General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "But we couldn't *possibly* have gotten single payer!" [View all]Rilgin
(787 posts)Of course the ACA passed. It is a bill that mandates individuals purchase Insurance from private insurance companies if they are not otherwise insured. It expands Medicaid for states that accept the expansion and provides subsidies to some to purchase the mandated insurance. It is not single payer nor does it have a Public Option. It reduces the number of uninsured but it is not Universal Health Care or Insurance. Within the insurance area, it imposes some regulation on insurance policies and insurance company practices.
That we agree is fact. However, this thread seems to be whether we could have gotten something better than this in 2008 and that is purely opinion.
Imagine a health problem. There are two possibilities: surgery or medicine. The Surgery would 100% improve the symptoms in the short term but has some trade-offs and might have long term bad consequences. The medical and diet course was less assured and would be much harder to accomplish results. If it worked it would be better long term as a cure. Now Imagine the patient elected surgery and is trying to analyze whether it was a good decision. Its not much of an argument that it is a fact that the Surgery happened to analyze if the decision to take the easier path was the right decision or foreclosed on a better path to a better result.
With regard to the ACA, it is a fact that it passed and it is a fact that in the immediate time frame more people have enhanced access to healthcare and insurance is better regulated than it was. It is purely opinion as to the following:
1. That it can be improved as some supporters of the current ACA contend.
2. That the ACA is an incremental step towards a Public Option or Single Payer as some supporters contend.
3. That any other better bill could not have passed.
To these ACA booster memes, I would add the following questions which can only be answered as opinion.
1. Long term is the ACA a good bill. Is it sustainable.
2. If democrats had fought for a better health care bill with a Public Option or one based on Medicaire expansion that it would have lost.
3 If democrats had fought for a better bill and lost this year, that the issue would disappear and we would not get a more engaged public who voted against those who thwarted the better bill.
4. That if democrats fought for that better bill initially and could not get the congressional votes, that they could not have negotiated the current ACA leaving a base and population feeling that at least they had a democratic party that fought for a better bill.
5. Will the ACA cause a backlash and put more republicans into office leading to the killing of the subsidies or killing the bill.
So anyhow, this thread seems to be about opinions on the passage of the ACA rather than an alternative approach.
There are a lot of other opinions.