It is a moral outrage that 88% of Democrats and 69% of all voters support Medicare for All, yet Democratic Party leadership in Congress has refused to fight for it, particularly during a pandemic that has resulted in millions losing their jobs and health insurance. When the 2021 legislative session begins in January, House Progressives…
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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