• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Then weren’t. They had a trifecta for 2 years and it became obvious that they were unwilling to actually fight. They gave up at literally the first sign of resistance. And they haven’t put forward anything that would actually change the system. Just a pay raise.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Then weren’t. They had a trifecta for 2 years and it became obvious that they were unwilling to actually fight.

      You mean the term where the Dems passed the largest healthcare in 40 years with the passing of the ACA (Obamacare)? How is that not an achievement?

      • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        It was literally mitt Romneys Healthcare plan from Massachusetts. They didn’t even get a public option. It was the bare minimum because dems didnt want to mess with the insurance companies that line there pockets.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 hours ago

          It was literally mitt Romneys Healthcare plan from Massachusetts.

          I don’t care who gets the credit for the original model. Most Americans had FAR less healthcare options before the ACA.

          They didn’t even get a public option. It was the bare minimum because dems didnt want to mess with the insurance companies that line there pockets.

          You’re complaining about how it could be better. Do you not remember what life was like BEFORE the ACA?

          • Being denied for a preexisting condition?
          • Basic wellness care like mammograms not covered?
          • Swiss cheese independent coverage chocked full of “gotcha” exclusions?

          Could it be better? Sure. Was it so much better than the NOTHING we had before? Absolutely!

          • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            bud, that was 16 years ago and the situation has only worsened. maybe its time to stop trotting it out as some grand thing the democrats did and focus on what they’re doing today? which is essentially nothing.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              and focus on what they’re doing today?

              You mean like the recovery of the country from COVID with the American Rescue Plan Act, or Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPs act, Student loan forgiveness? How about repeal of the homophobic “Defense of Marriage Act”? Maybe the Honoring our PACT Act which finally recognized the conditions we put our troops in and covering their health needs resulting from that exposure? Those kind of things?

              • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 hours ago

                Wow! and americans day to day finances havent improved at all! Imagine doing all that and still having people struggling… I wonder…

                Lets go down the list shall we?

                CHIPs act: surprise a bipartisan corporate give away.
                American Rescue Plan Act: corporate give away mixed with one time stimulus for americans.
                Inflation Reduction Act: I actually liked this bill mostly too bad it does nothing for the majority of americans w/ respect to inflation and cost of living.
                Student loan forgiveness: oh you mean the thing biden has slow walked, only managing to clear 9% in 4 years, and is the direct architect of causing? oh you mean the man who also resumed payments for them despite record inflation?
                Defense of Marriage Act: yup wonderful, good job dems! the only thing that doesn’t negatively impact your corporate donors you got done!
                Honoring our PACT Act: Oh you mean health care in america is fucking horrible? color me surprised, yet another excuse to not actually fix our health care system.

                seriously man. think about these things before you post them. I’m not opposed to many of these bills but NONE of them improve the general well being of the american worker or their families.

                Do people still need to worry about their health coverage if they lose their jobs? Yes? oh.
                Do people still need to work multiple jobs to make ends meet in many areas? Yes? oh.
                Do people still have no protections for medical, family, vacation? Yes? oh.
                Do people still have to go into massive debt for an education? Yes? oh.
                Do sexual orientations still have no protections within the workplace? yes? oh.

                Until the democrats begin addressing these issues for working americans they won’t have the support of myself or individuals like me. Don’t even get me fucking started on the widespread genocidal support, moral bankruptcy, and graft within the party.

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  I’m not opposed to many of these bills but NONE of them improve the general well being of the american worker or their families.

                  You have a very specific definition of any legislative success. You have a very defined view (regardless if I agree with it or not).

                  Can you tell me when the last time any level of legislation was passed by any party that would meet your version of success? The only thing I can think of that would meet your very high bar is FDR with the New Deal and other efforts FDR did with the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). Do you have something more recent that 1939?

                  • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 hours ago

                    You have a very specific definition of any legislative success.

                    Not particularly, as I said I believe some of those bills were decent successes, but they wont win votes from working americans. When it comes to winning votes and enacting change you need to accomplish demonstrable improvements to our lives. And yes that list will continuously change as more and more things are improved. That’s a good thing.

                    Do you have something more recent that 1939?

                    smile do you? do you see the problem with the fact you need to go back that far to find anything that helps American’s that you think I’ll accept. The list I mentioned above isn’t some unattainable goal. many countries already have accomplished these things for their people.

      • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        How is that not an achievement?

        Because the Dems let the GOP gut it to get it to pass. The ACA as it is now, and as it was passed back then, was not what we were promised, and we still haven’t gotten the ACA we were promised.

        In fact, Harris dropped support for M4A and didn’t campaign on it, so is that an achievement too? The Dems giving up the fight before it even started? Like they did during this administration, literally bending over any time the GOP put up any kind of resistance to any of the Dems legislation?

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 hours ago

          The Dems let the Dems gut it. There wasn’t a Republican that supported it. The massive partisan wall that created is a huge reason why things are so fucked now.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            The Dems let the Dems gut it.

            I don’t disagree. The original had more stuff in it that I liked.

            There wasn’t a Republican that supported it.

            True. The GOP rejected it for many stupid reasons.

            The massive partisan wall that created is a huge reason why things are so fucked now.

            This statement confuses me. Are you suggesting the Dems should have let the GOP gut it MORE? Are you suggesting the Dems should have dropped the legislation altogether to “keep the peace”? What are you saying the Dems could have done so “things are so fucked now”?

            • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Yes the Dems should have got some gop votes. It may have made the bill slightly worse, but not by much. In return the Democrats would have had far more negotiating power with there own members if there were a couple of the more purple Republicans that they could count on instead. It also would have prevented the bill from being a great campaign piece for Republicans, and it might not have resulted in one of the largest midterm swings ever.

              Getting 95% of the ACA and a Congress that wasn’t deadlocked for the next 6 years would have been much better overall. A split government that functioned more like under Clinton or Bush would have been much better than what ended up happening. The decision to stonewall when they had power unsurprisingly backfired.

              • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                Yes the Dems should have got some gop votes. It may have made the bill slightly worse, but not by much.

                …and…

                Getting 95% of the ACA and a Congress that wasn’t deadlocked for the next 6 years would have been much better overall.

                The GOP were looking to deny any Obama passage of positive legislation. Are you not remembering “make him a one term President” message from the GOP?

                There was ZERO amount of cooperate the GOP were willing to have on any bill that would give Obama a healthcare win.

                A split government that functioned more like under Clinton or Bush would have been much better than what ended up happening. The decision to stonewall when they had power unsurprisingly backfired.

                “make him a one term President”

                • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  There’s always rhetoric, but completely shutting out the opposition for major legislation was just not done.

                  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 hours ago

                    There’s always rhetoric, but completely shutting out the opposition for major legislation was just not done.

                    History doesn’t support your statement.

                    Feel free to show me legislation that was later signed during the first quarter of the Obama administration that wasn’t passed on nearly party lines. I took a look and couldn’t find any.

              • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                uhhhh, literally the bill was designed and discussed with the GOP they just refused to support it after they basically got it watered down. then there was the ol’ whats his face dem that refused to vote for it without removing the public option.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Because the Dems let the GOP gut it to get it to pass. The ACA as it is now, and as it was passed back then, was not what we were promised, and we still haven’t gotten the ACA we were promised.

          Perfect is the enemy of good.

          What Obama signed with the ACA was far better than the situation before it.

          • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Right, must be why I don’t have health insurance via the ACA because it’s unaffordable.

            I make too much to qualify for actual help, but not enough to actually afford their awful health insurance plans with deductibles that negate the entire point of insurance to begin with.

            And it’s all about to be undone anyway, so let’s keep singing the praises of the Democrat’s least-failure in the last decade.

            Perfect is the enemy of good.

            Which must be why the DNC has adopted “Progress is the enemy of our money.”

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Right, must be why I don’t have health insurance via the ACA because it’s unaffordable. I make too much to qualify for actual help, but not enough to actually afford their awful health insurance plans with deductibles that negate the entire point of insurance to begin with.

              Are you possibly living in a state where your GOP leadership refused to extend Medicaid which was part of the ACA? If so, you can’t complain about what the ACA doesn’t do for you if your state chose not to use it.

              • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 hours ago

                I live in a blue state in the Northeast, we went to Harris, and we’ve had a Democratic governor since at least the mid-2000s.

                So am I allowed to complain?

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  Did you miss the “if so” in my post?

                  You’re communicating you’re making over $61k/year and saying you can’t afford an ACA approved healthcare policy, correct?

                  • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 hours ago

                    You’re communicating you’re making over $61k/year

                    I’m communicating I cannot afford ACA healthcare, you all keep throwing out the $61k/year salary. I did the math, even if I hadn’t lost however much unpaid time off to depression this last year, the most I would have made between my salary and my disability was $58k.

                    When I put all of this information into my states ACA marketplace back in August of this year at the behest of my therapist, I was told I qualified for plans via subsidies, but made too much to just qualify for the state’s plan.

                    The first plan I found that I felt was reasonable, reasonable, not good, just reasonable, was just under $400/month with the subsidy, didn’t have my therapist in network, and still had a $6k+ deductible. The cheapest plan had a deductible over $10k, and cost around $260ish a month.

                    I can’t afford that, I’m sorry, between my mortgage, my car, insurance, utilities, bills, food, gas, credit card debt, etc, I don’t have an extra $260-$400 a month for health insurance. I just don’t, I’m sorry, wish I was as financially astute as everyone else on here seems to be, so I guess just fuck me.

                    But I’m not, hence why I think the ACA being held aloft like some grand triumph is a joke, especially considering John Oliver even has a segment on the Medicaid gap, and how people who should be covered aren’t due to a myriad of reasons.

                    Best health insurance I ever had was Tricare, which is literally what America should have, and is arguably one of the largest socialist programs in the US. We did single payer already, for the military, and it’s amazing. The ACA are the crumbs the liberal elite felt we deserved, and I will never not be pissed about it when I’ve seen we know how to do it right.

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  No, this happens in states like MA/Cali too.

                  “Who is eligible for health insurance subsidies?” source

                  Household size

                  • 1 person max income $60,240

                  If thats the case then @BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world is saying they make more than $61k/year and can’t afford $264/month with a $6300 annual deductible?

                  • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 hours ago

                    Maybe you should look into what that bronze plan actually covers. if you have any real medical issues you’re definitely losing of a minimum 15% of your income in just medical expenses. Never mind taxes, food, housing, transport, clothing, saving for retirement (which this hypothetical person almost certainly can’t do on 61k). Never mind the idea of having your own place, a family, etc.

                    But I guess you think people should just work just so they can pay medical bills. :shrug:

      • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I’m so thankful my premiums doubled, now someone with a preexisting condition can pay $500 a month for a 50k deductible! So much hope and change!

        I don’t think drumpf has killed a citizen without due process yet, but when he does he can thank Obama for paving the way.

        Obama fucking sucked, but he was a charismatic media darling and liberals ate that shit up just like the cons do with drumpf.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I’m so thankful my premiums doubled,

          Are you a guy? If so you many not know that men like us were paying FAR LESS for healthcare than women of our exact same age. I learned this when my woman co-worker (same age) and I were comparing pay stubs many years ago (and many years prior to the ACA). As a young 20 year old man I was paying $30/paycheck. She was paying $124/paycheck simply because she was a woman.

          This is one of the things the ACA fixed, and I agree with it. Men pay the same as women under the ACA.

          Another thing that the ACA fixed was “swiss cheese” insurance. Insurance policies were filled with tons of tiny exclusions where you would be paying for premiums for months or years and when you finally needed it for something big, they’d point out fine print and you’d have no coverage. The ACA stopped that and made all insurance plans have a basic level of coverage they couldn’t weasel out of. So you may have been paying cheap premiums before for insurance that would give you the finger when you needed it. The ACA fixed this. You’re paying now for coverage that actually covers what it says.

          now someone with a preexisting condition can pay $500 a month for a 50k deductible! So much hope and change!

          I don’t know how much you know about chronic health problems that were previously called “pre-existing conditions”. $500 a month for a 50k deductible would a godsend for many prior to the ACA. Treatment can cost literally millions of dollars, and if $50k covers that, its amazing.

          You may not have a condition that needs this today, but you may in the future. You’d be thankful you would be covered by the ACA rules.