4 ms·
Sometimes broad problems demand broad statements. We could get into the specifics of the two-party duopoly and the legacy of kowtowing to healthcare and health
by 34679 6y ago
Sometimes broad problems demand broad statements. We could get into the specifics of the two-party duopoly and the legacy of kowtowing to healthcare and health insurance industries, but the examples are far too numerous and stretch back far too long.
I will provide two examples, one from each party, so as to be less divisive:
Affordable Care Act: Democrats controlled the house, senate, and presidency. They could've passed any bill they wanted. Instead of medicare for all or similar, they passed a bill that required everyone to purchase a 3rd party product called insurance. The overhead and profits of the insurance industry add to the cost of actual healthcare.
National Health Planning and Resources Development Act: Nixon signed this in 1974. It mandates that anyone trying to build a healthcare facility apply for and receive a Certificate of Need. This creates local monopolies for existing healthcare facilities by eliminating new competition. It's a blatant form of protectionism.
- bobthepanda 6y agoTo pass ACA the Democrats needed 60 out of 100 seats in the Senate and they had 58. To pass it they caucused with two independents, and one of them, Joe Lieberman, specifically would not vote for it if it had a public option.
- 34679 6y agoThey needed 60 to avoid a filibuster. A filibuster would've required Republicans to obstruct the vote by speaking continuously on why Americans don't deserve healthcare. Democrats had them backed in a corner. All they had to do was propose a bill that benefited everyday Americans instead of corporate backers and they would've made the Republicans look like absolute fools for speaking endlessly against it. A filibuster only lasts as long as the opposition keeps debate open.
- bobthepanda 6y agoThe Overton window wasn't that far left in 2009. A good deal of the Obamacare messaging was focused around telling middle class Americans that no, they would not lose their existing employer-provided coverage. And even if you could pull out all the data that would show that Medicare for All benefited people more than existing coverage no one would've believed it.