3 ms·

Wasn't Obama swayed against a single payer system, because eliminating all the middle men would end up with like 2 million people going unemployed?

alistairSH 2y ago
More likely he was swayed because ACA was closer to a sure thing than anything remotely socialized.
mrguyorama 2y ago
Obama was "swayed" because there were several "democrats" whose vote was required to pass anything who explicitly said they would not vote for single payer. People get this weird idea that democrats "aren't doing anything", but you need votes in the US system to do anything and democrats consistently lose elections. The people who stayed home and didn't vote will then insist that democrats didn't do enough to win their vote. But you can't do anything in the US without votes.
- semiquaver 2y ago
  > whose vote was required to pass The 111th Congress had a historically large majority that has not been seen by either party since. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress They had more than enough votes: the ACA passed the senate 60-39. The senate filibuster that led them to compromise on the public option is a procedural rule that can be altered by simple majority, not a law.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Removing the filibuster is a "nuclear option" - once it's gone, when the Senate inevitably swings the other way, the new majority will make use of it's absence to ram through whatever they want. There are arguments that this would actually be preferable and moderating, but that's a whole other debate. The 60 member supermajority was also fragile. And only lasted 72 days. There was a time limit on passing anything major. None of which is to say your wrong, only that there was a bit more nuance than "Dems had majority and flubbed".

3 ms·

Wasn't Obama swayed against a single payer system, because eliminating all the middle men would end up with like 2 million people going unemployed?

by IncreasePosts 2y ago

alistairSH 2y ago
More likely he was swayed because ACA was closer to a sure thing than anything remotely socialized.
mrguyorama 2y ago
Obama was "swayed" because there were several "democrats" whose vote was required to pass anything who explicitly said they would not vote for single payer. People get this weird idea that democrats "aren't doing anything", but you need votes in the US system to do anything and democrats consistently lose elections. The people who stayed home and didn't vote will then insist that democrats didn't do enough to win their vote. But you can't do anything in the US without votes.
- semiquaver 2y ago
  > whose vote was required to pass The 111th Congress had a historically large majority that has not been seen by either party since. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress They had more than enough votes: the ACA passed the senate 60-39. The senate filibuster that led them to compromise on the public option is a procedural rule that can be altered by simple majority, not a law.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Removing the filibuster is a "nuclear option" - once it's gone, when the Senate inevitably swings the other way, the new majority will make use of it's absence to ram through whatever they want. There are arguments that this would actually be preferable and moderating, but that's a whole other debate. The 60 member supermajority was also fragile. And only lasted 72 days. There was a time limit on passing anything major. None of which is to say your wrong, only that there was a bit more nuance than "Dems had majority and flubbed".