Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
If Yang believes that climate adaptation is facilitated by giving individuals petty cash to "go now and die in what way seems best to you", then he should be denounced. This is the tech-bro mindset of billionaires who want to bug off to New Zealand or to a seastead as the rest of the sheep die off.

The first Yang quote has been Democratic platform boilerplate for like 20 years.
I think a thousand a month would be very much welcomed by those who are struggling in this country, and I wouldn't dismiss it as "die in your own way" but as a tool to help you adapt to what is beyond out control at the moment (severe weather phenomenon). At the least an extra thousand a month would help the lower middle class and upper middle class invest in their own solar panels or buy an electric car and help with decentralizing out power sources and increase renewables.

Carbon taxes, cap & trade, etc. might be useful but they're pretty much pointless on their own. See the case of California. The neoliberal fallacy is inserting market mechanisms where non-market mechanisms are likely to be or known to be better.
The argument does not follow the link. Cap and Trade has not impacted emmissions because according to the study emissions are already below what the market limit. Market forces are what is keeping them below the limit because industry is transitioning to gas powered generation and solar due to better economic return (gas is cheaper than coal, solar's return over the 5-10 year period is increasing every year). in addition, they admit they may not be taking full advantage of the market allowances because California being California, they could drastically lower the limit at any moment.

There is little reason to believe Biden's plan is easier to pass than Harris's (in current versions), because the insurance industry has already decreed holy war against any public option, because pharmaceuticals have already decreed holy war on any measure to reduce drug prices, and because providers have already decreed holy war on anything that reduces their fees. Heck, with your political approach you might as well default to the Sanders plan because all of them approach 0% probability of passage under any circumstances. We're going to need to settle in for a long hard slog to get anything done (and the winning argument, as so often is the case, will probably be the acute suffering of the public over time) so the progressive argument is simple: fight for the best achievable program.
Hold the phone, like I said, the polling shows strong support for a public option. It's what we are going towards politically, because it motivates too many people for politicians to not rally around it and the insurance industry knows they can't hold it off forever. What helps the insurance companies kill the public option is to force a configuration that they simply don't want, that is, a sole public option with no private choices.

At least Harris is thinking about buying in insurance stakeholders, Biden doesn't even appear to be at the level of the original Obama plan. Bizarre too that Biden's team thinks his plan will cover 97% of the population - like, just add a kludge or two and call it universal, what is it with conservatives in the brain?
Well, this is why I like Harris over Biden for the most part.

From polling I've seen Biden isn't the top poller because Democratic voters prefer him as a first choice - I recall when the question asks to the exclusion of perceived electability he plummets - but because they think (without evidence) that he is most "electable." The black caucus are especially are timid with respect to whitelash and so tend to look for "safe" options. I wouldn't bet against people realizing Biden isn't so golden by the time Iowa primary arrives.
Ehh, Biden still seems to be outperforming the rest in head to head choices vs Trump. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ident-general/
Again, I think this is indicative of a 'shy Tory' effect even among America's liberals.

I think if the Democrats were more unified on single payer the public would respond. There's also a lot of misinformation out there. Did I share with you, or just with STFS, the polling that indicates Democrats simply genuinely believe that even Sanders' Medicare for All means a public option? And that Republicans have a more accurate understanding of Sanders' proposal than Democrats? At any rate, this is certainly something concerted messaging ought to move the needle on. If you don't believe messaging is possible in the current media environment - and hell, maybe it is so - then you can't believe any version of healthcare reform is going to pass so
This I will agree with you on. I can't stand how some of the neoliberal establishment still seems to be trying to go it alone. Candidates like Delany, Hickenlooper and the gov. of Montana just shit all over Medicare for All without bringing anything of real excitement. "Minor changes to Obamacare for everyone! Why am I irrelevant?"