That was outside pressure but the change occurred because Congress and legislatures enacted them.
Oh, FFS. The same bureaucrats who refused for years to lift a finger on those issues finally voted for it because the pressure brought to bear by the People in the streets convinced them that it was the only way to save their own miserable skins.
It’s the pressure that created the change. The politicians, by themselves, would still be governing a male voter only, Jim Crow, segregated society that earned crumbs in a sweatshop if it wasn’t for the activists pushing the policies.
We can have “universal health care” and still have insurance and pharma — — Germany does.. those two entities don’t oppose universal care- they are actually in favor of it. What they oppose is regulations and price controls — which is different than universal coverage
Germany has very strict regulations and price controls, set by the Ministry of Health, regarding their public health insurance model. So, based on your own logic, Germany would have the same problem we do. Except Germany has far tighter campaign finance laws, requires all parties to provide full transparency of their donors, and provides each party with public funding. So, you know. Apples and lawn chairs. The reason Germany can enact universal health care and we can’t is because in Germany, Merck and Pfizer can’t buy all the legislators without everyone knowing.
Your example doesn’t refute my argument. It proves it.
I reject the manichean concept of “the political” class… classic “us vs them” approach and NOT accurate. Had I got elected last fall I’d be part of that and I don’t consider myself captured or owned by corporations.
I’d submit that the reason you lost is because you didn’t ingratiate yourself to the corporate-political complex and promise to vote as they told you. Had you done so, you’d be arguing with me from the Rayburn building, instead of your kitchen table. But, of course, you’d also be part of the problem.