91
Biden's health care wins are being undone — and at the worst possible time
(www.politico.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
91 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10188 readers
653 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I didn't really read it that way, but see what you mean.
But along those lines, I'm a "vote blue to keep the troglodytes out" type, and supported the ACA as an incremental step, but I'm also appreciative of the criticism coming from further left over current healthcare policy. If the ACA really was an incremental step, then we shouldn't be talking about backsliding -- the administration should be prioritizing a push in the other direction. We can debate what that entails, and may be about to today, but the discussion should be about getting more folks covered.
Yes and no. Congress is a mess in its current configuration and nothing is likely to get done, but I think there are at least four issues on which the dems can run much more aggressively in 2024 and win legislative majorities: reproductive, voting, and worker’s rights, and health care.
Large numbers of American know that the system is broken when it comes to these issues and are not going to fault a candidate for pointing it out as long as they come with a realistic solution.
The discussion first needs to be substantially increasing Democratic numbers in both houses of Congress.
Obviously nothing will change for the better without a Democratic majority in the House. A nominal majority requires at least 4 more Democratic seats. There are far fewer Blue Dogs and conservative Dems than there were 15 years ago, but I would imagine a maximal ACA successor would require at least 30 new members to make sure assholes like Gottheimer don't gum up the works.
The filibuster rules in the Senate basically mandate at least 60 senators to pass anything of consequence. Yes, it's a Senatorial rule; yes, it can be removed with a straight majority. As it stands right now, two senators are on record as opposing filibuster repeal, and there are probably a few others who are still attached to the rules of the Senate as currently constituted. A fight over the filibuster now would fail, and time spent in the next Congress fighting to abolish the filibuster is time lost for legislating. So assume a minimum of 60 Democratic senators to be able to operate free of Republican obstruction. Again, if you want a maximal bill, you need more than 60 senators, to get around problem children like Manchin and Sinema* and other conservative Dems.
We're obviously in the realm of LBJ after the 1964 landslide here, which helps to explain why progressive victories are so hard-fought and far between. People forget that a big reason LBJ was able to enact the Great Society is because he was backed by 288 Democrats in the House and 66 Democrats in the Senate. By comparison, Obama had 60 Democrats in the Senate for about six to nine months, which is how the ACA was able to pass but was also why the ACA wasn't better than it was.
If we want better outcomes, we need more (and better) Democrats.
*It's very possible that neither of them will be in the new Senate. It's also possible that on some issues they are stalking horses for other senators who prefer to let them draw the heat.