Mnementh said:
But they didn't realize any of it. All I see is superficial not effective. That's why it has no effect on the Gini-index. And we can say the republicans do the same. Affordable health care. A lot of orders on education, which effect we still have to see. Public transport. But to what effect really? How much of it is show, how much reshuffling of funds, how much supporting helpers of the party? And that goes for democrats too. As the Gini-index shows nothing they did had a real effect on wealth distribution. But meaningful effective policies in these four areas (and more) would lead to an effect. Which means none of it ever was meaningful or effective. To be clear: the democrats surely produce a lot of paper which can people like you convince that they are doing something. But if over decades the effect is negligable the people that should be the ones feeling these policies, they start to ask questions. |
False.
I'm not going to talk about all of them, but to start with the first, affordable healthcare, Democrats passed the affordable care act which expanded coverage and lowered prices for many Americans. Additionally, it included an expansion of Medicaid that states could opt into. Democrat run states overwhelming opted into this expanded eligibility, allowing about 25 million Americans to enroll in Medicaid who would have previously been ineligible. Additionally, the ACA made the process of enrolling much easier.
The Biden Administration also implemented the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, with the reduced prices of the first 10 of these medications (which are used by about 10million people) kicking in next year.
You continue to be blinded to the positive effects of legislation due to your obsession with the GINI Index. The people who are still alive because they were granted access to healthcare shouldn't be ignored because your favorite number doesn't account for the dead. Based on the way the GINI Index is calculated (looking at distribution of wealth by different chunks of the population), keeping the poor alive could actually lead to a greater degree of perceived inequality, because a dead person isn't counted as a portion of the population.
Very Mitchell and Webb to just boil everything down to a number: "Have you tried 'Kill all the poor'?"
