I still count myself as a liberal (more classical than modern) these days but I can't help but view a lot of standard progressive empty promises through an O'Rourke-ian lens.
It'd be more informative to look at who's funding healthcare now, including the private portions. I doubt very much that the bottom 50% are only covering 3% of that.
Again, can you show us the numbers? "A guy claimed it was so on the Internet" isn't really useful later as a source.
https://novaramedia.com/2021/08/30/david-graeber-was-right-a...
It is a moral hazard. First, it amounts to a giveaway to people aren't necessarily all that sympathetic -- people who can afford to go to college at all, even if they borrowed money to do it. Remember how much of the population couldn't even get that far. Second, any kind of student debt jubilee without first reforming the system just invites every future student to take as many loans as possible with the expectation that they too will have their debt forgiven.
You mean because of the sizable labor black market would shrivel up and suddenly all of these laborers would be able to collect on benefits on the taxes they've paid on the system? there is a good question there.
What is the approximate size of benefits that are getting funded but lie unclaimed by black market labor?
That sounds uncharitable, yes. But the same contingent that claims we cannot feasibly support universal healthcare due to the bottom 50% being essentially leeches on society happens to be the same people who insist that we cannot improve income for the bottom 50% because the free market is speaking.
Giving free healthcare to all the illegal immigrants would cost $100 billion; switching the single payer would save Americans a trillion.
> It sounds nice, until you think about the obvious result.
Making up a nice story isn't really "thinking". Let's see your actual numbers.
> Making up a nice story isn't really "thinking". Let's see your actual numbers.
Let's see yours. Trusting a politician's estimate for a bureaucrat's dream money pit is naivete at its peak.
According to this article: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-system..., savings of 3.5% are likely in the first year of a single payer plan.
Edit: according to Bernie Sanders' plan, the total cost would be $32 trillion over 10 years. Here's a nice article debunking that claim: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-a...
There is an adaptive and maladaptive side to that psychology.
The adaptive side is that all plans tend to work out at less than 100%. If you aspire to something just past your destination, you may actually reach where you originally wanted to go. If you aim right for it, you'll fall short. Also, reality doesn't always make it clear where the real boundaries are. Often you can accomplish more than is apparently possible if you have the courage to try.
The maladaptive side is considering any policy too coupled to reality as stinking of compromise and defeatism, or as a designed-to-fail Trojan horse from the other side. Any idea that might actually be feasible instead becomes suspect by virtue of its feasibility. The only goals you feel comfortable holding in your heart are ones that never risk getting sullied by any actual incremental progress.
I think progressives in the past used to be better at keeping their eyes on the future while getting their hands dirty with today's work. But, perhaps because of decades of horror shows like the War in Iraq, climate change, rising inequality, corporate take-over of culture, and political polarization, I see less of the latter. There's a sort of fatalism of prefering to die a martyr with hands unstained by sin than possibly staving off death by consorting with the enemy.
The Democrats have tried to "consort with the enemy" for three decades now, and all that happens is that the Republicans move further to the right and laugh at them.
For a while. It's easy to win by playing the villain in a single round prison's dilemma, but less so when iterated.
If you compromise and cooperate with the other party, some fraction of time you will make progress, and some fraction of time you'll get screwed because they're cooperation was a bad-faith trap.
It's certainly the case that at least since New Gingrich the odds of the former have grown much higher when Democratic politicians try to work with Republicans.
I think history will look back and see that Newt Gingrich shares a disproportionately large share of the blame for the tribal politics we are experiencing now. He wasn't first, but he was effective.
Much as I loath Gingrich, I think that the blame for transformation of political culture that he has gotten really from day one of his speakership is overblown, and that the two main factors are:
(1) the reversion to the normal alignment of partisan and ideological divides as the long era of the overlapping realignments of the post-Depression era (New Deal and Civil Rights) and,
(2) Clinton’s political triangulation strategy reducing opportunity for partisan differentiation on a wide range of high-saliency policy issues, driving a focus on personal and culture war issues as well as a rightward policy shift to re-enable differentiation on those issues (which itself required relying on personal and cultural identity politics heavily.)
Gingrich, was a problem, to be sure, but there is always a Gingrich around (many of them), but he became successful when he did because both structural forces and choices by the other party created an environment in which his approach would be rewarded.
If you mean idealism as a way of conducting your personal life, I don't think it has anything to do with any particular political persuasion.
If you mean idealism as a political philosophy, while I agree this is a defining property of progressives, for liberals, at least the classical liberals that were the original referent of the term, no. (Today "liberal" pretty much means the same thing politically as "progressive", but that wasn't always the case.) Classical Enlightenment liberalism was highly suspicious of idealism as a guiding principle of politics and public policy, because it recognized the limitations of humans. We are simply not smart enough to come up with useful idealism on the scale of a country. Every time we try, it causes far more problems than it solves. Classical liberals preferred to let institutions on a larger scale evolve from the bottom up, as people exercised their individual freedom of choice on a smaller scale and were held accountable by the people they interacted with.
Edit: to keep it in theme with PJ and the article, where PJ says that politicians always want wars on X because it's the only way to get people to move in a direction and they get to wield a baton... Of course such "wars" are only fought because someone makes money regardless of winner or loser, or they aren't really wars. Global Warming? Now THAT'S a war. You know it is, because it is ignored.
It's not generally what the parent means though, they probably meant essentially the powers of the Ds just virtue signal to get votes or rely on the comically evil other side to scare up votes, but never really work for a better welfare state, healthcare/benefits, equality, or the like.
The Biden administration is already a classic example. They could play hardball to get the votes, rein in Manchin, and other techniques. Instead, those minor hurdles are treated as unsolvable barriers and the status quo is maintained.
Because where is Biden from? Same place Obama was: the corporate arm / Democratic Leadership Council. Obama never prosecuted the mortgage crisis, never pursued breaking up the megabanks and monopolies, setup the internment camps for the refugees at our border, used drone assassinations, didn't get out of Iraq/Afghanistan, etc etc etc.
The only thing Obama did well IMO was spur investment in solar and wind, but that may have been an technological evolutionary inevitability. And maybe Obamacare, the right hated it so much it must have some good stuff in it.
"After I broke the news to him that his embedded Atlantic editor and good friend, Michael Kelly, perished on the charge to Baghdad when his Humvee was fired upon and crashed into a canal, I watched P.J. hunt-and-peck out an appreciation of Kelly on my borrowed laptop, tears in his eyes, scotch by his side, but never losing his cool. He peered in on the TV action – Iraqis looting their country like there was an all-you-can-steal fire sale – as he played the faux optimist, cracking, “This will eventually evolve into shopping.” " Goddamn is that funny.