The Pennsylvania Democrat recalled his time serving as a Hillary Clinton surrogate in 2016, even after he supported Bernie Sanders in the primary.

  • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    California has a bullet proof super majority and they can’t provide a livable wage, affordable housing, universal healthcare which includes dental and mental healthcare, or address homelessness other than hiding them from view. If a state like that can’t provide, why should be trust it to happen at the federal level? Dems could hold everything but 1% of Congress and they would blame that 1% for everything they didn’t do

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I live in CA. Our homeless people have Medi-Cal, which includes dental, vision, and mental care. We have a zoning issue that the NIMBYs aren’t budging on, though I think I have found a workaround involving right of first refusal. Once we fix the zoning issue, our housing costs will come down dramatically.

      Also, remember we only “own” about 1/3 of the land out here. Most of the state is Federal land operated by the BLM

      • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        K I’ll go tell the tent cities that everything is actually going really well for them lol.

        Private healthcare loves the ACA + Medi-Cal cause it keeps their costs high and guarantees tax dollars can pay it. These companies often sell off their debt for fractions of it’s value cause they know they’re not going to get it all back, and they only need a small percentage to turn a ridiculous profit. This is the system these tax scheme substitutes for public healthcare help maintain.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dude, compare California to a non Democratic majority state, not to the perfect utopia you want.

      Of course California has problems. If they solved those problems, there would be other problems.

      But California has massively fewer problems due to the untouchable Democratic supermajority in the state.

      Parts of California even have ranked choice voting.

    • theuberwalrus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The major difference between the federal government and state governments is the fact that the federal government is the source of all money. They can spend it into existence. California cannot.

      • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        None of the things that would improve the quality of peoples lives better would cost the state a dime. Requiring businesses to pay a livable wage will increase state revenues and a stronger economy. Requiring universal healthcare would increase productivity and provide preventative care which lowers costs to the state, employers, and employees.

        • theuberwalrus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It seemed that your original comment boiled down to, if a state can’t do something, how can the federal government possibly do it, and I gave a major reason why. Also, healthcare isn’t free unfortunately, and since it cannot be tied to employment, it would have to come from the government.

          • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            it would have to come from the government

            The government can regulate coverage and medicine. The core infrastructure is already in place through Medicare and Medicaid in every state.