gung-ho about legalization didn't even try?

Democrats are very progressive when the legislation they support hasn't a chance in hell of passing.

I would argue that they had bigger fish to fry (you know, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, keeping the international financial system from going all Hindenburg on us, for examples).

And instead of an actual universal healthcare system we got a corporatist Rube Goldberg machine. Time well spent. The public option was killed by Democrats.

 

[Ajidica]

And instead of an actual universal healthcare system we got a corporatist Rube Goldberg machine. Time well spent. The public option was killed by Democrats.

I know it's a very trendy thing to bash on the ACA, and believe me it has plenty of areas for criticism, but it is still a massive improvement over our previous system that addressed some of the most glaring flaws present in the private insurance market. It is quite easy to to forget just how many improvements to the insurance system came out of the ACA. Lifetime caps? Gone. Refusal on pre-existing conditions? Gone. Parental insurance until 26? Really nice. A whole raft of legislation curbed at resitricting or banning the some of the most abusive elements of private insurance markets? Quite nice. It's failures have largely been due to discovering Americans are sicker than previously thought (not a good thing) and our increasingly unworkable federal/"states rights" system that forced the federal government to jury rig a workaround that permitted state governments to intentionally crash and burn the policy. (And, of course, it required a president who wouldn't play fast and loose with subsidy payments.)

 

[Tristan_C]

Alright, it is true that the drug support was not as strong ten years ago, I note especially in 2010 a failed move to fully legalize in California, Proposition 15.

But marijuana tends to gain new support whenever attention is thrown on it, since the case against it is very weak in light of other legal vices. Whereas by pressing the ACA and bank bailouts the Democrats overplayed their hand in that congressional session. I think they assumed a certain amount of solidarity on these big fish that doesn't exist; if they didn't attempt to fry them, they probably would have retained control of the government in 2010.

Democrats are very progressive when the legislation they support hasn't a chance in hell of passing.

A ubiquitous problem. Republicans sure were happy to shove Obamacare repeal bills in Obama's face when it didn't matter. Now that the White House has flipped and the president won't veto, their balls all seem to have dropped off. So they never actually wanted to repeal, huh. Imagine winning every election for eight straight years, locking in new seats and governorships all over the place, all thanks to one issue— get rid of that monster. Then, at the moment of truth it is revealed that you never actually had your heart set on it. Don't these idiots realize they risk getting primaried?

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I know it's a very trendy thing to bash on the ACA, and believe me it has plenty of areas for criticism, but it is still a massive improvement over our previous system that addressed some of the most glaring flaws present in the private insurance market. It is quite easy to to forget just how many improvements to the insurance system came out of the ACA. Lifetime caps? Gone. Refusal on pre-existing conditions? Gone. Parental insurance until 26? Really nice. A whole raft of legislation curbed at resitricting or banning the some of the most abusive elements of private insurance markets? Quite nice. It's failures have largely been due to discovering Americans are sicker than previously thought (not a good thing) and our increasingly unworkable federal/"states rights" system that forced the federal government to jury rig a workaround that permitted state governments to intentionally crash and burn the policy. (And, of course, it required a president who wouldn't play fast and loose with subsidy payments.)

My wife hates the ACA and often says health insurance never should have been messed with. I have to continually remind her of those points. Saying it never should have been messed with means any health issues related to my brother's HepC shouldn't be covered by the insurance he pays for. Saying it never should have been messed with means my friend who hit his lifetime limit due to years of diabetes and needing dialysis should not get care after his kidney and pancreas transplants.

This is definitely an example of the GoP using states' rights for political gain. The states hurt the most by the ACA were red states where governors declined the medicare expansion. They knew they could just point their fingers at Democrats and the ACA. My state has a "right to work conservative governor" and even he realized that doing that would directly hurt the people in his state. Kasich was another rational governor who saw what would happen if he declined the expansion. Others though, they intentionally wanted the ACA to fail so they could reap the political benefits at the expense of voters.

 

[danjuno]

I know it's a very trendy thing to bash on the ACA, and believe me it has plenty of areas for criticism, but it is still a massive improvement over our previous system that addressed some of the most glaring flaws present in the private insurance market. It is quite easy to to forget just how many improvements to the insurance system came out of the ACA. Lifetime caps? Gone. Refusal on pre-existing conditions? Gone. Parental insurance until 26? Really nice. A whole raft of legislation curbed at resitricting or banning the some of the most abusive elements of private insurance markets? Quite nice. It's failures have largely been due to discovering Americans are sicker than previously thought (not a good thing) and our increasingly unworkable federal/"states rights" system that forced the federal government to jury rig a workaround that permitted state governments to intentionally crash and burn the policy. (And, of course, it required a president who wouldn't play fast and loose with subsidy payments.)

This isn't about ACA vs what the US HC system was before, this is about the Dems having the opportunity to implement an actual UHC program like they had talked about in 2008 and not doing it.

 

[Ajidica]

But marijuana tends to gain new support whenever attention is thrown on it, since the case against it is very weak in light of other legal vices. Whereas by pressing the ACA and bank bailouts the Democrats overplayed their hand in that congressional session. I think they assumed a certain amount of solidarity on these big fish that doesn't exist; if they didn't attempt to fry them, they probably would have retained control of the government in 2010.

I'm perfectly happy the Dems went after health care reform over legalizing weed. Access to weed is not a life or death situation. (In before the "I need weed to manage my chronic pain" crowd.)

This isn't about ACA vs what the US HC system was before, this is about the Dems having the opportunity to implement an actual UHC program like they had talked about in 2008 and not doing it.

I was under the impression that the only one contemplating a UHC in 2008 was Hillary; with Obama favoring an expanded Medicaid coupled with insurance market reform. UHC was just a bridge too far at the time (and still is). Had the Democrats reached for UHC it would have failed and in turn sank their whole health care reform program. I'm in favor of creating an (American) National Health Service; but it just wasn't going to happen at the time.

 

[Cutlass]

There was ample opportunity for the Democrats to deal with this years ago. The 111th congress (2008-2010) was an augmented D majority, and they controlled the White House. Why wasn't weed legalized? Why weren't other drugs decriminalized? Procedure could have been employed to break a senate fillibuster (as per Obamacare), and of course there would have been no veto.

Why does this discussion focus on the Republicans? A lot of conservatives hate drugs and the Republicans are reputedly the "law and order" party that is more easily pliant to the needs of the prison industry. But they had no control of government for two years. Why wasn't anything done then? Why does it "bug you most" that the party less friendly to drugs is against legalizing them, when the party supposedly gung-ho about legalization didn't even try?

Because the Democratic party is at least 1/4+ a conservative party. Having a Democratic majority does not equal having a liberal majority, or even a moderate majority.

 

[Ajidica]

Because the Democratic party is at least 1/4+ a conservative party. Having a Democratic majority does not equal having a liberal majority, or even a moderate majority.

Given the ACA is solidly to the right of Angela Merkel, it doesn't even equate to a left-of-center majority.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I'm perfectly happy the Dems went after health care reform over legalizing weed. Access to weed is not a life or death situation. (In before the "I need weed to manage my chronic pain" crowd.)


I was under the impression that the only one contemplating a UHC in 2008 was Hillary; with Obama favoring an expanded Medicaid coupled with insurance market reform. UHC was just a bridge too far at the time (and still is). Had the Democrats reached for UHC it would have failed and in turn sank their whole health care reform program. I'm in favor of creating an (American) National Health Service; but it just wasn't going to happen at the time.

UHC's been considered in the past but they've never had a push like now. Part of it is the "underemployment" problem we've had since the recession. Jobs with good benefit packages aren't as plentiful as they were before the recession. I think that's why the ACA had that full time requirement, unfortunately that just caused employers to cut hours to avoid paying benefits. Anyway, that's always been the primary way for Americans to get health insurance and it's kind of drying up. The other reason is that a third of the voting age Americans is young enough to not grow up with Cold War propaganda against socialism. That's what really prevented it in the past. They're (news outlets, conservatives, lobbyist shills) still trying to use socialism as a scary buzz word but it really doesn't have the same effect on Millennials who see relatively successful UHCs in Europe and around the world while falling victim to our capitalist system.

Given the ACA is solidly to the right of Angela Merkel, it doesn't even equate to a left-of-center majority.

Wasn't the ACA essentially written by the Heritage Foundation? From what I understand we'd have got it with either Obama or Romney. Didn't really matter who the president was.

 

[Cutlass]

Wasn't the ACA essentially written by the Heritage Foundation? From what I understand we'd have got it with either Obama or Romney. Didn't really matter who the president was.

ACA is a conservative program. But it would not have passed had either McCain or Romney been president. Because Republicans in Congress wouldn't have allowed it to.

 

[danjuno]

I was under the impression that the only one contemplating a UHC in 2008 was Hillary; with Obama favoring an expanded Medicaid coupled with insurance market reform. UHC was just a bridge too far at the time (and still is). Had the Democrats reached for UHC it would have failed and in turn sank their whole health care reform program. I'm in favor of creating an (American) National Health Service; but it just wasn't going to happen at the time.

The only people in a position to sink it were the Ds who thought being "moderate" would save them in the midterms. Hence it is the Democrats' fault. The Democrats did the "realistic" thing and still got hosed in the midterms. The Congressional Dems threw millions of people under the bus in a failed bid to save their bacon.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm perfectly happy the Dems went after health care reform over legalizing weed. Access to weed is not a life or death situation. (In before the "I need weed to manage my chronic pain" crowd.)

Other than the millions in jails or coffins because of the drug war, but you're happy and thats what matters

 

[Ajidica]

The only people in a position to sink it were the Ds who thought being "moderate" would save them in the midterms. Hence it is the Democrats' fault. The Democrats did the "realistic" thing and still got hosed in the midterms. The Congressional Dems threw millions of people under the bus in a failed bid to save their bacon.

The Democrats just barely got a health care overhaul through congress and the perpetual attempt of congresscritters to drive any legislative agenda they come across into a ditch. As much as I would like the creation of a National Health Service in America, I also accept that just isn't happening any time soon and people on the left should stop treating the ACA as if it was some type of Faustian bargain used by the evil Corporatists and their running dogs to pull the wool over our eyes. The ACA is riddled with problems -from both a practical and ideological perspective- it is doing a far better job than what health insurance was like before it.

Other than the millions in jails or coffins because of the drug war, but you're happy and thats what matters

Not sure if you are using my post to beat a dead horse, or because you don't agree with there being a wide spectrum of approaches between "fully legal" and "throw everyone who makes a 420 Blazin joke in jail".
Weed is illegal, no two ways about it, and people who choose to take it in a jurisdiction where it is illegal are taking a risk. Now, I personally believe it should be legal but it is ranked around 11 or 12 on my "Top 10 Government Priorities", somewhere below "throwing the fraudsters up in Wall Street into jail for the rest of their natural lives" and "keeping lead out of drinking water is nice, mmkay?". Given limited political capital and other issues facing the country, I believe Obama took a pretty good position in directing federal law enforcement to not get their panties in a twist about throwing Bob the Stoner into jail over a Ziploc baggie and letting states know they weren't going to challenge their laws - all of which can be accomplished via executive order. Getting a federal weed legalization past Jefferson Beauregard "I liked the KKK until I learned they smoked weed" Sessions and Reefer Madness crowd wasn't going to happen and would be ultimately futile.

 

[Berzerker]

The feds weren't putting Bob in jail and Obama raided more medical pot suppliers than Bush and Obama kept raiding medical pot suppliers after the courts told him to stop. We cant get legalization by the Dems and Sessions dont write laws any more.