I look forward to the Republican nominee running against the ACA in 2016. You remember Obama actually ran on it, right? It was a huge part of the DNC.
If your analysis of the ACA doesn’t go beyond this, then I can understand why you’re confused. But the reality is that while the Republicans have successfully demonized the bill as a whole, its parts remain popular. No one wants to go back to having coverage denied because of a pre-existing condition. And no serious Republican proposal keeps that part of the ACA. And that simple fact comes out in a presidential election, and wins for ACA supporters.
Even if we take as a given that the Democratic nominee does propose some technical fixes to the law (*), this is not “running against” or “opposing” the ACA. “Repeal and replace” is “running against” and “opposing”, and there is a 0% chance the Democratic nominee will take that stance. But you knew this.
(*) Due to the manner in which the law was passed, Democrats have been observant of the need for some fixes around the edges ever since the law was passed. No such fixes will be possible, however, as long as the Republicans remain obstinate and in power in at least one branch of Congress.
The Democrats’ language for fixing ACA is indistinguishable from their language about fixing the current immigration system. The message they want voters to get is that they don’t like things as they are now and they would like to fix them. It’s a way to seem against ACA at home without having to actually be against it in DC.
Most Democrats can’t even bring themselves to say they would have voted for the law. It’ll be VERY interesting to hear how Hillary Clinton handles that question. If she’s true to her usual form, she’ll avoid saying anything direct, which will speak volumes.
Also, if you think mere technical fixes are the issue then you’re the one thinking outside the mainstream, not Republicans. Voters aren’t thinking, “You know, it’s a good law, but it should really handle professional guilds better.” They are thinking, “I hate the mandate. I hate losing my health insurance. I hate the narrow networks.” Those acknowledged problems with the law are going to require reworking that go way beyond technical fixes.
Didn’t we go through this? Like, less than two years ago? Like, when Romney’s first action was going to be the repeal of ACA?
In 60 years (hopefully sooner) ACA will have evolved into a single-payer national heath plan like all other civilized nations have now, and adaher will still be posting, “This is the one! This election will prove that Americans hate ACA!”
WEll, you’re completely wrong about all other civilized nations having single payer. In fact, just last week Swiss voters decisively rejected single payer in favor of their ACA-like private health care.
If the Swiss won’t go for single payer, don’t hold your breath for it happening here.
Wait, the Swiss are civilized? OK, every First World nation but one. I’ll also note that there haven’t been any referendums on returning to their pre-ACA-like condition, which would be easy to arrange if they wished to. I’ll also note that in so far as this is relevant to the U.S., it indicates that ACA is popular. Just for giggles, I’ll also note that in another referendum earlier this year, the Swiss voted 70-30 not to remove abortions from health insurance coverage.
Anyway, I fail to see how this proves your point that Democrats are running from ACA or that we didn’t just do this less than two years ago.
No, actually multi-payer is the norm, not single payer. Single payer is what the countries that did it early do. In the modern age, the civilized world has seen the wisdom of alternatives to the government-provided version of health care.
The only countries that really have single payer are Canada, Taiwan, Norway, Sweden, Spain and the UK, and maybe one or two others. Most of the rest of the countries that have universal health insurance do it through a combination of universal insurance and fixed prices for medical procedures.
BTW, there’s also dark horses who ran before: Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, even Rudy Giuliani. In Pawlenty and Giuliani’s cases, they were candidates who were considered to have a very real shot at winning the nomination but were felled by simple strategic errors that had nothing to do with their qualifications for office or their appeal to voters. Pawlenty simply got his thunder stolen by fellow Minnesotan Bachmann in the Ames straw poll and Giuliani decided to make a stand in Florida rather than compete in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina. Huck’s still Huck, a nice guy but a candidate with limited appeal even within the party. But still good enough to win IA and SC and compete for delegates and a seat at the table.
IMO, the people trying to get on the Christie bandwagon should actually be trying to talk Rudy into throwing his hat back in the ring.
Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign was a disaster, he’s dropped out of the limelight, and he’ll be 72 in 2016. He’s not running for anything at this point.
Thank you Father Time for keeping us for another Gu911iani run. Here is the 2008 campaign speech from Rudy: “I 9/11 would 9/11 like 9/11 to 9/11 be 9/11 president 9/11”.
Pawlenty gave up on himself and shot himself in the ass by refusing to hit a ball placed on a tee for him by a debate moderator and refer to the ACA as “Obamneycare”. The guy makes Dukakis look like Chuck Norris.
Huckabee is more decent than most right wingers, at least I don’t get the sense that he hates me because I don’t agree with him and he has compassion for the poor. But the anti-gay train left the station long ago and derailed and isn’t coming back. No way can an outspoken opponent of gay marriage can get elected today.
Plus he can’t get the nomination and never could raise money very well. Pawlenty I think is still viable though. Having a lousy debut as a national candidate is not, and should not, be disqualifying.
Although when I did a search for Pawlenty 2016, turns out he’s already ruled out a bid.
I don’t think I could definitively state that no more Republican PotUS is the way to go. I disagree with pretty much all of their viewpoints, but I’m not going to just blindly vote D on everything. I’ll listen to the debates, the speeches, and then cast my vote. Probably for a Democrat.
The same for every other country with something like UHC - anyone who proposed eliminating or even privatizing it would be thought daft. But yes, I know, the US is something different, something special, in some undefinable way that makes all other human experience inapplicable. :rolleyes:
Because wishes are facts to those who simply *believe *hard enough.
Well, yes, we are, but we’re politely trying not to notice, in much the same way as if you were noisily farting. It’s … just not an adult assertion, and repeating it doesn’t help.
The most frustrating thing to me is that we had a perfect opportunity to build a new system. To look around the world, to study countries that have been using it for 50 years or more, to cherry-pick the parts that work and leave out the parts that don’t, but due to “American exceptionalism” we wind up with this jury-rigged and cumbersome thing instead of a health care system that the whole world would look at with awe and admiration. Now that would be American exceptionalism!
Personally, I don’t think that emphasis on 9/11 was what killed Guiliani’s campaign. His response to the attacks really was exemplary, and was the high point of his political career. Give me a world where politicians tout their own virtues, any day (though he admittedly should have also spent some time talking about his other impressive accomplishments as well).
I think what killed his campaign was quite the opposite, when he publicly denied that the 9/11 attacks had ever happened. When someone says something that blatantly irrational, even just once, it destroys any credibility they could ever have, and that’s all the more true for someone who was so heavily involved in the event in question.
