politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That is false. It's been trending upwards for some time and has never been so high.
The reason's are irrelevant. Fact is, majority wanted it and continue to not get it due to corporate lobbying. This is a common and growing trend within American politics. Again, because of lobbying.
It's not false. Cost of money.
Well, thats sort of the reason Univeral health care failed, yes. The majority of people were polled on it. If I remember right it was inconclusive. Lobbying didn't have much to do with it. It was one Senator.
So here's what happened...the Senate during the Health Care debate had very tight voting. During the creation of ACA, Senator Sanders introduced 'Meicare for All' which would give you universal health care. He got support to proceed. Then an independent Senator, Joe Libberman from New Hampshire without whose vote the bill could not proceed to the floor, killed it. Why? Because New Hampshire is home to a lot of insurance companies that would lose money. Pretty sure they would lay off a lot of people too. So, you see he did listen to his constitutes.
Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucused with democrats from Connecticut, listened to the businesses in Connecticut, not his constituents. They didn’t re-elect him, but that’s cold comfort.
Yeah, but there is no doubt those constitutes would have been affected.
Of course we were affected. The last year I lived in Connecticut, I paid $13k for healthcare, as a mostly healthy person in my 20s.
You would have paid the same with Univeral Healthcare, but if you worked f9r a Connecticut insurance com0any you'd be out of work.
Other countries with universal healthcare don’t pay nearly as much as Americans do and not every industry needs to be saved. Health insurance companies are not even the biggest insurance employer in Connecticut, the vast majority of people in Connecticut had a net loss in not getting single payer through.
A lot of other countries own their entire health care structure. Hospitals, the whole lot. That isn't part of Universal health care and is the big component to lower costs overall.
Some, but a lot don’t. Even if that was the only way to reduce healthcare costs, it would be a great application for eminent domain. Luckily, everyone else has a better solution than ours.
The US is a big country in size and population. So, efforts in this area aren't easy and very expensive. If you maintain everyone to have insurance, as with the ACA, you can lower about 1/3 of health care costs. Move to Universal Care, you're looking at almost 2/3. Nationalize the entire Healthcare structure and you'll see almost 3/3. I don't really see that last one happening in my lifetime. It took a lot to convince people the ACA was good for them.
So we agree that Joe Lieberman voted against the interests of his constituents (the difference between the 1/3 and 2/3 of savings).
I agree that Joe was listening to those constituents who wanted to keep their jobs. And, if the public would have given democrats more of a majority in the Senate he wouldn't have been an issue.
So 25k people vs 3 million? That’s not called listening to your constituents. He had been a democrat until a few years before this and broke ranks because of the Iraq war, so his disagreement on this issue came as a surprise to many Connecticut voters.
That's nonsense. There is no reason to continue here.
That’s disappointing, as I haven’t said anything untrue, but it doesn’t seem to have an impact on you, so you’re probably correct that there’s no point in continuing. I would encourage you to read more about Joe Lieberman, though.
You seem to suppose an entire population has the same opinion you do. This is not the case. You are not logical but wish me to spend time in dialog. I'm going to block you due to persistent nonsense.
As of August, AIPAC has already spent over $100 million on lobbying breaking previous records. And the election isnt even over. They spent a significant amount of money to replace 2 Democratic congress members who were vocally pro Palestine to be replaced with pro Israel advocates. Biden has received more money than any other US senator from pro Israeli advocates. And now he is ignoring the voice of the majority in favor of these lobbyists. If you're going to sit there and tell me this is business as usual and this isn't a problem, then you're going to have to actually explain your reasoning here.
So in essence، a body of elected representatives ignored the voice of the majority of their constituents in favor of corporate interests. Do you not see how you just proved my original point?