Even staunch critics on the left should give credit where credit is due

[BBR Esq]

I've been angry with my party over the environment, the economy and other issues. And yes, they should be criticized. They work for us after all.

But some critics do seem to be over the top to the point that they seem to be incapable of praise when it's justified.

The issue I'm thinking of is healthcare. Even if you think that the Affordable Care Act is a giveaway to the insurance companies you have to admit that Vermont's healthcare system could never have happened without some very clever wording that was added to that bill. And if you think about it, a system like the one Vermont recently adopted could never have gotten through Congress. Not gonna happen.

So even though people are attesting to the fact that the Affordable Care Act has already helped them you're still not happy with it. Fair enough. As I said, they do work for us.

But this is how I think we can get to where we want to be. Think about it: once states see how well Vermont's system is working they will start adopting it.

Can we all at least admit that can happen and give credit where credit is due?

[frazzled]

1. My take on this is ...

that some people's relationship to politics is purely oppositional. Half-measures or incremental progress is never seen as acceptable. Let's call it, to be nice, "perfectionism."

I understand this attitude. I had it myself in another context, but once I realized how unproductive it was I tried my hardest to abandon it. In graduate school I sort of made my name by picking apart the theoretical positions or analyses that others were producing in my field. It was successful to the extent that my professors and others were impressed with my ability to find the flaws in complex theories, etc. But I knew it was a total fake: all I knew how to do was criticize. I knew in my heart I could not creatively devise a theoretical position of my own. Or if I did, it would be just as flawed, if not more so, than those I was critiquing. It meant I was never going to do something important, and I eventually left the field.

Same in politics: we can nitpick and criticize all we want. But the people trying to make actual real policy that helps people--maybe not all people, but just a few, or as just a start that can be built upon--and who are trying to do it in the midst of a messy and contentious political environment in which one must compromise with one's enemies at times in order to move another thing forward: these are the real political success stories. Not the people who make proclamations that say all the "right" things in fundraising emails, and not the grandstanders who never are in the position of having to actually accomplish something.

There are real things to rail against and to fight for, but -- as you say -- there is also a need to give credit where credit is due. I admire the people who actually accomplish things in the political realm, no matter how imperfect these things may be. They are the creators, not the nitpickers.

So my take is: if you have nothing but oppositional critique to make in politics, you should get out of the game and concentrate on something else.

[okaawhatever]

2. Excellent post . Thank you. nt

[BBR Esq]

3. Yes, you said it much better than I did.

My OP was a flawed first step with clever wording that left the door open for your response.

[frazzled]

4. Your OP was great

I was just sort of trying to get my head around the psychology of it all.

[BBR Esq]

11. Thank you.

I was just riffing on what we're discussing.

[Scuba]

5. My frustrations come when ANY criticism of any policy is painted with the broad brush of "purism".

I've been supportive of the President on many matters, but when I criticize an appointment he makes I'm called "blinded by hate" and "full of hate" as well as a "purist who wants Republicans to win". And yes, those are quotes.

I perfectly well understand that perfection is the enemy of progress and that the ACA is a boon to millions of Americans. That doesn't mean we should stop fighting for Medicare for All.

[Auntie Bush]

17. Welcome to DU Frazzled. I agree with your advice.

And too many people around here just criticize.

[SidDithers]

18. Very well said...nt

Sid

[Pretzel_Warrior]

33. This is awesome! I also suggest an OP

With anything else you'd like to add. You can be sure the professional nitpickers will point out what you should have said and why perfectionism and being a political keyboard jockey is the way to go.

[Whisp]

46. That was so good to hear...

I often wonder what the people in the lives of the eternally dissatisfied club have to deal with.

[Number23]

51. Nailed it in the first post. And what gets me about the type of people you have described

is that they are flabbergasted and shocked when NO ONE WANTS TO REPRESENT THEM.

If I had a choice between representing a group of perpetually hair on fire people that will take EVERY SINGLE CHANCE they can find to castigate and criticize and will drop me at the first sign of disappointment regardless of how uninformed or unrealistic their expectations are, or cleaning the foot massage tubs at a fungus filled nail salon, I'd take the nail salon every day of the week.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. If you review the history of how that 'very clear wording was added to the bill' you will find

that the wording allowing for State Innovation was crafted by Ron Wyden and was the result of active involvement by people in and out of Congress who wanted to open the law to improvements such as the one Vermont has already kicked off. Some people at that time called the activism that got those provisions made law harsh criticism, those who were supporting the law as it was did not take part in the push for State innovation to be part of the ACA, they sat around harping at those who did take part in that push that we 'wanted a pony' and were going to 'let the perfect be the enemy of the good'. Of course the moment the provision was included everyone loved it, claimed it and forgot they had whined about the 'critics' that insisted upon it.

[Marr]

10. +1, the OP has some chutzpah. /nt

[BBR Esq]

12. Excellent post.

Thank you for educating me on the history of this.

[polichick]

25. Good point.

[zipplewrath]

27. exactly

The blue dogs and the White House had little to do with this other than not spending alot of time opposing it, even as they warned against it.

[cali]

7. Huh? Vermont's healthcare system really hasn't much to do with the ACA

Vermont has made healthcare a priority for decades and that's why relatively few people aren't covered in Vermont

And Vermont was working on universal coverage long before President Obama was elected in 2008.

Yes, the ACA probably does make it easier to achieve, but please don't misinform people about Vermont.

Furthermore, single payer is still years off in Vermont, and there is yet to be a plan to pay for it put forth.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Initially, ACA did not allow for States to make better programs, the State Innovation

provisions were inserted during the process, and the push for those provisions was criticized by many on DU as 'making the perfect the enemy of the good'. Ron Wyden wrote the Innovations act, Vermont's intention is mentioned in it. Bernie, of course, had a large role in getting it done and it had support from some Republicans and Blue Dog types as well. It did not just magically appear in ACA and it was not there to begin with.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. So the initial ACA made single payer illegal

When it was perfectly legal before.

And Dems had to fight to reinstate the right to do it.

Awesome.

[pnwmom]

24. Wrong. Vermont could not do it without the funding provided by the ACA.

They've made that abundantly clear.

[cali]

41. I'm sorry, but I've lived here and been engaged with politics here for over 30 years

and Vermont has been working on universal healthcare for over 20 years.

You have no clue. none. zero and zilch.

just look it up.

[pnwmom]

44. They've been working on it for 20 years, and haven't succeeded --

because of the difficulty funding it, which the ACA will help with enormously. A key step has already occurred -- expanding Medicaid.

[BBR Esq]

48. The funding is what I was referring to.

But alas. I've been slimed.

[pnwmom]

49. Welcome to DU, BBR Esq.

Please don't take that personally!

I think it comes down to the half a loaf vs. none philosophies.

[BBR Esq]

50. Thank you.

I wasn't surprised. It was mild slimming though.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

35. Why should we listen to you about Vermont?

You won't even ackowledge a very real heroin addiction epidemic there.

[cali]

42. lol. because Vermont has no more of a heroin epidemic than any other state

and I posted the figures and statistics to back that up in another thread.

furthermore, Mr.-Make-Stuff-Up-Pretzie, I've never said that there isn't a problem with heroin in Vermont.

Why should anyone listen to conservative YOU, is the better question.

You're all Pretzel.

[bemildred]

9. Hiding subtle stuff in "very clever wording" is not what you do to get progressive applause.

And we don't know who did it either.

[BBR Esq]

13. Huh?

This isn't a Vaudeville act.

As far as who was responsible, see Bluenorthwest's post above

[bemildred]

14. That's good to know. nt

[joanbarnes]

15. Hopefully, many decades after Canada did so.....

[eggplant]

19. It only took us 60 years to abolish slavery after England did it...

[zeemike]

22. And it has been 60 years sense England adopted universal health care

But we are not even close to adopting it here...when most industrialized countries already have it.

[eggplant]

28. Yup.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

20. You always can. The question is whether you will.

And whether or not you choose to make a positive difference in the policies you prefer, or whether you instead act like smarmy sanctimony-addicted "church-lady" of the left, breathlessly going from one attack to another on Democrats - while carefully making sure to never do anything at all yourself.

Add to this that many of the most prolific attackers on the D.U. are clearly upper middle class ideologues who don't actually need any of the help Democrats have been able to provide, so therefore feel free to discount what the party has been able to achieve as not matching their ideological ideal, and we find ourselves in the perfect-storm of D.U. derp.

I come to this site because every once in a while I find a cogent argument I can use out in the real world, my rural real world, where most of my friends are GOP-voting "independents". But the amount of frothing-at-the-mouth dross and bullshit I have to wade through here to find it gets tiresome.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Fumesucker]

26. "frothing-at-the-mouth dross and bullshit I have to wade through here to find it gets tiresome"

Then why come here and add even more frothing-at-the-mouth dross and bullshit?

[Rex]

32. It IS remarkable the there are people that just HATE this site now, yet continuously

come here and complain about other DUers all day long. It is as if they are being disingenuous in their intentions imo.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

36. Poster was very clear as to why

They are Democratic and every so often find some really cogent arguments and discussions that are useful. It must wade through mountains of bullshit to find that.

[Fumesucker]

47. The poster could do that without adding to the bullshit

And I have read enough of that poster's posts to know they drop some very stinky bullshit indeed.

[Fumesucker]

21. Interesting that you can only see one side, those who are often critical

How about those who are seldom critical?

Should they also come in for some criticism, do they play a less than perfect part in politics also?

[BBR Esq]

23. I'm not above anyone as far as this subject goes.

[Rex]

31. So, no answer then to his question?

nt.

[BBR Esq]

37. I'm not fond of party over substance.

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)

It sure hasn't worked for Republicans since 2006.

[Iggo]

29. I'm angry with your party, too.

[BBR Esq]

39. Huh?

[Rex]

30. So how do you feel about blind hero worship?

Good thing or bad thing?

[BBR Esq]

38. Bad thing.

[liberal_at_heart]

34. The plan that my children and I are on lumps us all together and we have a family

deductible of $12,000. So until we all go to the doctor enough times to rack up a $12,000 deductible I am responsible for 100% of the bill. Even when we do meet our deductible I can't afford the 20% of the bill that we are responsible for. ACA put many people on insurance that didn't have it before. That means more people will be going to the doctor than before. It also means more people will be filing for bankruptcy for medical bills than before. Single payer is the only answer.

[Curmudgeoness]

40. I completely agree with your assessment.

I think that the plans offered are still beyond the affordability of most Americans. Sure, they have premiums that are affordable, but having such high deductibles, and then the 80/20 split after that, the "health care" is not affordable. Better than nothing, I suppose. But this is not a fix for any of the problems we had with health insurance and affordable care.

[1000words]

43. We needed a public service, and was given a consumer product

To whom do I credit the fail?

[TheKentuckian]

45. At this stage no credit is due, you are speaking of things that are not as though they were.

That is the definition of faith not fact. It may well turn out as you describe but that is not the current reality and there is many a slip between the cup and the lip.

I'll also add the the people and government of Vermont have laid a lot of ground work to even give the outline to hopefully be built around and it was fucking pulling teeth to even get this piece included to the point that serious threats to scuttle the entire effort had to be made to get this and the community health center resources added in as an afterthought once he rug had been pulled on other popular measures like drug reimportation, the public option, and lowering the Medicare eligibility age.

Now, I'm happy that some people are getting access to the system that were locked out and that some folks in the individual market are getting some relief just as I was glad that some seniors got some desperately needed help with their medications but in neither case am I going to celebrate the way it was done nor the costs nor who gets screwed.

Creating another set of "Too Big to Fail" institutions, this one with direct individual responsibility to be a captured customer is too high a price for what we got in return especially when we have about nothing else to offer for further concessions so any "fixing later" will take more will and ability to say "fuck off and die" than has ever existed in the history of this government since the Revolution.

I think we also over estimate the rationality and consistency of the espoused frugality of the right as in I'm not convinced that they will see money being saved elsewhere and bow to common sense and the pocketbook.
In fact, I contend that "fiscal conservatism" is pretty much either the province of Democrats and/or a flat out lie. Their actual intent is to plunder and tank the government and one of the best ways to hamstring a government is forcing high percentages to go toward servicing debt for money thrown into black holes to the point that all it does is shrink the functional economy.

Republicans don't save money they piss it away while strangling revenue. An ever downward spiral with a looted commons.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. You inadvertently forgot to credit the Heritage Foundation?

Whose plan made this all possible?

[BBR Esq]

55. Ron Wyden is a member of the Heritage Foundation?

I didn't know that.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. No, but could Wyden and Bernie have filed the amendment

legalizing single payer without the Heritage Foundation's plan?

[bvar22]

54. The ACA is not bad.... for a Republican "Market Based" Solution...

....that is based on subsidizing an Industry that:

*Manufactures NOTHING

*Provides NO useful service

*Produces NO value added Wealth

The new health care law will provide around $1 trillion in subsidies to low- and middle-income Americans over the next decade to help them pay for health insurance.

http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/reform/a/How-Does-The-Premium-Tax-Credit-Health-Insurance-Subsidy-Work.htm

They like to say that these subsidies go to America's Poor,
but they don't.
These "subsidies" go right into the pockets of one of the most worthless industries in the World..
The Health Insurance Industry, and we are going to give them a TRILLION dollars over the next 10 years for doing THEIR JOB.
Well, WHY NOT?
Wall Street got their Trillion Dollars!


Divide by 10, and that comes out to $100Billion per year.
Now, by law, the Health Insurance Industry has to spend 80% on actual Health Care.
So they get to pocket $20 Billion per year of YOUR Tax Money... for NOTHING.
This is $20BILLION per year that does NOT go to providing Health Care for Americans.

That makes the $4 Billion that goes to the Oil Industry look like Chump Change,
and at least we get some OIL for our money from the Oil Industry.


YES.
The ACA DOES get more people covered with Insurance,
and someone would be a FOOL for NOT signing up,
but it doesn't solve The Problem,
and postpones a REAL solution for at least another generation.

I have spent my life supporting the Democratic Party Solutions of FDR and LBJ that acknowledged access to quality Health Care as a Fundamental Human Right to be protected by our government.

I have spent my life opposing Republican "Market Based" Solutions
that depended on the transfer of Public Money to Private Pockets,
and treat access to Health Care as a Commodity to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

YES. I'm glad more people will be able to go to the doctor,
and My Wife & I are doing everything we can to get the people of Rural Arkansas signed up to the Medicaid Expansion,
but that doesn't mean I have to salute and cheer for what is essentially a Republican Plan that subsidizes the parasitic Insurance Corporations.

I am STILL a DEMOCRAT.
I prefer the FDR/LBJ approach.

---bvar22

[RobertEarl]

57. Hell yeah. Pelosi deserves our thanks.

Obama, too. And all our Dem critters. But it was Pelosi who got it done.