2 ms·

The current system is Obamacare, which is objectively terrible. It's just that the system before ACA was even worse. Until conservatives realize that there is n

The current system is Obamacare, which is objectively terrible. It's just that the system before ACA was even worse. Until conservatives realize that there is no free market in health care without government intervention, guilds and cartels will continue.

masonic 8y ago
Obama/Pelosi/Reid could have implemented single-payer instead of Obamacare, but the latter makes their donors much more money.
- labster 8y ago
  I remember 2008, and the path to 60 votes, and this was simply not true. Perhaps if Obama had started negotiating from single-payer, they maybe had would have gotten a public option. But a decade ago not enough democratic voters supported single-payer.
  - masonic 8y ago
    I remember 2008 Obama wasn't even President until 2009. It is true. The Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60-member caucus[0] in the Senate, full control of the House, and the Presidency. They didn't need (and didn't get) a single Republican vote. But as they delayed while busy loading the bill with even more disastrous spending (e.g. community pools, Risk Corridors, etc.), their Senate supermajority fell to 59. [0] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
    - pas 8y ago
      So, they had to cooperate, that is compromise, take more viewpoints into account! That the end result is worse (as in, it costs a lot more GDP wise) doesn't matter, as it wasn't important for the participants anyway. Conservatives wanted to emphasise the personal responsibility (and sweet, sweet personal freedom to not plan ahead), they got it.
    - labster 8y ago
      Caucuses are full of actual people who are worried about representing^W being reelected in vastly different districts. Party leadership can never rely on getting every vote; this is why whips were invented. In the case above, there was zero bipartisan cooperation past the original proposal, so the individual senators really mattered.

masonic 8y ago

Obama/Pelosi/Reid could have implemented single-payer instead of Obamacare, but the latter makes their donors much more money.

labster 8y ago
I remember 2008, and the path to 60 votes, and this was simply not true. Perhaps if Obama had started negotiating from single-payer, they maybe had would have gotten a public option. But a decade ago not enough democratic voters supported single-payer.
- masonic 8y ago
  I remember 2008 Obama wasn't even President until 2009. It is true. The Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60-member caucus[0] in the Senate, full control of the House, and the Presidency. They didn't need (and didn't get) a single Republican vote. But as they delayed while busy loading the bill with even more disastrous spending (e.g. community pools, Risk Corridors, etc.), their Senate supermajority fell to 59. [0] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
  - pas 8y ago
    So, they had to cooperate, that is compromise, take more viewpoints into account! That the end result is worse (as in, it costs a lot more GDP wise) doesn't matter, as it wasn't important for the participants anyway. Conservatives wanted to emphasise the personal responsibility (and sweet, sweet personal freedom to not plan ahead), they got it.
  - labster 8y ago
    Caucuses are full of actual people who are worried about representing^W being reelected in vastly different districts. Party leadership can never rely on getting every vote; this is why whips were invented. In the case above, there was zero bipartisan cooperation past the original proposal, so the individual senators really mattered.