- cross-posted to:
- main
You must log in or register to comment.
But we also recognize that Speaker Pelosi alone can’t deliver us a floor vote. The Medicare for All bill in the House needs to pass through six Committees’ jurisdiction, and it currently lacks financing language (i.e. how to pay for it), so it’s not a bill that can be voted on yet. This is why getting the bill out of committee has been one of DSA’s priorities. Over the past few years, working with other national and local groups, we’ve succeeded in pressuring chairs to hold the first hearings on Medicare for All in the Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Rules, and Budget committees. These hearings were historic; the first ever on Medicare for All legislation.
Seems like their just clarifying procedural congress shit. I don't know why you're upset with this.
yeah it's the same shit they used on bernie in the debate. 'how are we gonna pay for it?' despite the fact that it would actually save money... just not for the people who are already making bank profiting off of death.
I don't see how it's the same. Neolibs are saying "how are we going to pay for it" to suggest that it cannot be paid for. DSA is saying the bill is still in 6 committees and the committees have not decides how it should be paid for yet, basically saying it is an incomplete bill. Meaning House Democrats are stalling
you have more faith in them than i do. to me they're using language that mirrors the DNC's position on it, and trying to justify their opposition to force the vote, despite them initially promoting it, before all of their reps declined to press pelosi.
I don't have faith in them I just don't know how to read it any other way
The Medicare for All bill in the House needs to pass through six Committees’ jurisdiction, and it currently lacks financing language (i.e. how to pay for it), so it’s not a bill that can be voted on yet. This is why getting the bill out of committee has been one of DSA’s priorities .Over the past few years, working with other national and local groups, we’ve succeeded in pressuring chairs to hold the first hearings on Medicare for All in the Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Rules, and Budget committees. These hearings were historic; the first ever on Medicare for All legislation.
to me this says its incomplete and we want it to be completed. The bill had hearings, which is a start, but were not completed. I don't know how else to interpret it. The DNC position is not that House Democrats are dragging their feet and are the only reason its not complete
saying it lacks financing language is garbage though. why is this in their press release?
Is that not a factual statement? House Democrats have not prioritized this bill and there are 6 committees that have not finished their work. Financing language is probably some of the work that is remaining. They could've said "House Democrats refuse to complete M4A bill so it can't be voted on" and it would mean the same thing
yeah, that's what they should have said. that's the point, they're mirroring the DNC language and homogenizing. they even stan for pelosi "not being able to deliver" a vote. this is passive language.
I'm not understanding how any of this is DNC language. The DNC says that M4A impossible, not that the Ways and Means Committee has not yet adding financing language.
But we also recognize that Speaker Pelosi alone can’t deliver us a floor vote.
If this is actually the case then people should be aware of this. If Pelosi alone can deliver a floor vote then people should aware of that. I guess they could've said that as Speaker it is Pelosi's fault that the committees have not prioritized M4A but realistically anyone who is reading this is well aware of that.
the dnc literally says m4a is impossible because "we can't pay for it."
the dsa knows that m4a will save money, they've seen the bill. so when they say, and i'll quote it
currently lacks financing language (i.e. how to pay for it)
they're saying "we have no way to pay for it." which is bogus, and the reason they're getting shit on in this post.
That's what I am trying to say, they are not saying "we have no way of paying for it ever" they are saying the House has not yet specified how it will be paid for. These are two very different meanings. There are many ways it can be paid for.
Any bill that is worked on will at some point in time lack financing language. Then that language is added, then there is a vote. That's what the budget and ways and means committees do is my understanding.
once again, you trust them much more than I do. i'm kind of through having the same conversation over and over, but they literally share the exact same language as the DNC.
currently lacks financing language (i.e. how to pay for it)
which isn't even true. it's so vague, and implies that they don't know where they're going to get the funds, when all studies have shown that it saves money.
it’s so vague, and implies that they don’t know where they’re going to get the funds,
To me this does not seem vague at all. It is clear, the details of how the bill will be funded are not added yet. Saying DSA means that such details can never be added because M4A was for fools all along does not make sense
Yep, that's DSA for you. Useless bunch of rich college kids who just think that socialism is when the government does stuff. There is a reason why the retort of "they just want free stuff" sticks with them.
What's the lie? If the bill hasn't passed through those 6 committees and is incomplete then it's incomplete
Generally people who don't even read the links they submit and respond to good-faith criticism with "Go fuck yourself shitlib" are not trying to mean anything.
Yeah if you read the bill, it creates a trust fund for funding m4a (really several funds) that must have money put into it, however how much money to put into it via what taxes or budget allocations since paygo is gone is not there. The statement dsa put out is completely correct. Like the answer it saves money via being cheaper and is funded with taxes is obvious but it still needs the actual amount of tax. Like the bill has to have an accompanying bill saying like defund military 100 billion and reallocate, tax the top 10 percent of income earners x amount etc or (unlikely) whatever it costs will be covered by currency creation if needed.
So why wasn't financing language included in the original bill?
I also find it highly dubious that the leader of the democrats in the house is unable to pressure any committee chairs.
Bills aren't introduced fully formed, they get finished in committees. This bill is still in 6 committees. The House Democrats clearly are not prioritising this bill because Pelosi could totally ask them to finish it quicker.
I'm not greatly familiar with the procedures of the US congress, but I don't see why a bill can't be introduced fully formed, and I don't see why they can't move amendments during the floor. And I don't know why the DSA are saying that it's not Pelosi's fault because of committees when the democrats have enough numbers in the house to move a discharge petition to get it out of the committees
(Not that it matters because it should be obvious that the democrats don't support M4A and obvious why that is)
I suppose it depends on the scope of the bill. M4A does have a pretty massive scope so it makes sense that many committees have to have input.
The DSA statement was just describing the state of the bill so I guess they could've mentioned that Pelosi is responsible for this state not being finished. But everyone reading this knows that.
If you actually read the article this is literally a refutation of the "how do you pay for it" argument. Bad faith radlibs are pretending it's the DSA going full Pete Buttigieg. Grfiters can head on out, please.
Crit should be constructive, but this thread is not.
Crit should be constructive, but your post is not. Misrepresenting their position as just a few words when it's really days of bullshit from varying levels of the org and seems ever clearer they have no plan whatsoever for pushing M4A.
Have you tried going to a meeting and talking with them? I have. Many times. DSA is cool. No organization is perfect but DSA is genuinely doing good work in lots of ways and is an important part of the lib to left pipeline. DSA openly supports, funds, and sends their members to much more radical leftist organizations and actions all the time. DSA isn't as left as I think a lot of us would like but they still have a lot of value
The DSA rightfully should be trashed for this shit, but I just want to point out for people who aren't familiar that local chapters often have genuine comrades who disdain the national committee as well (though the locals are also filled out with a lot of libs). They still have their issues, but they can still be a good place to hang out as a baby leftist.
Yep, and what I'm getting at is that there are demcentralists (at some of the major chapters) working to change this. I have my doubts that they will be successful though.
That fucking sucks. Hopefully a new, more useful org will make itself available in your area.
It doesn't. There people are lying wreckers.
Look above, someone is lying about considering being given to how to pay for the bill. The taxes are laid out in the bill.
It's just a straight up lie.
These people aren't leftists. Not in any way whatsoever.
I think you have a misunderstanding about the organization of the DSA. I agree with you entirely with regards to the National org. The regional chapters have a lot of independence from what the National org is doing, and are often more radical in major cities. They have their own issues that we can get into, but the criticisms of them are different than the criticisms I would have of the National DSA (though there is some overlap).
The fact that the DSA is not a unified demcent political party means both that dumb shit like "How do we pay for it?" liberalism happens, but also means that local chapters are free to do whatever they want. Still more of a weakness than a strength, but calling every DSA member "a bad person" is a bit much and leads to unproductive conversation imo
Take the good people and do something else. Let this liberal anti-communist bullshit die.
Right, you gotta specify what that "something else" is though because I agree that remforming the DSA into something useful is a bit of a stretch. It is still the largest leftist ["leftist"] org currently in the US though, so it's worth a shot imo cause if it is successful, then you really have a stew going.
Top reasons to [very critically] support the DSA:
- It's lib-friendly, I can't tell my Bernie-fan friends to join my local Maoist reading group cause that's a bit much, but they might go to a few DSA meetings and get plugged into something mildly useful instead of sitting on their asses and :vote: ing
- There is overlap and adjacency between DSA and other orgs (PSL, SAlt, Antifa orgs, Food not Bombs), so as time goes on your average DSA lib is gonna hear about these groups and potentially make the jump to one of them
- No need to support a good DSA branch as much more than "a vaguely socialist meeting group for networking opportunities" until some sort of reform is done imo. My expectations are low, but above "actually you should leave now or you're a piece of shit"
Supporting the DSA in any way is actively harmful to leftist causes. They have decided they don't support M4A and they would rather echo neoliberal and right wing talking points.
If the national org sucks then the org sucks.
Honey it's 4pm it's time for your daily DSA struggle session.
Yes dear.
I'm pretty sure they mean no money is allocated for it. The bill doesn't say print more money, raise taxes, etc. It says non-allocated funds and funds already allocated to existing federal medical programs should be allocated to the Universal Medicare Trust Fund. This would be fine if we weren't talking about tripling the size of the already short-funded medicare and medicaid programs. It needs something that says raise taxes or print more money otherwise you're trying to run a program that will cost $3 trillion per year with $1.3 trillion.
SEC. 701. Universal Medicare Trust Fund.
(a) In general.—There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the Universal Medicare Trust Fund (in this section referred to as the “Trust Fund”). The Trust Fund shall consist of such gifts and bequests as may be made and such amounts as may be deposited in, or appropriated to, such Trust Fund as provided in this Act.
(b) Appropriations into trust fund.—
(1) TAXES.—There are appropriated to the Trust Fund for each fiscal year beginning with the fiscal year which includes the date on which benefits first become available as described in section 106, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, amounts equivalent to 100 percent of the net increase in revenues to the Treasury which is attributable to the amendments made by sections 801 and 902. The amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be transferred from time to time (but not less frequently than monthly) from the general fund in the Treasury to the Trust Fund, such amounts to be determined on the basis of estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury of the taxes paid to or deposited into the Treasury, and proper adjustments shall be made in amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior estimates were in excess of or were less than the amounts that should have been so transferred.
(2) CURRENT PROGRAM RECEIPTS.—
(A) INITIAL YEAR.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there is appropriated to the Trust Fund for the fiscal year containing January 1 of the first year following the date of the enactment of this Act, an amount equal to the aggregate amount appropriated for the preceding fiscal year for the following (increased by the consumer price index for all urban consumers for the fiscal year involved):
(i) The Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (other than amounts attributable to any premiums under such title).
(ii) The Medicaid program under State plans approved under title XIX of such Act.
(iii) The Federal Employees Health Benefits program, under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
(iv) The TRICARE program, under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code.
(v) The maternal and child health program (under title V of the Social Security Act), vocational rehabilitation programs, programs for drug abuse and mental health services under the Public Health Service Act, programs providing general hospital or medical assistance, and any other Federal program identified by the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to the extent the programs provide for payment for health services the payment of which may be made under this Act.
(B) SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there is appropriated to the trust fund for the fiscal year containing January 1 of the second year following the date of the enactment of this Act, and for each fiscal year thereafter, an amount equal to the amount appropriated to the Trust Fund for the previous year, adjusted for reductions in costs resulting from the implementation of this Act, changes in the consumer price index for all urban consumers for the fiscal year involved, and other factors determined appropriate by the Secretary.
801 has to do with not duplicating federal employee retirement benefits and 902 is about terminating Medicaid expansions for the states created by the Affordable Care Act
Yeah basically, just to set up a baseline of funding. I'm not sure if they would include where those funds are coming from in the bill or do it in a separate bill, but they need to have a bit that says "congress authorizes another $2 trillion (or however much the CBO estimates is necessary) to this trust."
how to pay for it
The real criticism is the fact that the DSA created years of propaganda, and told everyone we don't need to ask this question.
So long as the bourgeoisie run society, we cannot afford M4A. No threshold number of Squad members in Congress which will change this fact.
The USA doesn't get that most continental governments in Europe had Communists in their coalitions at various points, sometimes as the largest partner. There was a real risk that if the capitalists did not cave they'd find themselves against the wall rapidly.
You fuckers are pushing a narrative that you know will never lead to M4A, sabotaging any and all attempts to use power, and then you expect to be hailed as anything but obvious wreckers.
^^^
Which is the exact kind of point the FTV people were making that every fuckin lib saw fit to ignore. This includes the Twitch grifters, TMR, the Twitter libs like Ben Dixon, the Breadtubers etc.
Stop giving these losers your money, they don't want to win and have given up already
YES! It was weird getting called a Lib for caring about Force the Vote. The entire point was to expose the fact that the strategy and tactics of Democrats in Congress can not & will not change. There is no influence on the inside. The only time concessions are offered is during revolutionary ruptures.
It is not a coincidence that the bourgeoisie pumped record money into coopting the anti-racist uprising last year. If it developed an independent, national proletarian consciousness, this nation would have been shaken to its core. Instead, the uprisings only had the Democratic Party as a national political force. It was a bumpy ride for the bourgeoisie, but they made it another year.
Any moment spent legitimizing the Democratic Party delays revolutionary ruptures. "The Squad" legitimized the Party, Force the Vote delegitimized the Party.
mods taking away the downvote button means dog shit lies like this don't get downvoted.
There is sending in the bill you fucking lying hack.
I have no idea what you are saying here.
Which lie are you talking about?
DSA created years of propaganda, and told everyone we don’t need to ask this question.
I have seen this propaganda with my own eyes for years.
So long as the bourgeoisie run society, we cannot afford M4A.
I don't think this is a lie. The people cannot afford M4A. It must come as a concession from the bourgeoisie in the medical industry & the bourgeois state.
No threshold number of Squad members in Congress which will change this fact.
Again, this is true.
The bourgeoisie own enough politicians to block progress on M4A if they want.
If the Squad somehow got control of the House, Senate, & Presidency, and passed M4A against the will of the bourgeoisie (this will never happen) the bourgeoisie would retaliate by other means. This can take any number of forms,: withholding the circulation of Capital, shutting down hospitals, funding right-wing death squads, etc.
Yeah... I can't believe I'm getting called a right-wing lying piece of shit for saying Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden are not passing a tax hike.
Saying "taxes must be raised" is not the same as having a plan to pay for something.
We aren't talking past each other, they are spewing lies.
The taxes are in the bill. The idea that paying for it hasn't been considered is an easily disproven lie. it's a complete fabrication.
So no I'm not talking past anyone I'm explicitly calling another poster a liar for being a liar.
Why are you willing to give a free pass to someone spewing neoliberal lies?
God, people are so fucking disingenuous here.
"We should raise taxes on the wealthy" is not a serious plan to pay for M4A. It is useful propaganda. But it is not a plan. Socialists have organized around "we should raise taxes on the wealthy" for decades, and we are no where closer to M4A. Every single major impediment still exists.
It's in the fucking bill.
You're just spewing right wing talking points uncritically at this point.
And how is that bill getting passed?
You are calling me a Liberal while pretending a bill in Congress is worth the paper it is written on. There is no plan whatsoever to get the bourgeoisie to raise their taxes.
No, I'm calling you a disingenuous lying fuck for saying they haven't thought about how to pay for it.
It's just a right wing lie. That's all it is. You want to argue that it won't happen that's fine, but to say they haven't tried is a complete and total lie.
The question of "how do you get the bourgeoisie to raise their taxes?" is a serious aspect of "how are you going to pay for it?" that no one wants to consider.
A document saying "socialism now!" is not a serious plan for socialism. A document saying "higher taxes on the rich!" is not a serious plan for M4A.
This is not cynicism. I don't know how anyone can be cynical after the show-of-force the proletariat demonstrated last summer.
I am deeply cynical of the Democratic Party. I don't expect concessions until the anger we saw last summer is sharpened into a political weapon. The two tasks for communists is:
- Demonstrate national bourgeois institutions are illegitimate.
- Build the base of support within you community.
This is not cynicism.
It's shitty cynical bullshit you use to advocate for nothing.
I don’t know how anyone can be cynical after the show-of-force the proletariat demonstrated last summer
Oh you aren't calling them riots yet? haven't quite started spewing those right wing lies yet?
If you want to continue to lie to the People and yourself - as if you have real plan to win concessions for working people - be my guest. I'm not that arrogant. And I do not want to lie to the People.
We need socialism. The national strategy and tactics need to hashed out by a united communist movement. Until that arises, I will continue to build a base of support in my community.
You aren't building socialism you're just a cynical wrecker.
I’m not that arrogant.
You are.
Just a cynical asshole who will reject everything and anything as being pie in the sky and insist that we need socialism before we can do anything.
"socialism is when the rich pay taxes" mentality is also lacking in long term vision (both in terms of understanding history and what the motivations are for the current people in power).
This whole FTV thing feels like social democrats being mad that the rate of profit has decayed to the point where it's not going to be viable for the US to buy off the people at home with healthcare by imperializing the world.
The petrodollar is on its way out, the price of oil went negative last year and that doesn't bode well for americans who want to just continue printing money and rely on the constant demand for oil purchases to keep inflation down.
I think there's an aspect of FTV you are missing. Many want to heighten the contradictions within the Democratic Party to demonstrate its limitations.
I agree with everything else.
That's entirely fair, I think it's a good thing to expose these institutions for how unwilling they are to represent the people that they purport to.
How do we pay for it? Who's gonna pay for it?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe we should start taxing billionaires at the bare minimum and stop allowing corporations to lobby in the government with open, naked corruption.
Wait, what was I talking about? Never mind. Fuck you for being poor and demanding healthcare! WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR IT, WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR IT!?
They're not asking how it's going to be paid for they're saying that the bill is currently in comittee and those committees haven't decided how to pay for it at the moment.
I think the issue is this is just procedural bullshit used to justify slow-walking M4A. Can't say if it it's being done cynically, but when elected Dems do this is almost 100% done so cynically, so alarm bells start going off.
Everyone knows M4A saves money, the $$ can come from a variety of sources. This is a confusing article.
99k of these new members probably genuinely believed, rightly or wrongly, that the DSA were the leftwing of the Dems. There's no doubt that Bernie was the catalyst for the surge in Democratic "Socialism" and DSA membership, Bernie is a Dem loyalist. The 1K genuine socialists need to bail ship, DSA is just a holdover of Cold War anti-Communism.
DSA's transformation into the "socialist" caucus of the DNC is almost complete
