Emily rocks.
But calling names is still fun.
Hi KG: I WISH the problems were as easy to solve as just calling names and be done with it.
I had a harsh dose of reality hit this past weekend. After discussing this whole ACA with friends who do believe it should be implemented and then fixed after the fact, I realized they cannot help but go that route. They have no other means besides "going through govt" of trying to get singlepayer or whatever set up because they cut themselves off from people who believe in setting up businesses/schools/charities to do this work directly, so they have no concept or ability much less any vision for doing that work themselves.
There may be some connection with Catholic institutions being against the death penalty, and having systems of private schools well established. If these prochoice antideathpenalty crowds want health care paid for to cover more people, then going through the churches that want alternatives to the criminal justice system, that system could be converted to provide education, health care and housing for the general public not just prisoners, with the billions saved by revamping that hell hole system that wastes so much more money.
But it was depressing to find that the people I talked with who didn't like ACA either but at least saw it as a step to get where they really want to be, did not have any motivation to set up their own systems as the people who want free choice of health care. So this idea of prochoice to the left is to "depend on govt to provide and protect those choices." You first hand the programs over to govt then lobby to try to keep the laws inclusive and cover all people, and I guess ignore the fact that each legislative battle involves excluding views that disagree with this approach altogether. Somehow that view is not counted as valid.
So they keep pushing to use govt to provide all inclusive benefits and discount any views of doing things independently which they see as controlled by private groups that exclude. When the independent types see the private sector as free choice and govt as controlling.
So whatever.
This is so sad it's making me grieve.
I wanted to hear that the prochoice groups would want independence that comes with setting up your own systems not depending on govt. But that's not what I hear. They truly trust govt to be their means of representation and provision. I even offered why not use their parties for that, and set up the same singlepayer system they want through their party and leave other parties to do their own. But they can't conceive of that either, any more than independents can conceive of depending on govt or insurance for health care.
The two views are like two separate realities of how these people represent themselves.
And sadly one side uses the govt for representing their views at the exclusion of the others.
They can't use their own party, but have to use the entire govt? I'm beyond dismayed.
So at most I think I could do to live with this dual reality is to find ways to set up alternative options to ACA, that to the proACA side count as exemptions or state innovations so they see it as under their precious ACA they have to have for whatever reason that cannot be done by party or independent exchanges without this ACA which I don't get at all.
But to the anti-ACA, the alternative options would acknowledge the ACA is unconstitutional and give taxbreaks or pay the fines/penalties in the meantime for people who prefer to invest directly in charities or medical school programs etc. that provide health care without going through either insurance, govt or mandates, but completely independent. Some way that both sides could be validated WITHOUT the other side having to admit right or wrong.
Like having the same program running, but registering it under one group as a business because they need that to fit their requirements, but registering under another group as a nonprofit because they need that to fit theirs. While the program is actually a school, where it is both a nonprofit and contains businesses within it, so it counts as both. So there is no conflict over "changing to the rules of the other group" if the program runs as both.
Something like that.
this is very depressing to me that people cannot be big enough to see the other side as equally valid but have to impose on each other to make one right and the other wrong. If they could just agree to separate programs by party, everyone could be right, but because one party depends on using the govt to represent their party interests, this is lopsided crap.