4 ms·

> So why didn't they all vote for Obamacare and for the public option, subsidized by higher taxes? Did it come up for a national popular vote where you got fiv

> So why didn't they all vote for Obamacare and for the public option, subsidized by higher taxes? Did it come up for a national popular vote where you got five options and you picked the one you liked best? I don't remember it happening this way. And let's just say that it did. If everyone didn't vote for that option, well, that's not what gets enacted and you're SOL. Government isn't pick-and-choose, it's all-or-nothing.

aston 10y ago
Well, in this particular case, there was no popular vote for any part of Obamacare. But there were a very large number of congressmen elected before the bill passed, during its negotiation and even now well after it's been cemented as law by the Supreme Court who had a major policy platform of reforming or completely rolling back the ACA.
- msandford 10y ago
  Which is precisely the point. You don't get to TELL your elected officials how to vote. You just get to try and elect people who will HOPEFULLY do what's in your best interests. There are no guarantees in the system, anywhere. That makes the question you asked rather disingenuous.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mac01021 10y ago
    > You just get to try and elect people who will HOPEFULLY do what's in your best interests. You get to do a bit more than that, though few ever do. Making full use of representative democracy means continuously contacting your representative, not leaving them alone until you're convinced they'll act in your interests, and not leaving your friends/family/community alone until you've got as many other people as you can badgering your representative just as much. It's very time consuming and won't work at all if there aren't enough people with the same problem but, in the case of the author of this article, the relevant problem is quite widespread.
    - rashkov 10y ago
      Which is why the 40 hour work week and dog-eat-dog economy seem to really suit those representatives just fine. No one has time or energy to make full use of representative democracy, unfortunately, except for some of the well off with resources to spare.
      - mac01021 10y ago
        You're working a lot more than 40 hours per week if you don't have an hour a day to spend on advocacy.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        NoGravitas 10y ago
        The problem being that if you're in a job with standard hours, the hour a day you have to spend on advocacy happens during the time your representatives and their staffers are not available.
        mac01021 10y ago
        I have trouble imagining a realistic job (in the USA, anyway) that wouldn't allow you to take 20 minutes for a phone call during business hours or get a free afternoon every month or two. And at least half of your advocacy will consist of writing and research and recruiting other citizens to your cause - all of which can be done just as easily outside of normal business hours.
        umanwizard 10y ago
        Uh, I used to be a cashier at McDonald's (reasonable job? you decide), I can tell you that they would never have let me wander off to use the phone for 20 minutes randomly, other than at my lunch break, which I needed to use to, y'know, eat lunch.
    - deleted 10y ago

aston 10y ago

Well, in this particular case, there was no popular vote for any part of Obamacare. But there were a very large number of congressmen elected before the bill passed, during its negotiation and even now well after it's been cemented as law by the Supreme Court who had a major policy platform of reforming or completely rolling back the ACA.

msandford 10y ago
Which is precisely the point. You don't get to TELL your elected officials how to vote. You just get to try and elect people who will HOPEFULLY do what's in your best interests. There are no guarantees in the system, anywhere. That makes the question you asked rather disingenuous.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mac01021 10y ago
  > You just get to try and elect people who will HOPEFULLY do what's in your best interests. You get to do a bit more than that, though few ever do. Making full use of representative democracy means continuously contacting your representative, not leaving them alone until you're convinced they'll act in your interests, and not leaving your friends/family/community alone until you've got as many other people as you can badgering your representative just as much. It's very time consuming and won't work at all if there aren't enough people with the same problem but, in the case of the author of this article, the relevant problem is quite widespread.
  - rashkov 10y ago
    Which is why the 40 hour work week and dog-eat-dog economy seem to really suit those representatives just fine. No one has time or energy to make full use of representative democracy, unfortunately, except for some of the well off with resources to spare.
    - mac01021 10y ago
      You're working a lot more than 40 hours per week if you don't have an hour a day to spend on advocacy.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - NoGravitas 10y ago
        The problem being that if you're in a job with standard hours, the hour a day you have to spend on advocacy happens during the time your representatives and their staffers are not available.
        mac01021 10y ago
        I have trouble imagining a realistic job (in the USA, anyway) that wouldn't allow you to take 20 minutes for a phone call during business hours or get a free afternoon every month or two. And at least half of your advocacy will consist of writing and research and recruiting other citizens to your cause - all of which can be done just as easily outside of normal business hours.
        umanwizard 10y ago
        Uh, I used to be a cashier at McDonald's (reasonable job? you decide), I can tell you that they would never have let me wander off to use the phone for 20 minutes randomly, other than at my lunch break, which I needed to use to, y'know, eat lunch.
  - deleted 10y ago