What the heck does this mean?
Also, it is going to cost money, a lot more money than previous, the message needs to be right to get people on board.
What would be the “right” message?
One party proposed and passed a flawed plan that nevertheless installed essential protections and extended coverage to millions.
The other party has spent a decade picking it apart, threatening to overturn it and proposing exactly zero to replace it.
But they’re all a “Bunch of lazy fat rich punks”?
Talk about “lazy.”
Was I not clear, both the Democrats and Republicans should have been working on a plan to get everyone covered with the best cost. A plan so good in fact that the mandate actually covered everyone, and not exempting of the politicians drafting it.
As to the second, I am not a politician but I can tell you what DIDN’T work.
Right, because Republicans have been ever-so-cooperative in collaborating with Democrats lately. Did you hit your head in 2007 and just wake up?
The Democratic plan is called the ACA. What is the Republican alternative?
Are you aware that ever since the first Obama administration, Mitch McConnell has declined to and forbidden his minions to work with the Democrats on ANYTHING? During the past four years, the Dem-majority House has sent dozens of bills to the Senate and Mitch has not brought ONE of them to the floor for a vote. Soooo… what was your point?
Yeah, that’s the easy part.
Clearly my point was messaging. If someone has an idea, a grand idea, that benefits a good majority of people, then messaging would pressure the non majority into concession. And a vote would be demanded.
And the Democrats have also come up with much better plans, such as Medicare for All, that would be both cheaper and provide better coverage to more people. But they can’t get those better plans passed, because the Republicans would rather let people die than let the Democrats get credit for helping them.
You can’t be serious. You believe that the GOP’s refusal to work with Democrats in any way, shape or form for more than a decade has been due to insufficient messaging?
I can’t even …
Yes, I do.
Okay, I’m a messaging guy myself, so I’m genuinely curious. Let’s just focus on healthcare. What possible messaging could have made McConnell an eager collaborator with Democrats rather than a scorched-earth obstructionist?
You shouldn’t be worried about McConnell as to what your message says. It should be the masses of people your healthcare plan will be addressing.
It has been incredibly easy to pick apart things that were only designed to catch a few , when the plan should have been catching (and having things) for a whole lot more. Yes, it would have cost more. Yes, it would have had other negative consequences, but the primary problem you had with the ACA was that it did too little to much detriment.
If instead the ACA was packaged around the middle class (while also helping out the poor) then you have a pretty giant mandate of people all getting something they were formerly struggling to get. What you ended up with was a bill designed for the poor that affected the middle class negatively. Granted, not ALL of the middle class.
- That’s not messaging, it’s policy design.
- I disagree with your analysis of the policy, but that’s not the point. I’ve already acknowledged the policy was flawed.
- It was still a complete and enacted policy, which is more than the GOP has ever even bothered to propose.
- Which brings us back to your earlier assertion that they’re all a “Bunch of lazy fat rich punks.” They haven’t all done nothing. Which side has actually done nothing? I’ll hang up and wait for your answer.
The messaging I was talking about, is after policy design. The messaging would work to take McConnell out of the picture.
It’s amazing to me to think that messaging would stop McConnell’s assault on the ACA. Even after it got popular and McCain did his last minute switch to stop it from being overturned completely, the Republicans continued to attack it at both the Federal and State levels. You’re really off in this analysis, in my opinion.
I don’t think this is getting off the ground with the Supremes.
Like I said, the ACA with all the promises, mandate, and some of the untruths that they used to promote it isn’t a good example to use for what I mean by messaging.
When you have a really good piece of legislation, it ought to be able to speak for itself (after getting it out to the masses)
What the ACA lacked was the ‘really good legislation’ part
How about the fucked up demonization by GOP assholes?
Sure, but if it was really good legislation, that demonization is harder or not possible eh?
I am on record being a centrist, the ACA doesn’t really address the centrist POV.
WHOA!! Words fail me…