Opinion of this hypothetical Universal Health Care compromise?

[AN63093]

You're in Congress and about to vote on the following.

-Cannabis is de-listed from the Controlled Substances Act;

And

-Universal Health Care (of your choice, can be fully nationalized, single-payer, multi-payer, whatever type you like), provided that eligibility is limited to US citizens;

Along with

-Repeal of DACA, Trump travel ban extended for 5 years and expanded to a few more Mid-East countries (such as Saudi Arabia), Refugee program significantly curtailed (if not ended), Federal funds withheld from sanctuary cities, substantial reduction of H1B and other visa programs, and significant increase in removal actions (along with the funds necessary to increase immigration courts, ICE agent hiring, Border Patrol hiring, etc.).


How do you vote? 

By the way, with the third option (changes), I really mean just minor tweaks, like extending the travel ban for 3 years instead of 5, or everything in prong 3 but DACA repeal, things like that.  Not taking out an entire prong of this plan.  In other words, option 3 is not intended to cover support for only marijuana legalization and health care; there has to be some substantial immigration restriction too (and vise-versa, option 3 is not intended to cover only immigration restriction without some universal health care as well).  If you do not favor all 3 prongs of the plan in some form, then vote option 2 "evil."

[Kingpoleon]

I hate it, but I would vote for it. Healthcare is more important than immigration, and I would immediately vote to remove the third section, or at least amend it to, say, one year. Would I enthusiastically vote for just gutting funds to sanctuary cities, a one year travel ban extension, further funds to ICE and co., and even the funds for a partial border fence/wall? Yes. The wall isn't nearly as important as DACA, refugees, or immigration restrictions.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

First, do no harm.

I have a good friend who is an undocumented immigrant to America (on the DACA programme I believe), and were I somehow a US congressman it would be morally reprehensible of me to vote for him, his friends or family to be arrested and deported.

[Beet]

How is this a compromise? It's basically the full-on Bannon (who should be a Democrat, by the way) position.

[AN63093]

First, do no harm.

I have a good friend who is an undocumented immigrant to America (on the DACA programme I believe), and were I somehow a US congressman it would be morally reprehensible of me to vote for him, his friends or family to be arrested and deported.

How about a minor change then?  People currently in the US on DACA are given immunity from removal.  Palatable now?

[AN63093]

How is this a compromise? It's basically the full-on Bannon (who should be a Democrat, by the way) position.

It contains a major left wing goal and a right wing goal.  Isn't that the definition of a compromise?  "Compromise" doesn't mean "only things I like."  There has to be stuff you don't like for it to be a true compromise.

It also adds another policy goal too (i.e. marijuana legalization), and if you believe the war on drugs has, in large part, fueled border violence (not taking a position on that at this time), but if you believe that, then there's an added sweetener here on top of health care.

[Kingpoleon]

How is this a compromise? It's basically the full-on Bannon (who should be a Democrat, by the way) position.

It contains a major left wing goal and a right wing goal.  Isn't that the definition of a compromise?  "Compromise" doesn't mean "only things I like."  There has to be stuff you don't like for it to be a true compromise.

It also adds another policy goal too (i.e. marijuana legalization), and if you believe the war on drugs has, in large part, fueled border violence (not taking a position on that at this time), but if you believe that, then there's an added sweetener here on top of health care.

Um... What about people who, you know, are normal and don't consider marijuana legalization a major issue?

[Beet]

How is this a compromise? It's basically the full-on Bannon (who should be a Democrat, by the way) position.

It contains a major left wing goal and a right wing goal.  Isn't that the definition of a compromise?  "Compromise" doesn't mean "only things I like."  There has to be stuff you don't like for it to be a true compromise.

It also adds another policy goal too (i.e. marijuana legalization), and if you believe the war on drugs has, in large part, fueled border violence (not taking a position on that at this time), but if you believe that, then there's an added sweetener here on top of health care.

Of course. As you said, the definition of a compromise is that you don't get everything you like. I was just pointing out that for the major new wing of American politics (Bannonites), this is everything they like. A small-government conservative Republican gets nothing out of this. As a Democrat, I'd take it on the condition that the Bannonite wing merges into the Democratic party.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I would vote no on this (we're compromising the wrong issue to get the wrong issue)

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Absolutely, yes. Of course, it wouldn't really be a compromise for me as I support all three propositions.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

First, do no harm.

I have a good friend who is an undocumented immigrant to America (on the DACA programme I believe), and were I somehow a US congressman it would be morally reprehensible of me to vote for him, his friends or family to be arrested and deported.

How about a minor change then?  People currently in the US on DACA are given immunity from removal.  Palatable now?

Uhh, no.

[AN63093]

How is this a compromise? It's basically the full-on Bannon (who should be a Democrat, by the way) position.

It contains a major left wing goal and a right wing goal.  Isn't that the definition of a compromise?  "Compromise" doesn't mean "only things I like."  There has to be stuff you don't like for it to be a true compromise.

It also adds another policy goal too (i.e. marijuana legalization), and if you believe the war on drugs has, in large part, fueled border violence (not taking a position on that at this time), but if you believe that, then there's an added sweetener here on top of health care.

Um... What about people who, you know, are normal and don't consider marijuana legalization a major issue?

What about them?  The purpose of this thread is not to ask whether it's a major issue or not.

[AN63093]

First, do no harm.

I have a good friend who is an undocumented immigrant to America (on the DACA programme I believe), and were I somehow a US congressman it would be morally reprehensible of me to vote for him, his friends or family to be arrested and deported.

How about a minor change then?  People currently in the US on DACA are given immunity from removal.  Palatable now?

Uhh, no.

So immigration is not an issue you'd be willing to compromise on in order to get universal health care.  Alright, got it.  Question asked and answered.

That's part of what I'm trying to gauge/figure out with this thread.

[PoliticalShelter]

How is this a compromise? It's basically the full-on Bannon (who should be a Democrat, by the way) position.

As a Democrat, I'd take it on the condition that the Bannonite wing merges into the Democratic party.

Good to see you still haven't got a clue what you talking about.

[Beet]

How is this a compromise? It's basically the full-on Bannon (who should be a Democrat, by the way) position.

As a Democrat, I'd take it on the condition that the Bannonite wing merges into the Democratic party.

Good to see you still haven't got a clue what you talking about.

Coming from the poster who can't tell the difference between a Magic Negro and Black Girl Magic, that makes my day.

[AN63093]

How is this a compromise? It's basically the full-on Bannon (who should be a Democrat, by the way) position.

It contains a major left wing goal and a right wing goal.  Isn't that the definition of a compromise?  "Compromise" doesn't mean "only things I like."  There has to be stuff you don't like for it to be a true compromise.

It also adds another policy goal too (i.e. marijuana legalization), and if you believe the war on drugs has, in large part, fueled border violence (not taking a position on that at this time), but if you believe that, then there's an added sweetener here on top of health care.

Of course. As you said, the definition of a compromise is that you don't get everything you like. I was just pointing out that for the major new wing of American politics (Bannonites), this is everything they like. A small-government conservative Republican gets nothing out of this. As a Democrat, I'd take it on the condition that the Bannonite wing merges into the Democratic party.

OK, I gotcha Beet.  One comment though- although I would agree that this plan wouldn't be a compromise for the people that actually want all of this... (on that note, do the "Bannonites" even want all of this?).. could we call this group of people significant in US politics in any way?  Much less, a "major wing," as you describe them?

Consider my thread in the 2020 forum ('rising star' nationalists), Techno Timmy was pretty adamant that this "wing," to the extent it even exists, has no future.  I would suspect that is a pretty common view, especially among liberals.

You disagree with that?  I'd be most interested to hear your reasons why (actually curious, not being combative/sarcastic).

[Beet]

I would say there's a significant group of economic populists in both parties who are either centrist or right-wing on social issues, and they are distributed between the two parties. Those for whom economic populism is more important and who are social centrists more gravitate towards the Sanders wing of the Democratic party, whereas those for whom social centrism or conservatism is more important gravitate towards the Bannon wing of the GOP. For instance, clash above, supports universal health care, but when I asked him why he wasn't a Democrat, he said social issues were more important. Meanwhile, you have plenty of socialist avatars here who are pro-life, and there are plenty of anti-Trump liberal New York Times commenters who hate illegal immigration. As a Democrat, I naturally want as many of these people on my side as possible, hence my answer.

[PoliticalShelter]

How is this a compromise? It's basically the full-on Bannon (who should be a Democrat, by the way) position.

As a Democrat, I'd take it on the condition that the Bannonite wing merges into the Democratic party.

Good to see you still haven't got a clue what you talking about.

Coming from the poster who can't tell the difference between a Magic Negro and Black Girl Magic, that makes my day.

I understand the difference quite well. It's much more worrying that you actually used that term when assessing Kamala Harris chances, and listed that as a decisive factor in her chance to win the democratic primary.

[Kamala]

I'm not throwing undocumented immigrants, Muslims, and refugees under the bus for free healthcare and weed.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

I'm not throwing undocumented immigrants, Muslims, and refugees under the bus for free healthcare and weed.

This post is a really great representation of the state of liberalism in 2017.

[Kamala]

I'm not throwing undocumented immigrants, Muslims, and refugees under the bus for free healthcare and weed.

This post is a really great representation of the state of liberalism in 2017.

I really don't care about your opinion. I will not, in good conscience, betray the vulnerable for my own personal gain.

[Goldwater]

Ew, no, gross.

[AN63093]

I'm not throwing undocumented immigrants, Muslims, and refugees under the bus for free healthcare and weed.

This post is a really great representation of the state of liberalism in 2017.

Perhaps.  I suspect the Dems position on immigration is moving to the left (or already has) and will increasingly become a 'third rail' or near litmus-test type issue in the future.  This will have ramifications in lots of issues, but most certainly in how an eventual universal health care proposal would look (when the Dems are back in power).

So that is part of what I am attempting to gauge in this thread; whether this has any basis in reality or is just my inaccurate perception.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

I'm not throwing undocumented immigrants, Muslims, and refugees under the bus for free healthcare and weed.

This post is a really great representation of the state of liberalism in 2017.

I really don't care about your opinion. I will not, in good conscience, betray the vulnerable for my own personal gain.

Selling out millions of Americans who can't afford a humane standard of healthcare to protect foreign nationals and people who have illegally entered your country is betraying the vulnerable. It's the worst and most despicable kind of betrayal.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This isn't a compromise on universal healthcare, it's a strategy to help some people by hurting others. No deal.