Yep. I’d rather we have political conversations that were frank about the trade offs and focused on material change. An example: Medicare for all. Bottom 90% w

Yep. I’d rather we have political conversations that were frank about the trade offs and focused on material change. An example: Medicare for all. Bottom 90% will save money, top 10% will lose money, healthcare system will be free at point of service and won’t be tied to employment. Doctors will still be rich but will make less money. Anyone invested in insurance industries will certainly lose here. I’d argue that discussing policy in material terms is only unpleasant for the powerful, because they are a minority trying to convince the majority to vote against their interests. When it’s all laid out it’s clear where the majority’s interests lie.