House Republicans' CHOICE Act would roll back some Obamacare protections
JDPoZ @ JDPoZ @beehaw.org Posts 0Comments 16Joined 2 yr. ago
The "not voting" thing is actually a little complicated.
First off - there are many people who don't vote. The reasons are not always simple.
Yes there are lazy asshats who would support non-ghouls and could easily do it and don't. You can shit on them.
But they aren't necessarily the majority.
There are numerous hurdles that on their own aren't tough, but that overlap and stack sometimes and when added up act as a significant obstacle that many just don't see the benefit to trying to overcome :
- Polling places aren't open on weekends or holidays. And there really isn't strong protections for workers being given time to wait in long lines to vote. Many people work 40+ hrs a week at places that - although legally technically have to give you time to go vote, really have middle management types that WILL retaliate against you in a way that is technically hazy enough that any sort of legal consequence for them doing so isn't worth pursuing if you are barely getting by and making poverty-line income.
- The Rs close polling stations ANYWHERE near poorer areas they can. That's why places like Houston have like ONE polling station for a county with literal millions of voters. They know no one wants to stand for 4 hours in line in 105F Texas heat just to drop a ballot in a box that they also think won't win because of how often the Rs like Cruz, Abbott, etc. keep winning or just holding on to their seats.
- Democratic officials voluntarily water down their own legislation in a stupid attempt to "reach out" and seek middle ground, which only lessens the motivation for voters... like instead of "we're going to wipe out all medical debt" you get stuff like "we're going to allow voters to go to a website (that barely functions) and they can fill out a 12 page form that will allow them to apply for a 1-time partial percentage-based rebate that changes depending on your income and insurance information for the past 3 years."
All this shit adds up to only make people feel discouraged or that their vote wouldn't matter anyway, or that there's nothing really to show up to fight for.
Yes that sucks, yes people should understand that by not showing up, they then FORFEIT various EXISTING rights like the right to an abortion... but that's not how people think. People show up for a REWARD... not to defend what they already have but don't know what they might lose.
Like - here's my favorite way to help people better understand this because I get into arguments all the time about that last point :
In the US, people show up for Black Friday sales, because the reward they imagine they'll get is a motivating factor. Now imagine if instead of getting a shitty 65" TV for 75% off, Best Buy said "come in on Black Friday and fill out a form to protect your right to get a refund within 90 days when products are defective."
No one would show up. And when Best Buy then decided because no one showed up to fill out the form to now no longer allow refunds, suddenly would a bunch of assholes saying "TOLD YOU TO SIGN UP FOR THE BEST BUY PROTECT YOUR PURCHASES FORM! SUCKS TO SUCK LOLOLOL!" be in the right? Yeah... I guess... but - again - showing up en masse to do something that protects a possible loss isn't how people generally think when making decisions to do or not do something that asks them to inconvenience themselves.
Let's re-examine your statement by switching out a couple of words that keep the idea of "why should they get
<x>
?" to show how it would sound with any other context.I <had to lose my eye to a car wreck> <carmakers to build vehicles with seatbelts>
They <want to drive> <drive in a car without a seatbelt just like I did> <mandate airbags in cars>
Why not? It’s the same principle.
Do you understand now? If not, try changing what's in the
<x>
to being related to "cancer treatment" or "the 40 hour work week" or "social security."Just because something before was bad and we made it better, doesn't mean we should not do it just because it won't help everyone.
Framing here's a bit off. You shouldn't have to go to school - sure... as a requirement... but the big thing that's completely being missed (as we have been taught that college is for "fancy" jobs) is that in other decent countries... there is no cost to it.
Advanced educated populaces are seen by non - "authoritarian-run-shit-holes" as something that makes a country more economically competitive in an increasingly global job market.
Whether it's being paid to learn on the job training with a welding apprenticeship subsidized by taxes, or being able to go to medical school via tax-subsidized funds that don't create artificial barriers to entry for the poor for no other reason - it's a good thing for advanced education (and pre-school and every other form of education) to be publicly funded.
Those of us who've been on the internet since the mid-90s remember how Digg fucked up. Apparently none of those people who remember what happened last time are around at the top of Reddit anymore.
Stealing my old comment from the place that shall not be named in response to a similar question asked there by someone in a comparable situation to share here due to relevancy - A person had replied to the OP question declaring that "women didn't respect men's hobbies" so I said :
Perhaps there is a more useful way to frame things…
How about instead :
“It’s somewhat common for people with some level of disfunction within their intimate relationships to be okay living their entire lives with a partner essentially dictating what is ‘acceptable’ in their lives together in such a way that is uncompromising for said other partner - who then feels like they are not deserving of the things that make them happy. This is unhealthy as it builds resentment and encourages dishonesty and ‘going around’ set boundaries only really agreed upon by one party.”
The takeaway should not be : “Women have no respect for men’s hobbies.”
There are plenty of women who love games, and plenty of men who don’t.
The takeaway should be : “Partners in an intimate relationship should have enough love and respect for one another that they can truly find middle ground with issues they disagree on - while at the same time trying to better empathize, communicate, and enrich each others’ lives. If you and your partner disagree on where gaming should be as an aspect of your personal hobbies and interests, a reasonable compromise should be discussed.”
I am a guy at the same age. My spouse doesn’t really game much… but we have our video games in the living room, as that allows me to enjoy our home theater setup for single player type and online multiplayer gaming between my fellow parent gamers and myself, while also allowing us as a family to play certain games like Mario Kart and Castle Crashers together across seating that is comfortable and roomy.
My partner loves me and wants me to be happy. And I want them to be happy. If you aren’t happy with the arrangement currently set… talk about it. If they can’t meet you in the middle… then decide if it’s worth it to continue discussing it or not and go forward.
Really that’s a foundational aspect of healthy relationships… communication, respect, and a hope that you help make the other happy and feel supported.
A relationship without that foundation will likely eventually fail.