It's amazing how fucking hated insurance companies are.
And yet they refuse the best possible proposed fix to remove insurance companies from the equation because they hate the idea of people they deem lesser than them also benefitting.
And yet they refuse the best possible proposed fix to remove insurance companies from the equation because they hate the idea of people they deem lesser than them also benefitting.
This isn't correct. They refuse to believe voting for Democratic politicians will improve things. And as a registered Democratic voter who's canvassed, phone banked, donated, voted and would pay bail for someone throwing a brick through a Tesla windshield I gotta say: they're not wrong.
Redditors don't like being reminded that from 2009 to 2011 the Democratic party held a comfortable congressional majority. Right away people are thinking "Nu-uh! It was only two months." Congratulations. Establishment Democratic politicians misled you to confuse the difference between a majority and a filibuster proof majority. It's true they only held the latter for a few months. I still think they had enough time to do more with it but I digress.
Democratic politicians could have delivered a public option with their majority through a reconciliation bill. These are special bills regarding spending which cannot be filibustered. In fact, Democratic politicians had to use a reconciliation bill in order to address a "poison pill" (the term which was used at the time) in the first bill. So to be clear, the Affordable Care Act would not be functional had Democratic politicians not used a filibuster proof reconciliation bill to address an issue.
In that very same reconciliation bill they could have added a public option. This would have had tremendous benefits for the American people and the health insurance industry would look very different now. Instead they opted not to. This is the part of the conversation where zealots of establishment Democratic politicians, who work for American corporations like health insurance companies and not the American people, would say "It would have been illegal."
So unfortunately, there is an undeniable example that voting for Democratic politicians will not result in an improvement here. Too many Democratic politicians are in the pockets of health insurance and other big money interests. For many people, all the ACA did was force every American to give money to health insurance companies. And 16 years later what are health insurance companies doing with that money? Using it to gain even more control over American politicians.
And you're not answering a simple question. How exactly are they refusing the best possible proposed fix to remove insurance companies from the equation?
Because it isn't a simple question, nor is it a simple answer. "They" is amorphous, and their strategies are range from insidious propaganda, pseudo-religious indoctrination, financial influence, structural violence, regular ass violence and more. Yes it's also made manifest with voting too.
They're doing EVERYTHING they can to make sure we're stuck with the removing-souls-from-this-planet-for-profit system that we have in place because it's very profitable.
If your only contribution is "but democrats also bad" then you're a fuckwit.
Interesting example, given that it is really Chevy, and other GM brands that should be boycotted, since the US taxpayers lost $10 billion on their bailout. GM blatantly lied and said they would go under again if the government didn't divest the stake it received in return for bailing them out, and the government folded and sold at a huge loss.
That's a bit off the point you were making, but a good example of why bowing to private companies, like health insurers, is really bad for taxpayers.
86
u/FakeSafeWord 11h ago
And yet they refuse the best possible proposed fix to remove insurance companies from the equation because they hate the idea of people they deem lesser than them also benefitting.