Progressives Support Shoring Up ACA Before Tackling Medicare For All

[ehrnst]

88. So much to unpack... but here are some highlights

Last edited Fri Mar 29, 2019, 06:52 AM - Edit history (1)

You want me to cite a source for every point I make and expect me to have perfect recall of an article I read two months ago yet you talk off the seat of your pants and imply that I am lying or that I don't have anything to back up my claims. When I show you that I do have sources you dismiss them and gloss over you getting your facts wrong. That is what they call gaslighting.

Strawman plus some gaslighting of your own. When you say " a recent poll shows..." and someone asks you for a link to that poll, and you get defensive, that's not someone else being unreasonable. That sounds.... how did you put it? "Republicanesque" THAT's it! That's not what "they" call gaslighting, that's what "they" call "asking for a citation."

When you are asked about the source, that's not gaslighting, that's called debate. That's called "evidence based argument."

Who is telling me to shut up? That is easy. People like you. You don't come out and say shut up but you gaslight every valid point I make and as I said before you parse every pronoun I type looking for a tiny crack hoping you can spin it into some sort of grand gotcha moment.

Sounds more like someone is pretty upset about being asked for the source of their claims, and asked for clarity on who "they" is in a rant. That's not what they refer to as "telling someone to shut up."

Twice you made the claim I didn't have a source for the secret meeting. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you doubled down and said my source wasn't credible.

When I asked for the source the first time, it was because you hadn't provided one. When I pointed out again that you hadn't yet provided one, it was because you hadn't yet provided one. When you finally provided your source, I pointed out the problems in it. Please provide a link to where I stated that "you didn't have a source."

I am not trashing Democratic voters or leaders. I think we should be a fact-based party.

Says the person who didn't have their facts straight about who "secretly met with insurance execs to promise them a piece of the pie" "proving" that Democratic leaders are "beholden to insurance" but gets testy and defensive when asked for the source of their facts, or gets corrected on them. Really, you should go back and read what you are accusing others of....

Saying it is great for everyone and just needs a few minor changes to shore it up isn't a fact-based statement.

It's not a statement that has been made by anyone on this thread, so that's yet another strawman being attacked, and not a fact based statement. When one needs to misrepresent others statements in order to make them seem less ressonable, that's not helping one's credibility.

What I don't want to see is lip service given to problems of the ACA during 2020 and then have Democrats that win everything say it is just too hard to do anything more after the victory.

It sounds like you think Democrats are lying and giving lip service because your personal situation isn't changing. Aren't you worried about politicians who have talked about MFA for years giving lip service as to why it hasn't gotten any farther than a proposal since 1972? And once again, you passively accuse Democratic leaders of lying by saying that you expect it.

There was a poll not too long ago that showed 51% of Republicans wanting MFA.

Care to provide a link to that poll? When you make a statement based on an actual poll, don't get testy and defensive when someone asks to see it. That's not gaslighting nor a "gotcha."

There is no reason other than fear mongering by the existing profiteers in the current system why we can't get it done.

Wait a minute... but you said "A lot of Democratic politicians like Nacy Pelosi pretend to listen to these types of ACA concerns but then conduct (or have their staff) conduct clandestine meetings with insurance company executives asking for an alliance to defeat single payer."

Which is it? "Fearmongering by profiteers" or "Democratic politicians like Nacy Pelosi asking for an alliance to defeat single payer?"

You've been shown in this thread alone many other obstacles to single payer in the U.S. that are much more fact based than "the mechanations of Nacy Pelosi because she likes insurance." But I'll bite - what is your source for that claim? And who are you talking about when you say "A lot of Democratic politicians like Nacy Pelosi?" You made the claim. Name the names. Show us that your claim is fact based, and not something created out of a need for a villain(s) to make sense out of an awful situation that doesn't make sense.

Every other first world country has managed to make universal coverage a reality in some way.

The majority of them started 60+ years ago. From scratch. Do you have a time machine? They didn't get to where they are there starting 8 years ago, let alone after having to dismantle a system that's baked for 70 years into their economy to the tune of 17% . Many cities in the Midwest have simple grid layouts that make plowing and getting first responders to an address. Does anyone in Boston ask why they can't do the same? And you don't seem to acknowledge or accept that the vast majority of those countries didn't use Single Payer to get UHC. You seem to regard single payer as dogma, and not subject to facts. It just sounds republicanesque in that they see getting rid or Planned Parenthood is the only moral, logical way to solve the problem of abortion - they are also convinced the only reason that it hasn't been done already is the profiteers who fearmonger with fables of women dying in back alleys.... . It makes sense on paper - shut down the provider of the most abortions, and women will stop having sex until they want a baby, and you stop most abortions No GOP poltiican, even one who knows that's completely wrong, would dare to refute it with facts from public health officials and medical providers that shutting down PP would actually create more unplanned pregnancies. In reality, the idea doesn't work. It's become dogma, like "single payer is the only moral UHC."

Dogma is the antithesis of fact-based ideas. I worry that "single payer/Bernie's plan is the only moral, logical way to solve the problem of health care access in this country" is dogma for the left.