I disagree. Democrats had the presidency, the house and the senate (filibuster proof). They chose a republican friendly solution that was just a bandaid on a broken system.
All it did was piss off republicans and give them a rallying point while doing nothing to encourage democrats to vote.
They should have had the balls to create a system that actually fixed the problems, but they didn’t.
There were like one or two very conservative Dems who derailed the single payer option when they had the filibuster proof majority. The main problem is not getting a solid party wide understanding of the goals they are aiming for ahead of the chances to do something about it.
you mean like the suddenly 10 conservative democrats who just happen to vote to allow trump to continue dismantling the government? including the democratic leader in the senate schumer? stop excusing their lack of accomplishments on a few bad applies. the bulk of the party is rotten.
It wouldnt have mattered if they had 90 members in the senate and 90% of the house they’d find the votes to prevent anything that helps the working class.
God I hate the term normies. It’s such a chronically online term. And it’s absolutely not normal to be so fucking stupid as to not realize that the democrats are controlled opposition. Every other country in the world can see it.
Actually no, It was an independent who killed the Public Option vote. There was one Dem who opposed the rules in the original bill around Abortion but he still voted yay in the end and Joe Lieberman was the Nay vote. Because they only reached 59 it was filibustered, so they clearly were not filibuster-proof.
The last time DNC had an actual 60 without caucus was 1979.
Yeah the Republicans are basically one mind. I think I remember hearing about Karl Rove back in the day going around to Republicans that didn’t follow that they would take them out if they didn’t toe the party line. I think it’s only gotten worse since then with only the sycophants left.
Dems are different. Like there’s no reason Bernie and AOC would be in the same party of Pelosi and Schumer but they are. This leads to compromises being necessary on the democratic party. Also, the voters for the Dems are just as diverse as no one ever seems happy with them either.
They only had a filibuster-proof senate counting the independent Joe Lieberman who caucused with democrats. Lieberman (and a few other dems tbh) wouldn’t support a single payer system, so the ACA was the best they could do.
ACA actually took a supermajority to pass, meaning the 58 Dems and 2 Independents of 2010 senate. They definitely faced the consequences of it, of outrage from both sides, too, since they haven’t even gotten 50 senators in an election since the 2013 congress.
It is not universal. There is a coverage gap just below the poverty line, between losing eligibility for Medicaid, and becoming eligible for ACA premium subsidies. Just a complete lack of coverage for the people with the greatest need.
(Edit: to be fair, that gap was supposed to be filled by Medicaid expansion, but that largely fell through)
The fundamental reliance on private insurers is the biggest gap in universality. Public healthcare is subject to the private sector’s willingness to permit treatment. With some companies boasting >30% denial rates, that “gap” is a gaping chasm.
What you learned is incomplete: the coverage gap only exists in states that chose not to expand Medicaid coverage, aka those with republican legislatures. As written, the ACA would subsidize an increasing fraction of health insurance cost until someone’s income was a certain level above the poverty line. If their income fell below this level, they would get coverage through Medicaid instead.
Medicaid historically didn’t cover people with incomes this high, so the ACA expanded coverage to higher income residents. The federal government covered 100% of the cost of Medicaid expansion for the first ~decade, and then 90% after that. Several states sued and the supreme court struck down part of the law that required states to go along with this. So they had to opt in to Medicaid expansion. The ones that didn’t (republican state govts) now have a coverage gap.
Its unfortunate because it harms those who needed help the most, but its a consequence of republicans at the state level for refusing expansion, and at republicans at the federal level for refusing to allow any changes to the ACA that would fix the issue.
It’s not universal, it’s based on income. When I signed up for the ACA I put down my income at $3,000 a month, which makes my monthly bill $30.19 a month. If my average income for the year exceeds $3,000, I owe the difference to the government.
My small income works for me because I live alone and don’t have any dependents. But if I had kids I would need to double or triple my income to support them, in which case my monthly ACA payment would also increase. It’s possible for people with families to be priced out of the ACA.
Washington State. My deductible is $600. It’s income based, so my low rate requires me to make very little. That is fine with me, since I have no desire to work more than 32 hours a week and I’ve learned how to live cheaply.
The insurance my job offered me is $100 a month with a $4,500 deductible, which is absolutely awful in comparison.
What I especially love is that providers charge a much higher price if you use insurance. A $100 procedure becomes a $1000 procedure if you try to use insurance to pay for it. Then your insurance says “sorry, you haven’t reached your deductible”, and the provider bills you the full amount.
No, it’s neither universal nor garbage. You didn’t bother to read my comment. If you had, you would’ve seen me mention how I pay $30.19 a month for health insurance. That is a fantastic deal. The ACA works well for people like me, it just has a limited scope and sends tax payer dollars to greedy health insurance companies.
That is not a fantastic deal. When insurers are denying 1/3 of claims, and providers are charging insured rates 10 times higher than uninsured rates, that is not a good deal at all.
It is a travesty that government props up this horseshit system. They should be arresting everyone involved with the health insurance industry for perpetrating a massive fraud on the American people.
The ACA was the best that could be done at the time, but it is a steaming turd and needs to be replaced with Universal Healthcare.
America: The best we can do is a steaming turd
But did you say thank you today to the president?
deleted by creator
I disagree. Democrats had the presidency, the house and the senate (filibuster proof). They chose a republican friendly solution that was just a bandaid on a broken system.
All it did was piss off republicans and give them a rallying point while doing nothing to encourage democrats to vote.
They should have had the balls to create a system that actually fixed the problems, but they didn’t.
There were like one or two very conservative Dems who derailed the single payer option when they had the filibuster proof majority. The main problem is not getting a solid party wide understanding of the goals they are aiming for ahead of the chances to do something about it.
you mean like the suddenly 10 conservative democrats who just happen to vote to allow trump to continue dismantling the government? including the democratic leader in the senate schumer? stop excusing their lack of accomplishments on a few bad applies. the bulk of the party is rotten.
It wouldnt have mattered if they had 90 members in the senate and 90% of the house they’d find the votes to prevent anything that helps the working class.
Democrats played controlled opposition and the normie still dont see it.
God I hate the term normies. It’s such a chronically online term. And it’s absolutely not normal to be so fucking stupid as to not realize that the democrats are controlled opposition. Every other country in the world can see it.
You are correct on both counts
Actually no, It was an independent who killed the Public Option vote. There was one Dem who opposed the rules in the original bill around Abortion but he still voted yay in the end and Joe Lieberman was the Nay vote. Because they only reached 59 it was filibustered, so they clearly were not filibuster-proof.
The last time DNC had an actual 60 without caucus was 1979.
Meanwhile Republicans can dissolve the Department of Education with a bare majority in both houses…
Yeah the Republicans are basically one mind. I think I remember hearing about Karl Rove back in the day going around to Republicans that didn’t follow that they would take them out if they didn’t toe the party line. I think it’s only gotten worse since then with only the sycophants left.
Dems are different. Like there’s no reason Bernie and AOC would be in the same party of Pelosi and Schumer but they are. This leads to compromises being necessary on the democratic party. Also, the voters for the Dems are just as diverse as no one ever seems happy with them either.
Maybe Dems should clean house
If you mean the progressive arm of the democratic party, then yes :)
I wanted to say the old people need to go but Bernie is old and I don’t want him going anywhere.
Joe Lieberman said no to single payer… He is the one who blocked it from happening because his state had some insurance companies.
But bootlickers running around frothing their their mouth how this is the best republicans would permit us to have 🤡
He was also an Independent and not a Democrat.
Thats what I said. The ACA was in 2010.
And i provided the facts so people can make their own judgement.
They only had a filibuster-proof senate counting the independent Joe Lieberman who caucused with democrats. Lieberman (and a few other dems tbh) wouldn’t support a single payer system, so the ACA was the best they could do.
controlled opposition.
IIRC, at the time Dems had the majority and still the ACA got bastardized before the pubes would let it pass. Personally, I’d consider it a failure.
ACA actually took a supermajority to pass, meaning the 58 Dems and 2 Independents of 2010 senate. They definitely faced the consequences of it, of outrage from both sides, too, since they haven’t even gotten 50 senators in an election since the 2013 congress.
the umpteenth bill to repeal it was introduced on jan 3rd but Luigi happened, ao I think they decided to put it on the backburner.
It is universal. I guarantee you Obama would agree 100% with a European style single payer system, which is what I think you mean.
It is not universal. There is a coverage gap just below the poverty line, between losing eligibility for Medicaid, and becoming eligible for ACA premium subsidies. Just a complete lack of coverage for the people with the greatest need.
(Edit: to be fair, that gap was supposed to be filled by Medicaid expansion, but that largely fell through)
The fundamental reliance on private insurers is the biggest gap in universality. Public healthcare is subject to the private sector’s willingness to permit treatment. With some companies boasting >30% denial rates, that “gap” is a gaping chasm.
Good old “welfare cliff”. It works this way with a lot of low income benefits.
Welp I learn something every day. Thanks for sharing.
What you learned is incomplete: the coverage gap only exists in states that chose not to expand Medicaid coverage, aka those with republican legislatures. As written, the ACA would subsidize an increasing fraction of health insurance cost until someone’s income was a certain level above the poverty line. If their income fell below this level, they would get coverage through Medicaid instead.
Medicaid historically didn’t cover people with incomes this high, so the ACA expanded coverage to higher income residents. The federal government covered 100% of the cost of Medicaid expansion for the first ~decade, and then 90% after that. Several states sued and the supreme court struck down part of the law that required states to go along with this. So they had to opt in to Medicaid expansion. The ones that didn’t (republican state govts) now have a coverage gap.
Its unfortunate because it harms those who needed help the most, but its a consequence of republicans at the state level for refusing expansion, and at republicans at the federal level for refusing to allow any changes to the ACA that would fix the issue.
It’s not universal, it’s based on income. When I signed up for the ACA I put down my income at $3,000 a month, which makes my monthly bill $30.19 a month. If my average income for the year exceeds $3,000, I owe the difference to the government.
My small income works for me because I live alone and don’t have any dependents. But if I had kids I would need to double or triple my income to support them, in which case my monthly ACA payment would also increase. It’s possible for people with families to be priced out of the ACA.
It’s definitely not universal.
Where are you getting $30 a month? When i looked at it, the cheapest is like $300 with a $10k deductible
Washington State. My deductible is $600. It’s income based, so my low rate requires me to make very little. That is fine with me, since I have no desire to work more than 32 hours a week and I’ve learned how to live cheaply.
The insurance my job offered me is $100 a month with a $4,500 deductible, which is absolutely awful in comparison.
lol do you guys seriously still have deductibles with the affordable care act? God I feel for you guys sometimes.
What I especially love is that providers charge a much higher price if you use insurance. A $100 procedure becomes a $1000 procedure if you try to use insurance to pay for it. Then your insurance says “sorry, you haven’t reached your deductible”, and the provider bills you the full amount.
That sounds like a fucking nightmare.
You can wake up from a nightmare.
$300 before or after the subsidy?
True, it’s universal but garbage. So not really universal.
No, it’s neither universal nor garbage. You didn’t bother to read my comment. If you had, you would’ve seen me mention how I pay $30.19 a month for health insurance. That is a fantastic deal. The ACA works well for people like me, it just has a limited scope and sends tax payer dollars to greedy health insurance companies.
That is not a fantastic deal. When insurers are denying 1/3 of claims, and providers are charging insured rates 10 times higher than uninsured rates, that is not a good deal at all.
It is a travesty that government props up this horseshit system. They should be arresting everyone involved with the health insurance industry for perpetrating a massive fraud on the American people.
Nah that would hurt our GDP too much and eliminate too many jobs.
Yeah might as well feed all those poor people to the GDP machine.
Think about the poor GDP!
You know how we can help the GDP? I’ll kick you in the nuts for $100, and then you can punch me in the nose for $100.
Then we’ll have increased the GDP by $200!