If you simply see it politically, then sure. I see progress as a fairly objective goal. We may differ on how, but surely we can agree on the facts and what the definition of better is.

A policy that's objectively better for one person might be objectively worse for another. I know several people whose health insurance became worse (more expensive for less coverage) due to Obamacare.

I believe that the government should focus strictly on macro outcomes. I.e big goals, like "more people covered by medical insurance" or "average life expectancy increase", etc. It's impossible at a high level to ensure that every last person gets a better outcome.

I'd also say that if anybody really did end up with more expensive policies with worse coverage, that's a continuing fault with our insurance companies. If they were functioning correctly, then an increase in policy premium after ACA would indicate that the consumer was not accurately assessing their own risk previously and thought their coverage was far more extensive than in reality. I haven't yet found an actual example of someone who really did get less coverage that cost more. Inevitably they are comparing an old plan that had basically no actual, effective coverage to one with far fewer loopholes.

>I'd also say that if anybody really did end up with more expensive policies with worse coverage, that's a continuing fault with our insurance companies. If they were functioning correctly, then an increase in policy premium after ACA would indicate that the consumer was not accurately assessing their own risk previously

Nope, it means that the risk pools changed and now everyone has to pay significantly more because they are paying for people with existing conditions. The only people that didn’t end up paying more are the ones who receive subsidies they didn’t previously.

The old plans were better if you didn’t have a condition because you were pooled with cheaper people to care for. Loophole reduction only plays a small part in that.

ACA changed health insurance from being insurance into a country-wide health program for already sick people. Insurance is a terrible vehicle for that. It was a horrible compromise and single payer would have been worlds better once you’re already down the path of that level of government intervention.

I see using nuclear to the fullest extent possible to displace all coal, gas, and wind generation as progress.

This view is directly at odds with the “progressive party” in the US that is convinced the only way forward is prayers that we will come up with an energy storage solution to make up for the instability of wind/solar while continuing to allow nat gas and coal in the interim while climate change marches on.

In my views, every time the government increases taxes and starts more individual and corporate welfare programs, that is the opposite of progress because it’s very rare that the government executes something effectively with self sustaining income.

Cap and trade is progress. Random bans on industries are not. And on and on.

So yes, we can certainly agree on facts, but I don’t think many people can agree on what the definition of better is because that’s definitely subjective.

Cortez and Sanders were elected on socialist platforms and they want nothing but massive government expansion of welfare programs that they see as “progress” and “better”. Their proposals so far have massive funding flaws and/or are ripe to fail in a short period of time (in my view) so I don’t see them pushing progress or anything better.

While this is a valid question, most people understand the fundamental concept of "disagreeing", even if they've considered the opposition and rejected it (perhaps justly, perhaps unjustly, by some metric). Therefore, I'd try to expand on this thought - your single sentence is a little hostile and curt. It doesn't really lead anywhere.