Dem leadership and strategists seem to assume all voters somehow get unbiased news content without realizing it barely exists and isn’t widely seen. You can’t win elections if you don’t actually tell people what you care about.

The Netherlands system is probably the most achievable from the US position. Mix of private and public insurance.

You’re not wrong that M4A is too simple as a plan. But it’s not a bad slogan to get people elected to construct a working universal plan.

What's the over/under line on millions of dollars that will be paid by ICE/CBP when they start losing wrongful arrest lawsuits? There's going to be a lot of them, right?

ICE should never be men with guns. They should be forensic accountants studying payroll records and fining the hell out of companies hiring workers without visas. And getting those workers their visas since they are obviously doing the work.

Somehow centrist Dems decided to focus on secondary effects of a few extra underpaid workers in the market and the “rules” of labor law that literally nobody cares about. Ending with an anti-immigrant, anti-worker, and anti-business position that just loses elections.

If an “honest libertarian” existed, they’d full support this as normal market operation. The progressive position is to keep these poor people from being exploited working outside the system. Immigration overall is hugely popular.

The people being grabbed are not “illegals” and not “aliens” they are simply workers without visas. Somebody wanted to hire them for work they wanted to do. This is a minor labor law issue at most.

My party, running against the overt racists, managed to be so bad at this they lost to a convicted felon and rapist. Activists smarter than me complained for years that the “centrist” D immigration position was stupid and I’m sad how right they were.

The ACA was a promising step in the right direction, but one political party is constantly fighting to break or damage it, keeping the other from making further progress. Not that I'm superconfident the Dems would actually make more progress, but this isn't really a "both sides" issue.

It's great that you are fighting for this, but I think you are missing the mark slightly here. Under the ACA, the MLR keeps insurance companies from profiting (much) from denying care. The cost spiral seems to come from no regulation on price setting by providers (hospital, pharma, devices).

I'm glad you are saying this and you are clearly correct. The core problem with M4A in practice is look who would be in charge of your health care now. Sure it works now, but NIH, NSF and NASA used to work pretty well, too.

Healthcare is really hard to do right.

This is obviously a direct consequence of healthcare businesses run for profit in the US, right?

Empty beds cost money and reduce profits. Overbuilding capacity is bad for business. Healthcare just doesn't function properly in a marketplace unless it is extremely well-regulated.

Congress passes laws and allocates funding. An EO is an explanation by the President about how the law is being interpreted and carried out. It's written down specifically to be able to be challenged by the courts or corrected by Congress.

I am at a targeted university with a large endowment, just received my own "stop work" notice (grant) and know that no help is coming from the university administration. The endowment appears to exist solely to enrich some money managers, which probably leaks out to university executives somehow.