I want to know why I’m wrong- because this question has been eating at me for years- and I secretly blame the Democrats for all of the health insurance problems.

Why can’t California and New York bind together in an interstate compact, and create medicare for all of their citizens?

California and New York have GDP’s above most other countries in the world. In general, democrats hold majorities. Tell me why I shouldn’t blame the democrats for:

  1. Doing Obama care half assed, when something like 80% people wanted a public option.

  2. Not just doing it themselves. For instance even NYC by itself has a GDP above Denmark, and NYC is filled to the brim with the super rich.

  • blaggle42@lemmy.todayOPEnglish
    116·
    19 hours ago

    Yeah.

    I also think he could have closed Guantanamo.

    And I even think he could have bailed out the people that lost their houses and not the people that owned (banks, through predatory loans) the houses.

    I still think he should have nationalized the banks that failed and renamed them to “Bank A” and “Bank B.” But no, no consequences for the rich under Obama just like everyone else.

    Crazy huh.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1111·
      19 hours ago

      I also think he could have closed Guantanamo.

      Apparently you don’t remember how that went either.

      And I even think he could have bailed out the people that lost their houses and not the people that owned the houses.

      Oh, sure, just pass an executive order for it, right?

      I still think he should have nationalized the banks that failed and renamed them to “Bank A” and “Bank B.”

      Jesus Christ man.

      Crazy huh.

      In desire, no; in perceptions of what the president has the power to do, yes.

      • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
        52·
        14 hours ago

        I see a lot of refutation, but if the year has taught us anything it’s that the rules of the game are about as rigidly enforced as the rules of monopoly. Every single politician in my life could have chosen to just ignore the rules for the benefit of the people, instead the first one that does is the one that’s out to hurt us.

      • blaggle42@lemmy.todayOPEnglish
        106·
        19 hours ago

        Obama won in a landslide. The democrats owned both houses.

        People at the time really thought Obama would be on the the side of the people- not the rich. I mean, come on, he was our first black president; you would have thought he would at least be on the side of the blacks.

        If he had been, then Bernie wouldn’t have been such a sensation. If he had been, and Hillary was like, “Obama and the DNC has anointed me his successor, and I will continue to do all the great things he has done,” Bernie wouldn’t have existed. Bernie was the message that Obama had actually failed. Flint was real.

        Anyway. If Trump has one Lieberman senator stopping him from getting some signature item, you can bet that their meeting isn’t going to end with that signature item being scuttled, it’s going to be that Lieberman would be afraid he’ll lose everything.

        Trump is extreme, but Obama could have made the final push. Same with our black torture rendition site.

        For me, seeing Obama is cringe. I wonder if that viewpoint is radical. I mean, Obama is a saint when compared to Trump, but…

        Perhaps I am unjustified.