(A lot of people are going to be very mad at me about this comment, without having the awareness to understand that this is the inevitable conclusion to, "You wanna play rough, ah?!"ing people's access to life-saving treatment. Please grok that we can preclude any more assassinations by cutting profits and letting people get the care they need.)
The reaction was short lived while the insurance companies figured out how to bolster security and return to the usual.
Look at what's happening in California with the proposed wealth tax.
>Page’s co-founder, Sergey Brin, has poured at least $45 million into the Building a Better California Super PAC specifically dedicated to blocking the tax
The reason more CEOs getting shot might make a difference is that many CEOs care about status and being able to mention it in the right places. Historically many people love it so much that they call themselves CEOs and Presidents of companies that are small businesses.
If these same people can no longer be open about their role and status, which they value, there will be some kind of change. I'm not sure what it is, but security guards don't restore their freedom to feel thoughtless about their role and lifestyle.
Whereas with taxes... Maybe some people brag about dodging them or their suspect filings that get them big refunds. But they're mostly not public and not tied to identity the same way. And even the wealth tax isn't remotely the same as the public being vocal at large.
For it to be comparable we'd have to have modern highwaymen and Robin Hoods somehow stripping the wealth, not the tax man.
Because the weight of any changes or perceived need to change come from the social burden that public violence would create in the shooting case.
And that doesn't seem to exist near at all with the wealth tax.
This is still a possitive outcome brought from the presence of a threat to their lives. Not as positive as the healthcare thing, but it's still jobs and a "tax" in that they are forced to purchase the vehicles which do have to be built and driven by someone not in their tax bracket.
Congress is our only hope, along with a president who signs reform.
Obama had a generational mandate and couldn't even pass a public option which, is far more moderate than a single payer approach. Even the abomination of the ACA that actually got signed into law was subsequently gutted to the bone in the following years.
There is room for more tweaking, but the system we're living with now is pretty close to what most voters prefer.
The solution is to have both a) mandatory voting and b) a voting holiday. This is done in many other democracies around the world, and it works. Personally I would prefer term limits and age limits for congress, the president, and federal judges. Diane Feinstein, Ruth Bater Ginsberg died in office. Mitch McConnell is working on it. We have age limits for lots of professions that require high performance - political leadership should not be an exception. But of course to make any of these changes young people have to vote, but they're mostly busy being poor and doomscrolling to block out the pain.
-The US has had a lot of success by letting businesses run pretty free. This has produced some of the largest and most powerful companies on the planet.
-The conservative party traditionally has been suspicious of a powerful, centralized government
-In the US, there is a common thread of "government workers are impossible to fire" as well as a common thread of "government moves at a snail's pace".
In light of just that, there are many people who would prefer that healthcare is run by a private industry, as private insurers are enormous companies in the US. Everyone knows Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, or Kaiser Permanente. Many people give a benefit of the doubt that companies are doing things efficiently. Additionally, health insurance companies in the US have a requirement to spend a certain % of their revenue each year on medical care, and will sometimes send out small refunds when they simply cannot suppress costs in certain other regions of the company enough to keep their spending at the right rates.
Beyond this, states may provide additional benefits, and many do (some with the help of federal funding, even). You may find someone in one state where they are suffering greatly, while someone in an identical economic situation in another state is not suffering at all. It's easy to convince the first man to vote for a better healthcare situation. It's hard to convince the latter.
I could go on for ages, but this is getting long. There are like a billion reasons.
The grammar is a little ambiguous around this, but you seem to be claiming that this is a majority position. It isn't. Single payer polls over 50% basically every time it's tested (the exception being some spun partisan reframings you occasionally see pushed), and has for decades.
Sorry, that's ridiculous. Universal Health Care policies are an almost 100% partisan issue. I can literally count on one hand the number of federal lawmakers who cross party lines here.
The real problem is people like you refusing to vote for the people with the policy you want, as often as not as part of a bothsidesist stance designed to get more upvote in peer forums like HN.
The two party system may be flawed and unjust, sure. But people who want single payer are still democrats.
That's a lot of words they didn't say. It is a true statement that Congress did not give the USA single-payer healthcare nor even a public option.
Nothing about that says anything about who voted for whom, where anyone even lives for that matter, or anything about political parties.
To say this is the fault of "people like you" is out of line.
But that is what they didn't say! They said it wasn't "votable", in the sense I took that means that this isn't an issue you can get by voting. And it is, clearly. And was, in 2010, when they were within one senate vote for a "public option" in the ACA. It 100% boggles my mind that you'd look at that once again incredibly partisan voting result and decide "Oh well, I might as well vote republican" (instead of "damn Joe Lieberman").
Who said any of this? "I" said nothing of the sort
I don't think you're going to convince anyone of anything this way. If anything you'll probably end up turning people off who otherwise would have agreed with you
You quite clearly came in to defend someone who did, though. This is the second time you've tried this end-around strawman. Please engage with the discussion as it is.
> "I already have universal healthcare here in Canada"
I don't think I'm the one misreading the discussion as it is.
If you take a deep breath and re-read, maybe you'll understand the point I've been trying to make is you're jumping down people's throats that aren't disagreeing with you, which at best does your own arguments a disservice. To put words in someone's mouth and say this is the fault of 'people like you' is out of line.
Have a good one
But I'm very happy you agree that health care policy in the USA is among the most directly partisan issues and know who to vote for given those priorities.
Edit: and even now you still put words in my mouth with your edit (so that's every message in this thread that does so). Best of luck to you
You just don't think I shouldn't have engaged with advocacy around the issue or taken offense that you and upthread commenters feel that this isn't something that can be... I guess "achieved by voting"[1]. I think that's a weird thing to troll a discussion this deep about, but OK.
[1] Does that match your understanding of the point? Genuine question! I think it's bonkers and wrong, but you seem attached to it and I'd like the opportunity to convince you.
In the 2020 debate, Joe Biden said he would veto Medicare for all*. Just this week, Hakeem Jeffries said he did not support Medicare for all and wouldn't vote for it. You already mentioned Joe Lieberman
None of what I just said implies "it's not partisan" nor does it imply "both sides are the same" -- multiple things can be true at the same time
It sure does, however, reinforce the original, plain statement: "The issue is that the people in Washington won’t make it a 'votable' decision."
*By April 8, 2020, Biden was the "presumptive Democratic nominee" -- at that time, 22 states still hadn't yet held their primary elections. As such, for those 22 states it was quite literally not a votable decision
As the joke goes, "how did God create the universe in 7 days? No installed base"
Oh for... Joe Biden was literally the tiebreaker vote in the senate when the public option was still part of Obamacare and was stumping for it like crazy. MfA is one particular proposal from one particular faction of the party. We aren't talking about MfA specifically, and that's quite clear all the way upthread.
This kind of dissembling and trickery is what's driving me crazy in this thread. You just don't seem to be arguing in good faith. No, Joseph Biden Jr. is very clearly not opposed to government-provided health care, nor is any democrat in office right now that I'm aware of.
"Mostly" partisan. Good grief.
Public option is not single-payer/universal healthcare. Medicare for All is generally used as a synonym for single-payer healthcare in the US. The article stated it models the results of implementing a plan like Medicare for All
"Public option" still results in a vast bureaucracy of "paying for healthcare machinery", and so is scarcely comparable. Note: that does not mean a public option would be a bad thing. But it is not the same thing
I've already wasted way too much time on this, against my better judgement. I tried to leave twice, but third time will be the charm. Be well
Indeed you've wasted too much time on this. And I still have no idea what it is you really are trying to argue about. You agree with me on everything I've tried to pin you down on, and want to dither over tone and jargon when challenged.
There would still be the option of people and businesses to buy 3rd party "extras" like private hospital rooms, vision care etc. on top the state plan, but some level of basic health care would be provided to all people paying into the state plan.
Would that work?
1) In the immediate aftermath of Thompson being shot, policies were deliberately briefly softened. Anecdotally, people were helped to live longer by this. It didn’t last long.
2) The response to Thompson’s assassination was the closest I’ve seen to a class consciousness almost forming in the US, as people from across the political divide who had suffered at the hands of the healthcare insurance companies found common ground.
Probably important to point out here that leftists are looking to see a threat to a corporation's leadership change the behavior of a corporation, whereas right-wingers are looking to see a threat to a government's leadership change everyone's behavior ("overreaching government" in a democracy being the will of voters). They're not the same thing.