politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That number keeps getting thrown around but this admin dgaf. That number only works when the admin believes in human rights and when the admin cares about it’s popularity.
Would you say that Ferdinand Marcos believed in human rights and did not care for his popularity?
Turns out someone who looks like Luigi but is definitely not Luigi proved it takes only one death certificate to initiate change for scores of people
But nothing changed... Can you show a change in healthcare since? have acceptance rates gone up? premiums gone down?
Nothing changed.
Edit: Bunch of downvotes... but nobody can tell me anything that's changed... interesting isn't it?
Several health insurers reversed some of their latest shitty policies within days of the event. Like the one that would put a time limit in the anesthesia they'd pay for. That's an immediate course change from hundred billion dollar companies.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/12/06/anthem-blue-cross-blue-shield-reverses-planned-anesthesia-time-limits-after-intense-pushback/
So a could politicians managed to block it in just their states, but the company reversed it for everyone... And you think that somehow refutes what I said?
Yes... Anthem is a subsidiary of BCBS that operates geographically and doesn't compete with other BCBS subsidiary...
So literally yes. If they were blocked in their few geo locations... Literally yes.
Edit: They service 8 states. When your biggest state says "fuck no" to your new policy... you reevaluate or roll-back (or go to lawsuit).
Well that's settled then, politicians would never lie to provide cover for companies. Nothing else that happened that week could have explained it, the government has done this so often (without even announcing it to the people they want votes from) that this is for sure the only explanation.
Apart from all the claims that were suddenly approved or execs of other companies suddenly removing all personal info from websites?
Fear. Nothing meaningful will change until the rich fear for their lives, and we saw just how much they’re scrambling after 1 CEO.
Source this please... To date, I still see United Healthcare at dead bottom. And rate fluctuating only nominally over the past 12 months.
If you're counting this as a meaningful change to healthcare... Then I guess you found one that I can't contest. Congrats!
No, this is my point. Even with "fear" nothing changed.
They need to fear more, clearly.
Y'all tried tens of thousands of protests but are giving up at one CEO? That's a shitty sample size.
Speak for yourself please.
British India didn't care about human rights
And Gandhi didn't do jack shit.
Only once violent resistance had forced the Brits away they went "oh by the way it was totally the guy who would have laid down in the street to be flattened by our tanks, in case anyone else wants to try it"
Gross over simplification and also false.
Edit, for those interested, there hadn't been violent mass resistance in India since the uprisings in 1857. While terrorism and assassinations continued, the Imperial intelligence services (which were one of the largest and most sophisticated in the world) effectively neutered and public opinion in Britain wasn't affected at all.
The Indian National Army which grew in WW2 with Japanese support certainly worried the Imperial governors but it had been obliterated during the botched invasion of India in 1944 and was never able to fully recover, despite strong support in some regions.
The now hugely powerful and well armed British Indian Army was another source of concern but there was no appetite among the officers for revolution and the ordinary soldiers had mixed loyalties.
Most of the violence within India at the time was actually between the Hindu majority and Muslim minority and not directed against British occupation in any large degree.
It was the non-violent passive opposition of Gandhi and the Quit India Movement, and crucially, the British violent crackdown of it, that shifted public opinion within Britain. Once Churchill was ousted, there was neither the public support, or the political desire for further defense of British rule in India and forced them to the negotiating table.
To say violence was what caused the British to pull out is factually incorrect and that the non violent resistance totalled "jack shit" is ignorant beyond belief.
They cared about their public image.
It only works when you are near an election, and the election are coming. This administration is working on a different path: at least one year before the next election and is actively working to make sure (fair) elections might not happen anymore
The cited scenarios were rarely democratic in nature.
Of course, in all the scenarios cited, there was no one telling them "get to 3.5% and things will happen", so with everyone saying "if we get to 3.5%, things will happen", that could itself break the "rule", as a sort of self-denying prophecy.