Ryan Daniel Moran responds to a YouTube comment about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), praising her persuasive skills and vision but criticizing her as a policymaker whose rhetoric often polarizes rather than produces workable solutions. He argues the Green New Deal is an effective framing device but suggests Republicans should co-opt its goals while proposing system-oriented, state-level approaches (e.g., ending federal subsidies, devolving healthcare to states) instead of centralized federal mandates. He contrasts Canada’s provincial healthcare administration and Massachusetts’ state-level reforms with one-size-fits-all federal programs, advocating localized, constitutionally appropriate pathways to near-universal coverage.
Chapters
Let's talk about this comment on YouTube. Boom. AOC isn't going anywhere. You're probably right. Although your opinion about it being in Australia, my opinion about it being in Austin, Texas doesn't determine that. The only thing that determines if AOC is going anywhere is her constituents in New York. Now, I also think that most people on the right highly underestimate aoc. She is a wonderful persuader. She's a wonderful person who casts a vision and says what she wants. She's a terrible policymaker. So I like Scott Adams differentiation where he says people on the left tend to be very goal oriented and people on the right tend to be very systems oriented. And we actually need both perspectives and we get kind of pigeonholed into our perspectives and then we see the other person as the enemy and we say that would never work because we're systems oriented. And we say, you're so short sighted because they're goal oriented. And nobody ever works together to actually achieve the goals that they want. So in the case of something like a Green New Deal, which AOC has possibly pioneered and she's coined that term, if I was a Republican elected in Congress right now, I would be the first person to sign on to support the Green New Deal. And then I would open up conversations about how it is that we actually get there. For example, we could have a Green New Deal by simply ending subsidies to oil companies. We could invest in new technologies, and we could end things like the EPA and big government organizations that sop up resources and take them out of the private sector. So a Green New Deal is a great framing strategy to be able to initiate change through government. The the problem that I have with someone like AOC is that her language is constantly making enemies and poking the bear in order to make a point rather than coming up with solutions that could actually work. That is my opinion on aoc. So, okay, Aussie girl responds by saying her policy positions are highly popular because they are sane. Well, here's the thing. No, they are not. The goals are sane. Green technology is very sane. Healthcare for all is very sane. The these are very rational. These are very great goals. The policy positions are not. The actual route about going about them is proven to be faulty. For example, some people will make the argument that Canada has universal healthcare and we should adopt a similar system. Well, Canada has universal healthcare done on the provincial level, meaning that they do it in our version of the state level. So they have a federal mandate that all provinces have their own healthcare system. But each province has a different System. We have that exact system in the United States. Massachusetts has nearly universal health care on a very popular policy that was initiated by Mitt Romney, a Republican governor, and it was used as the model for what is called Obamacare, the Affordable Care act, which Mitt Romney very publicly was against. The reason for that is because what works in Massachusetts does not work in South Dakota. What works in Massachusetts does not work in Texas. So you can fall on this sword of having universal health care. But even the countries who have universal health care recognize that a system cannot work if it is mandated over all people. Even countries as small as Canada, which has a population which is the same as California, splits their universal healthcare plan into the different provinces so that each province can come up with their own customized plan. So if you're going to have universal health care in the United States, which you can do, you have to do it in a way that is both constitutionally appropriate and do it in a way that is rationally appropriate. The way that you do that is you allow the states to come up with their own plans and you can starve the federal system of the programs, the money that we spend on the federal level, and you can return that money back to the states so that the states can come up with their own custom plans to be able to roll out their own health care. The reason why four states don't have universal health care plans is because we have given that money and that attention and that power to the federal government and expected them to create policies and procedures that cover all 50 states. We see that through the FDA. We see that through Medicare. We see that through the policies and the systems that started in the 60s and 70s that have been rolled out to create cheaper health care and haven't worked. Reason they haven't worked is because they try to too much with too few resources over too many people. I find it so interesting that the same people who advocate for universal healthcare are also so against the current President of the United States, as if they don't expect that giving more power to Washington D.C. won't perpetuate the problem of having another person who you don't like sitting in the White House. You don't solve problems by giving more power to the federal government because the next person who you don't like in office is going to use that power to do shit you don't like. So what do you do instead? You. You put the power in the hands of more micro people, that is states and local governments. You give the power back over to people and let them make the decisions about what is best for their health care. And you can do that in a way that covers everybody because you can have more localized health care systems. You can have more state run systems that are not dependent on the federal level, that don't increase taxes and that don't suck. That's how you get universal health care. Thank you for playing. Sam.
