the Climate Crisis committee wonât have the authority to draft legislation and it likely wonât have quite the same subpoena power as her previous Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
So it is a toothless committee for the most pressing issue of our time. Way to go, Nancy!
This is a start. At least to have a committee that explores what can be done and gets some attention after all the negative head-in-the-sand crap about climate change denial. No, things arenât going to be changed in 2 years but at least itâs a start to talking about the issue, again.
Appointing someone with a track record and strong advocacy. It is an important start to fill a huge void created by Republicans and likely will move quickly and decisively if there is strong support in congress.
There are laws governing congressional committee structure. Pelosi is awesome, but she is not above the law or a wizard. Gotta start somewhere. Smile, bucko!
Nancy knows how easily the starving are placated by a few crumbs thrown under the table.
There are House rules, not laws. They can be changed. Nancy Pelosi could get the Committee both subpoena power and the power to draft legislation if she wanted them to have it.
Maybe she eventually will.
geez george. you arenât very creative but when it comes to jumping the shark you are right there.
Calm down. Incrementalism works. 20M people calledâŚtheyâd like you to check out the health insurance they didnât have before.
His entire schtick on this site is:
-
Find something negative to say about Democrats.
-
If he canât find something negative, heâll invent something negative to say.
-
Whine about being called out.
-
Go back to #1.
I doubt thatâs quantifiable. âFar enough.â Thatâs very biased.
And yet 15% still donât have insurance. Yea, Trump helped pump up those numbers but Dems need to stop acting like the ACA forcing customers to buy something many couldnât really afford in the first place was a solution for working class people. I know two people who had to move into âcrappierâ apartments so they could afford insurance on the exchanges even though everyone here called âbullshitâ my GF cried for days over how expensive the exchange was for her. Dems forcing working people to downgrade their living conditions in order to buy private insurance and patting themselves on the back for it is the hight of out of touch arrogance.
What bothers me is the second I read this I knew Twitter, be it the Russian or other foreign twitterbot agitators or our own brand of purist progressive Team Unicorn types, is going to have a nice pile of âthis is the racist, corporatist Dem establishment for yaâ tweets based on the refusal to do was AOC wanted or to even appoint her to head this committee.
Doesnât florida state law prohibit mention of climate change? Sheâs federal, not state, I know, but should make for some amusing public speaking opportunities back at home.
Maybe she will. That would make me happy too. But baby steps at first, then she can start stomping.
Yeah, so? Again, incrementalism works. âWe couldâve just jumped from what we had to a public option or universal coverage of some kindâ is nothing but Team Unicorn magic thinking. Had the ACA never passed and been âforced down our throatsâ, had the sky then not fallen, had the 20M who received insurance never received it, the sea change weâre watching with respect to talk about things like Medicare-for-all would NEVER have taken place. Was it flawed? Yep. Were there craks for people to fall through? Yep. Has it been deliberately rendered more flawed? Yep. Are there more cracks appearing as a result? Yep. Should the perfect and pure be the enemy of the effective and good? NOPE.
As to your anecdotes, the penalty was cheaper if thatâs the case. Moreover, Iâm never going to buy the argument about âforcing people to downgrade their living conditionsâ. Thatâs what spending your money on something other than your living conditions is, inherently. They had a choiceâŚan admittedly bitter oneâŚbut made it because if they got sick without insurance, that can be the ULTIMATE downgrade in living conditions: death. Iâm not unsympathetic to the people who faced that choice, etc., I just will never ever agree that the ACA was a bad idea simply because it didnât advance the ball instantly to the goal line.
Again, the argument is not that the ACA was âperfectâ and, as such, your reactionary defensive position is a mischaracterization of the argument. The ball had to be fucking moved. We could only get a couple yards, but it brought us closer to the goal and made the win more possible, more likely. I understand people wanting to pretend the real solution was to chuck a low percentage, probably impossible, Hail MaryâŚbut that doesnât change the FACT that succeeding in passing the ACA has basically proven to the majority of the country that taking the ball the next few yards, maybe even to the goal, is not only possible, but wonât explode their universe, the country or the economy and will instead almost certainly make all of those things a whole lot better. Anyone trying to claim that the ACA wasnât the clear and decisive cause of the massive shift in public opinion towards universal health care and/or public options is a liar.
The problem I have is the back patting Dems love to do over the ACA. âIncremental stepsâ or not, the ACA was nothing but a giant wealth transfer from the working poor to Wall Street and Insurance companies, in return for the privilege of the most basic health care (after an out of pocket payment anyway). My point was this is NOT something to be âproudâ of and I see waaay too much of a âwhat more do you wantâ attitude among many Dems for whom the time will NEVER be right to push single payer.
Also note that your entire second paragraph kinda came off as âIâm a good person and sympathetic butâŚsorry, stop being poor.â And Iâm not attacking you, just thatâs how that came off.
Edit: On reflection Iâd like to clarify Iâm not calling you a âbad personâ or anything like that. Itâs just health insurance is personal for me since I know so many working people who can not afford it without that âdowngrade in living conditionsâ (including me) and the ACA did nothing to help them with that other than give them a fine if they donât (so take away more of their limited money). There comes a point where us down at the bottom donât give a shit about âincremental political gainsâ and all they see are the supposed âliberalâ also shuffling their money to Wall Street. This is how you get the âburn it all downâ attitude that can lead to leaders even worse than Trump. Our healthcare system is shit from top to bottom and there will be a point where if it doesnât go or theyâll take this whole place down with them.
Would be a wise move to add my new IL-06 Congressman Sean Casten to this committee. He is a clean energy entrepreneur who has an excellent understanding of the business dynamics as well as the environmental issues.
And the 28 million who STILL donât have health insurance are wondering why Pelosi and Obama broke their promises.
Climate change is an existential threat. The incrementalist approach of Pelosi is not going to stop it. If you have cancer, you either get it all out, or you die.
Weâre probably going to die.
Not really. The vast VAST majority of working poor received hefty subsidies, many to the point of receiving it for almost freeâŚor even free under the expansion of Medicaid that was included. The subsidies came from tax revenues, very likely from primarily upper middle-class tax revenues if you calculated it out, not from the working poor. And people received something of value, something they openly express in wide swaths of the country as something they personally value. Nothing is free, but calling a large program to make health insurance available to 20M people by attempting to make it affordable through subsidies and have value for the dollar though minimum, basic, mandatory coverage guarantees nothing but a âhuge wealth transferâŚto Wall Streetâ is pure crap. Itâs reductio ad absurdum and a grossly misinformed, deliberate overgeneralization and mischaracterization of an extremely complex system. You might as well call people buying products on Amazon a âhuge wealth transfer from the working poor to Jeff Bezos.â Silliness.
THEYâRE BUYING SOMETHING AND RECEIVING VALUE FOR THEIR MONEY.
As to the second paragraph, thatâs certainly not all what I intended, so if it came across that way I apologize. The point I was trying to make was simply that as we attempt to enact and adjust policies and put systems in place to do these very complex things, first shots, second shots, third shots, etc., are not going to be perfect. This is particular true in a dynamic capitalist marketplace in which people are going to try to thwart the laws they donât like when it comes to regulation of industry. However, I think itâs totally legitimate to say that (a) I sympathize with those who fall into the cracks and I recognize that when it occurs it is the impetus for adjustment and making those programs better, but to also say that (b) I believe the mere fact of it occurring is not reason for not making the effort, enacting those initially flawed programs at all in the first place.
Also, Iâm not seeing the âwhat more do you wantâ attitude much at all. Maybe youâre predisposed to see or feel it because youâre understandably upset about how it all played out for you personally? More to the point thoughâŚthe polls speak for themselves: people are coming around to Medicare-for-all or some form of universal coverage and/or public option in droves. It is indeed a sea change. The ACA helped bring them around. Personally, Iâm seeing and feeling a whole lot more of the âcome hell or high water, weâre going to get you everything you need and should be your rightâ than anything else. Have hope, because I truly think itâs starting to materialize. After darkness, light. Always.
Sounds like some folks on this thread need to call the Suicide Prevention hotline.
Jeez, what a downerâŚ