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
More people using this isnt a good thing. It's because they can't get full time employment for insurance thru their job
It wouldn't have been enough if Obama got all he asked for. But Dems have held the House and Senate multiple times and show no desire to improve it.
Party leadership should at least be holding votes so that voters in different states can see if their representatives will actually support the party platform.
Health care should never have been dependent on employment in the first place.
It leads to people kowtowing to shitty employers because they can't afford a lapse in health insurance coverage.
As for holding the House and Senate, a mere majority isn't enough when the GOP is determined to filibuster any attempts to do anything to Obamacare except destroy it.
You know what's really depressing?
How that came to happen in America:
https://www.vox.com/23890764/healthcare-insurance-marketplace-open-enrollment-employer-sponsored-united-blue-cross-shield-aetna
We fucking capped salaries.
People want to act like someone saying 100% after a certain threshold is some millennial pipe dream, meanwhile the unironically named "Greatest Generation" flat out said that was too much hassle and there's an upper limit anyone can be paid.
We get rid of it, and wealth equality went crazy and everything else went to shit.
They capped worker salaries to keep costs down during WW2. Strikes were illegal too. Rich people still made a million dollars per year.
If you're right, I've been wrong for 20 years, so I'd appreciate a link showing was literally "workers" and executives were excluded
To my knowledge it limited everyone's salary
It wasn't actually an "upper limit" in WW2. It was a 15% limit on wage increases on any union contracts. If you didn't have a union contract, you could be paid whatever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_War_Labor_Board_(1942%E2%80%931945)
That's different, executive order 9250 came after:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-9250-providing-for-the-stabilizing-the-national-economy
Weird how FDR could do so much by executive order back then, and now Dems say nothing substantial can be an executive order now btw...
I'm not remotely knowledgeable on labor practices of the time period, but at least in the modern era, you can easily pay an executive basically nothing and just give him stock instead, which will wind up being far more valuable than any salary. Mark Zuckerberg, for instance, takes a salary of $1. I wouldn't be shocked if something to that effect existed back then as well.
By "multiple times" you really mean "kinda of one other time since and even then by a razor thin margin".
"In the Senate, Republicans briefly held the majority at the start; however, on January 20, 2021, three new Democratic senators – Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia and Alex Padilla of California – were sworn in, resulting in 50 seats held by Republicans, 48 seats held by Democrats, and two held by independents who caucus with the Democrats"
...and...
"With Harris serving as the tie breaker in her constitutional role as President of the Senate, Democrats gained control of the Senate, and thereby full control of Congress for the first time since the 111th Congress ended in 2011. "
source
You missed this:
Instead, we get told there is coincidentally just enough to block it, so it would be pointless to have a vote on it.
And votes don't just hold "moderate" Dems accountable, it holds Republicans accountable too.
Shows every non voter in a red state who the one is that's stopping them from having affordable healthcare.
They should have been having monthly votes for over a decade, loudly announcing who voted against it ever vote.
You can argue that wouldn't have changed much, but I don't know how the party thinks pretending everything is fine has helped anyone.
And at least then it would be very clear who needs to be voted out
So you're moving the goal posts? Fine I'll ignore your prior inaccuracy.
Vote on what? What bill are you saying they should spend time voting on even knowing it won't pass?
The Democratically controlled Senate, unlike the House, has actually be moderately productive for the past few months in spite of a GOP Senator blocking important military promotions.
Here's the voting schedule where there are multiple votes per day in session doing the business of the nation: Data Which of those votes actually accomplishing something do you want them to have skipped for your theoretical lip service vote?
If their rep isn't introducing legislation for supporting affordable healthcare (which they aren't) they non-voters already know who is not working on it.
I don't think you have a very good grasp on the realities of the situation if this is what you believe is the mindset everyone in the Legislature holds.
Intelligent, but major caveat. The legislature only cares about getting in and then about tenure. There hasnt been a house, senate, or executive and cabinet that isn't far right for about 45 years. Buying house members is stupidly easy.
There hasn't been much productive in legislation in that entire time except the ACA. That had to happen in the first Obama term, and I'm grateful it managed to limp through in its shitty form. Obama might be the best republican president, but it doesn't really help anyone.
Its difficult to consider your position further when you're suggesting that everyone in the last 45 years has been far right in the Executive and Legislative branches. Far right is full blown fascist or authoritarian. You're painting Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Daniel Inouye, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez all with that same brush as far right. Irrespective of their fine grain policy positions none of these folks even come close to "far right".
And those are the only ones you can name. Barack has the ACA, but also renewed patriot act, seemed fine with drone strikes, etc. 3 people, or even the fab 6 (the 5 plus Bernie) doesn't mean anything in a sea of corporate ownership.
They aren't the only ones I can name. They were very easy to name as examples. You're already moving the goalposts on what you said before. I can't take anything you say as credible.
I hope you have a nice day.
Enjoy fascism, and have a nice day.
Every wonder why so many accounts stop responding to you?
Because he doesn’t relent and people like you get tired of being called on their bullshit over and over?
Weird.
Most people would have guessed it was all the insults first...
Feel free to quote each insult I've written in this thread.
Not to mention they're still propping up the rent-seekers in the health insurance industry
Well, those rent-seekers are donors.
It has gotten worse year over year for as long as I can remember too. Neither side will ever get us a functional single payer.
It's like if Bowser kidnapped Princess Peach and Mario just got fed up and stayed at home all day hanging out with Luigi.
Sure, it's Bowser's fault that Bowser kidnapped Princess Peach, but decades later the mushroom people would probably start thinking they need to not just settle for the first Italian Plumber that just shows up
But half the mushrooms keep insisting that since Mario hasn't kidnapped anyone yet, replacing him isn't an option they can even discuss because he's a hero.
"Good" isn't just the absence of "evil".
Has nothing to do with can't get full time employment. Barely half offer anything at all.
In 2023, 53% of all firms offered some health benefits, similar to the percentage last year (51%). Most firms are very small, leading to fluctuations in the overall offer rate, as the offer rates of small firms can vary widely from year to year.Oct 18, 2023
https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2023-summary-of-findings/