this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2025
787 points (99.4% liked)

politics

26418 readers
2643 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] oxysis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 188 points 1 week ago (2 children)

And once again Bernie Sanders is fucking correct

[–] coyootje@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I really wish Bernie would enter the presidential as an independent. Not necessarily as the presidential pick but maybe as VP, given his age. Although if you see how the annoying orange has been doing recently I think Bernie could take over even in 4 years from now and be better.

[–] epicstove@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I fear that by doing that it would split the left vote. Resulting in more easy Republican victories.

[–] coyootje@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Perhaps. Or he could rally a whole bunch of the republican voters to vote for him as well. At this point you're basically choosing between 2 evils every election, the borderline nazi evil and the complacent evil. Either one is not getting things done the way they should and maybe a solid 3rd candidate could change that.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ConstantPain@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Calling democrats "the left" is a bit funny...

load more comments (2 replies)

Yes he hasn’t signed on wanting Schumer to be replaced.

Either has AOC.

That’s it IMO. That’s the death of it all right there.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 84 points 1 week ago (14 children)

Bernie should have started 3rd party when they cheated him out of the presidential nomination. He played it safe and achieved nothing.

[–] theoneandonlyeggboi@lemmings.world 45 points 1 week ago (10 children)

Americans are too stupid to vote for a 3rd party and they're too stupid to implement any kind of ranked choice voting.

We all suffer because of our collective stupidity, and rich people continue to profit off of it.

[–] TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh no, we aren't too stupid to implement ranked choice voting, we live in a country run by people who have a vested interest in not implementing it

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Por que no los dos?

MA lost the ballot initiative for ranked choice voting by lobbyists who made enough people believe it's too complicated.

Too complicated? Motherfucker you've been ranking favorite things longer than you've been shitting on a toilet.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Soulg@ani.social 12 points 1 week ago

Extremely ignorant take. The majority of people want ranked choice, the government is just setup in such a way that it is exceedingly difficult to achieve, though there are people trying. Plus a 3rd party has literally zero chance until that happens so you even bringing that up demonstrates how fucking stupid your plan actually is

But why bother using your brain when you can just whine about Ameridumbs ehhahhehahehhhahahehhahehahahahhehahah

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Third party won't work in a FPTP system.

We can pass RCV in local elections across the country, but progressive Dems need to work within the party lines to get shit done.

And he is a 3rd party: Democratic Socialist.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Having two parties also doesn't work in any meaningful way. Democrats lost presidential elections to a convicted criminal and are unable to effectively use the tiny amount of power they still have. Yes, splitting Democratic vote would hand all the elections to Republicans but they ended up controlling everything anyway and people still don't have any real alternative. Destroying and rebuilding the Democratic party from scratch would get you closer to a functioning system than trying to work withing party lines.

Bernie lost almost a decade ago. The political scene would look completely different by now (maybe some sort of joined primaries between Dems and Bernie's party). He had a once in a lifetime chance to really change the system but chose not do do it.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

but they ended up controlling everything anyway

Republicans have been completely aligned since Trump came into office. Democrats instead have had spoiler candidates that have almost completely ruined their plans in the Biden Admin.

We should be focused on primary-ing out the moderates and establishment candidates in the party. Yes the DNC always has the ability to shut shit down as they did in 2016 with Bernie, but if the movement is strong enough, I wager that won't matter.

chose not do do it

Bernie got snubbed by the DNC in 2016??? Hello?

And Biden capitulated to Bernie in 2020 by adopting his policies, only later abandoning them like an asshole.

Bernie has rarely chosen at any point NOT to change the system.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanguine@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Achieved nothing? He inspired an entire generation, who were previously apathetic regarding politics, to begin engaging in the political system.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] frostysauce@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Oh, yeah. Bernie Sanders achieved nothing. What a wonderfully well grounded take. Not delusional at all. 🙄

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 40 points 1 week ago

The rich assholes in Washington do not care about us. They are set for life with the best Healthcare in the world. Why should they care about us?

Fuck the democrats. Fuck the Republicans more, but these democrats need to fucking go as well. They all need to go.

[–] not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Can someone explain to me simply (and I'm assuming the answer to that is "no"), why they can't force the insurance companies to compete with each other on price. That would seem to be the obvious "free market republican" thing to do, and a prerequisite for removing the fat subsidy to the insurance companies that they're currently trying to remove.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 61 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Because insurance doesn’t work like a normal product or good.

What ends up happening is they charge as much as they possibly can. The book “an American sickness” explains all the problems if you’re interested.

The ACA was never going to be great. It was the best that could get passed.

[–] mikenurre@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It wasn't the best that could get passed. The Dems had a super majority during Obama's 1st two years and could have gotten us Medicare for all, but Rahm Emmanuel blocked it.

[–] toast@retrolemmy.com 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Rahm wasn't the bad guy. He was one of many bad guys. The list of Democrats (politicians, not voters) who were actually for Medicare for all was smaller than the list who were actually against it. Not because it would be bad policy, but because $$$$.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SGGeorwell@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Joe Lieberman blocked it. Rahm Emanuel was just the president’s chief of staff who tried to talk him out of it. Joe Lieberman was the senator from Connecticut, where all the old money lives.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Lieberman blocked the public option

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

The Dems had a super majority during Obama’s 1st two years

Nope. Even for the ~60 days they technically had it, they still had to contend with Senator Byrd being out of session due to health issues.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Cause then those companies would have less to kickback to their government cronies

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

So insurance companies have to pay back out to their insured 85% of all money they collect each year. Been that way since the 1970's.

What this means is that they WANT medical costs to be as high as possible. 15% of a $2,000 ambulance ride is a lot more than 15% of a $500 ambulance ride.

So the insurance companies have spent decades forcing hospitals to increase costs (charge more or we'll make your hospital out of our network and no one will come to your hospital).

What this means is that as long as insurance companies exist, there isn't really a "compete on costs" possibility. They're already paying back out 85%. At most they might be able to make things 5% cheaper. There's no competition because there's no real areas to cut costs, by design.

The only fix is to eliminate insurance all together and go single payer, or to legally force hospitals to drop all their billing costs down to levels on par with the rest of the world, and both those options will be fought tooth and nail by insurance companies, since one would make their business disappear and the later would make their 15% cut for profits and overhead vastly smaller.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] orclev@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Mostly because:

A) Insurance companies collude with each other

B) are only half the problem (the other half being hospitals and pharmaceutical companies cranking prices up)

C) Most Americans get their insurance through their employer

and

D) Healthcare costs are complicated because they're split between insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses and typically raising one lowers the other and vice versa

Insurance was always a terrible way to handle healthcare expenses because healthcare costs are generally non-discretionary and have far too many moving parts and payers.

[–] not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Those are all caused by them not needing to compete. Throw a few execs in jail for collusion to defraud their clients (the employers), and the other issues all go away.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Only the first one can be fixed by competition, the rest aren't impacted by that at all. There are too many moving parts for it all to magically go away by just saying "make them compete". For instance what happens when insurance companies compete to offer the best deals on group rates to employers but then charge exorbitant premiums to employees? Or what if insurance premiums all magically came down but pharmaceutical prices kept skyrocketing?

Medical costs are an inelastic demand as well as a non-discretionary expense. That's an absolutely terrible combination which means they're almost entirely isolated from market forces.

Consider for instance a situation I find myself in. I need a certain medication for a permanent medical condition. Fortunately there are multiple medications available (often due to patents there's only a single option). Unfortunately I'm allergic to all but one of them. That means it doesn't matter if the pharmaceutical company is charging $5 or $5000 I'm paying for it. I literally have no choice. Whether my insurance pays for 100% of that or 0% doesn't change what the pharmaceutical company is charging. Further for insurance I was offered a choice of about 5 different plans through my employer (which is a lot by most standards, often employers only offer one or two plans). My insurance is by all metrics terrible, I pay thousands of dollars every year in deductibles, but once I hit those deductibles it covers everything at 90% which with my medical expenses save me tens of thousands of dollars a year. There are cheaper plans of course, but then the tradeoff is that I'm restricted to a tiny handful of doctors who are all terrible and every single medical decision has to be pre-approved by the insurance company or they don't cover it and I'd rather pay the extra thousand dollars a year to keep those decisions between me and my doctors.

The US medical system is a hydra and fixing any one part doesn't actually solve anything. The entire system needs to be overhauled top to bottom. Switching to a single payer system is just the first step in that process but it's a necessary one because otherwise the problem is intractable. It's likely the patent system is going to need to be overhauled at least with regards to medications before it's fixed as well.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The Republicans know the free market is a myth and the only way to win in a capitalist system is to start rich and cheat. This involves convincing the plebs to believe in a free market.

The simple answer is that they would make less money if they did that, so it's very important to convince the American public that it isn't necessary and we should vote for people who will not enact it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tippy@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Incredibly relevant discourse for the current US political environment

Apologies for reddit link, can't upload video directly in a comment on lemmy. The information this individual covers is absolutely vital for understanding modern politics in the US, and needs to be common knowledge if the US is ever going to recover from the exploitation that has led us here.

Most on lemmy will already be aware of the basics covered here, but for anyone confused as to why dems always choose failure in the most frustrating ways, this will explain it for you. This is why we need to support actual progressives who refuse to be bought and paid for.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

First we need actual progressives to run.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

What if all American's cancel their insurance. Why are we paying these people for a service that they don't provide!? If I'm going to be sick and broke because my insurance is too expensive to actually use, why not be sick and broke while not giving them our money.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

well because 3 times the premium cost is still far below the cost of surgery. i am currently recovering from the removal of a cyst in my jaw that ate half my jaw leaving bone barely 3 playing cards thick in some areas. there was nothing i could have done to avoid it. the surgery too make the marsupilisation to drain the area alone was $3500, with only pain numbing. still awaiting the final surgery cost, but the anastegeologist is $1500 that i have to pay. and the stitches from my mandolin accident costs me an additional $1500.

this is ALL what i have to pay, while i have silver level coverage

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

marsupilisation

anastegeologist

mandolin accident

Hmm

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

What if all American’s cancel their insurance. Why are we paying these people for a service that they don’t provide!?

Because then that annual physical goes from costing you 20 dollars out of pocket to almost 900 once the bloodwork is added.

If I’m going to be sick and broke because my insurance is too expensive to actually use,

And that is the real crux of it and why we need single payer/m4a. You, like most people, are approaching health insurance as something you need when you are sick.

The reality is that health insurance is something you have so you don't actually get sick. You engage in preventative care whether that is vaccinations or just getting that lump checked out while it is still "you are either fat or have cancer" rather than "if we don't cut out a large chunk of your leg, you are going to die" and so forth. Get your teeth cleaned rather than filled with epoxies and so forth.

And... that is also a big chunk of why it is so expensive. Because hospitals are generally staffed by people who give a shit (even if they often aren't owned by folk that do...) and needing to care for people who don't have insurance is a thing (at least in emergencies. But it isn't like we live in a country where there are one or more mass shootings a day...). So the idea is that Mr Wilkerson, who has insurance, will pay out the nose on aspirin so that Mr Carey, who doesn't, can get a hit of the mediocre stuff.

Which also leads to the complete fuckery of insurance companies being aware of that and more or less insisting on a system where they are billed something truly insane (10k for a tablet of aspirin!) so that they can use the power of collective bargaining to get that down to something "reasonable" (50 dollars per tablet of aspirin!) that they then have a co-pay on. Whereas people who don't have insurance get that insane bill and need to fight for themselves and/or go bankrupt.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 11 points 1 week ago

I think the Democratic leadership is now certain to follow the Whigs into the Home for Infinite Losers, alongside the Republicans too. That situation sounds VERY familiar. "They flip-flopped, then they caved."

The Whigs Collapse! | Why Slavery Killed the Age of Jackson

collapsed inline media

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Asked if Schumer should be replaced, Sanders replied: "By whom? That's the point."

But he offered a less-than-ringing endorsement of the top Senate Democrat, who Sanders said belongs to the party's "corporate wing." Sanders also said "it goes deeper than Schumer."

A politician is just a politician at the end of the day, but common sense should tell you that there are still degrees trustworthiness even among politicians. Comparing the immediate responses yesterday to the news that the Dems had caved, should make everyone really think about Sander's response to this question, and what he's really saying here.

When I compare the immediate response of the Dem I trust the most to the response of the Dem I trust the least, both seemed upset by this news. However, only one seemed genuinely perplexed, and immediately expressed his frustration on behalf of the Americans who would be harmed by the decision to cave. The other immediately began to push a strategy narrative calling for new leadership in the party.

Both gave subsequent interviews. One used every news outlet that would have him to continue spreading the narrative calling for new leadership. The other, again focused on the harm this would do to Americans. 24 hours later, guess which talking point has received the most attention?

When asked how he felt about calls for new leadership, for some reason the Dem that I trust the most didn't immediately hop on the band wagon that everyone else has been hyper focused on for the past 24 hours, but it's definitely not because he thinks the current leader of the party is the strongest and the most effective.

collapsed inline media

collapsed inline media

collapsed inline media

March 2023: Rep. Ro Khanna defends fundraiser at David Sacks’s home after supporting Silicon Valley Bank bailout

October 2025: Rep. Ro Khanna’s Financial Disclosures Show Investments in Palantir the Tech Company Building Immigration Tool

Replaced by whom? That's the point.

[–] berno@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Dem leadership is ass. Rep leadership is ass.

We're cooked.

load more comments
view more: next ›