Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama backs Wyden-Brown state waivers for Affordable Care Act (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And this is the problem (0+ / 0-)

    with state level governance in a federal system. If CA goes for single-payer in-state, that means all the insurance companies who see CA as their main cash cow will simply and drasticallly raise the rates everywhere else. Until there is some sort of overarching option for the public at the national level, most people in most places get severely pwned yet again.

    •  The states who don't want "government controlled (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roadbear, createpeace, Catsmeat

      healthcare" will feel the full brunt of corporate controlled healthcare.  Let's see how long they can handle that.  

      Fuck em and the teabag they rode in on.

      http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5451051231

      by alfredo on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 08:52:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  perhaps that is what it will take (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade, roadbear, createpeace

      For people in those states to get upset enough to change it.  They'll be looking over at CA and saying, why can't we pay that?

      Nothing like the alternative to make people get off their duff and do something.  Evidence Wisc.

      •  That's the theory, sure. (0+ / 0-)

        Wisconsin, though, has a long and proud heritage of socially active participation in leftist causes, even amidst their rightward migration lately. Madison, especially, has a vibrant leftie tilt. Do you think the same kind of uprising could have taken place in Eau Claire? I kinda doubt it. Luck of capital geography.
        Where else in the country can you point to since Reagan took office that something like this--that has been this effective--has taken place?

        •  must it always be a protest? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          roadbear, TerryDarc

          I thought that the election of Barack Obama as president was pretty phenomenal myself.  If you think about it, it really shouldn't have happened... but it did.  It was only a political push of the people that made it so, helped in large part by the Internet no?

          There are other fights that happen locally, marriage equality is one example.  In my state it's been a lot of time and effort and failed attempts to get to where we are.  But if we were not allowed to pursue it as a state, and instead had to have some national agreement, I doubt we'd be this far.

          •  I bet (0+ / 0-)

            Obama's election will be viewed down the line more as a rejection of Republican/Bush excesses than anything else; election night for me was bittersweet, given that I live in CA and had to endure the passage of Prop H8. And I think that was a sadly perfect encapsulation of 2008. Obama is not a signal event marking a swinging back of a pendulum--we wouldn't have lost the House in 2010 if it was.
            I'm not sure why you think it shouldn't have happened: why shouldn't it have? I honestly believe we could have nominated anybody and won in 2008--a vote for Obama was a vote against Republicans by many, many people. I see him as the new version of Jimmy Carter, in that sense, if not others.
            I thought you were pointing to what's happening in Wisky as a public outcry against rightwing encroachments, which is how I see it and its uniqueness. "A lot of time and effort and failed attempts" does not sound like what's happening there at all to me.

            •  it should have been Hillary Clinton (0+ / 0-)

              I'm talking about the primary campaign for starters - no way should a freshman Senator have been able to take down someone with that kind of credentials, and that kind of political mojo, and with the big dog in her corner?  Wow... it's kind of jaw dropping when you step back and look at it.

              That whole election was a public outcry though.  A lot of people became engaged in the process that don't normally.  That's why I say it doesn't have to be a protest, even though protests bring fresh energy.  All we really need for change is for people to show up and vote.

              •  Yeah, but (0+ / 0-)

                Hillary's campaign was "fraught" with uniqueness, too, so saying it "should" have been her ignores that fact. You could have been making the same argument about her if she had won against John Kerry, or some other white male Dem with national stature.
                Considering the severe baggage Hillary was carrying, I am/was not at all surprised that she lost the primary, and there is a rich heritage of underdog/unknowns winning the Presidency. It wasn't jaw dropping at all to me.
                Every election we get new blood and lose some old; nature of the beast. What happened after was what has been indicative, though, of this kind of "uprising". They stopped rising up, for whatever reasons they have. I voted for the first time in 1980 and promptly stopped voting again until 1992, and I don't think that my experience is unique. You are right: we need for people to show up and vote. But they don't, so wishing for it (and I'm not damning you for doing so or even saying you are), let alone relying on it to enact change is a fool's game--it's never happened. In this country, at least, massive, groundbreaking change has always come from above. Abolitionists struggled for decades and failed. Lincoln--who was not an abolitionist, really--won election and slavery ended in a few short bloody years. Populists and Progressives waved banners and struck for 50 years off and on, but it took FDR's New Deal to solidify and codify much of what those organizations strived for.
                All of which would seem to support your thesis, but if abolitionists, Populists, and Progressives hadn't taken to the streets for those hard and long years, figuratively and literally, I would wager our nation's history would look a lot differently and a lot worse than it does.
                Getting people engaged in electoral politics requires three things: problems that need solving, people willing and able to step up onto the stump to help solve them, and organizations to channel popular energy successfully. We have plenty of the first, but nowhere near enough of the second, apparently, and only the right has enough consistency in the third to produce lasting results.
                People showed up to vote for Obama in 2008, but it is hard to claim that he has been in any way transformative, and because of that, I would say, those same voters didn't show up in 2010. The fact that his defenders have to strain so greatly to convince us differently proves the point. He is not going to be the country's savior that imho we need right now, and with that lost opportunity (if it truly existed at all), I think we're doomed for the rest of my lifetime.

        •  it seems to be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wsexson

          spreading as last weekend showed. People, have no choice in many cases, they are limited to Coke or Pepsi looks to me like they are sick of the lot of them. The Democrat's better respond to the populist stirrings and start representing the people, fighting for them. People are not going to vote or get 'enthusiastic' about just another new boss same as the old boss when they are hurting like this. Elections count as Nancy once said, as she promptly  took all remedies off the table.  

          •  We shall see, to be sure (0+ / 0-)

            I hope you are correct about the spread. Republicans still control the majority of the states, though, and will blow apart most of the redistricting chances we had to introduce fairer districts and a more correct representation in Congress. Iirc, most of the states losing reps are blue, making it even worse.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site