Was the shutdown end strategically planned by democrats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, some of the Dems were very distraught while discussing it on IG. Tim Miller isn't a Democrat, and sometimes it's going to show.

They say if you aren't attractive enough to make it in acting to go into politics. They are actors acting. They are not distraught. They have the No vote on their record that they needed, but no longer have people pressuring them to end the shutdown AND they get to continue dangling the healthcare issue to motivate their voters. This is exactly what they all wanted, and anyone telling you otherwise is lying to you.

Does that still work? There's no progress on healthcare. Biden and Harris were barely touching it. There's so much noise about so many issues but it really doesn't seem like Democrats (and obviously Republicans don't give a shit so not my point!) want anything beyond more subsidies here and there. That's not a fix or a promise to change anything in a meaningful way.

Barely touching it? What should they have done? Please spell out your plan here if you are so politically astute.

I'm not a politician. If you're talking about motivating voters with healthcare, talk of subsidies isn't enough. Something meaningful like Medicare for All is what I want and there needs to be more talk about it.

Right, but if your choice is electing a Republican who doesn't care if you live or die or a Democrat saying they want to extend subsidies, subsidies aren't enough but you take the subsidies, right? This is the calculus democrats know their base will make, and they think it helps them strategically to continue to have this issue on the table. They don't want to actually solve it, but they want us to think they will if we just vote hard enough.

I won't vote Republican, but not because of Democrats extending subsidies. I'm not sure it's an appealing topic driving people as a whole considering rising ACA costs and lack of accessibility. They aren't a valid long term solution to our huge health crisis.

My guess is that you're not someone currently struggling with healthcare and insurance costs. People are drowning. It absolutely is a motivating issue, despite the fact that Republicans don't care at all, and despite the fact that Democrats are more concerned with reelection than sticking their necks out to really fix the healthcare system.

At the end of the day, healthcare should not be a for-profit industry. It can't be if we expect healthcare professionals to be able to prioritize the needs of actual humans over shareholders and boards. But few Democrats are really willing to not only come out and say this, but even less so willing to risk their donors and future campaigns on it.

Subsidies are a stop gap. We've seen it time and time again across industries. We have a public service (healthcare, education, etc.) that needs to serve the needs of people for the good of society. But because we insist upon letting capitalism run wild, the industry legally must prioritize shareholder value which conflicts with providing quality services. So things get expensive and we prop it up with subsidies, which the greedy rats at the top gobble up, never translating to improved outcomes for regular people.

We can take the Republican route and just let people die, we can take the Democratic route and keeping throwing subsidies into a black hole of greed, or we can actually fix the damn problem and stop allowing money to run the healthcare industry.