You can craft all the versions you like. It’s not hard. One has only to look around civilized countries around the world to see systems that work. But “crafting a better version” is pretty useless if it doesn’t get through Congress. And the nature of Congress in recent decades, but especially lately, has already been much discussed. The McTurtle has totally taken leave of his senses and seems to have dedicated what remains of his life to a scorched-earth policy against anything any Democrat proposes. So really, your “craft a better version” claim is just more nonsense.
Okay I will take this on. First, what evidence do you have that your party was interested in any health care bill at all. To me it looked like they were against the whole idea. Second it looks to me that they took what was basically a Republican proposal in the 90s, then adopted in Mass as Romneycare, hoped the Republicans would come on board. Then Ted Kennedy died and a Republican was elected to fill that seat and suddenly the 60 votes they needed were gone. One of the things they had to omit was the public option. So they went with what they had. It did lead to 20M more people getting coverage.
Sure a better bill could have been written with a bit of cooperation, but no matter how many times you say the opposite, your party was not interested.
I am overjoyed to read in the news this morning that SCOTUS really does not seem interested in overturning it.
You still haven’t answered the question. You made what appears to be an incorrect claim above. Please back it up or apologize for the mistake.
Modhat: I’m not allowing you to ignore this.
That makes a lot more sense to me. Thank you for the clarification.
With employer health insurance the employer has to wonder if they are slacking off due to poor morale. If you knew they weren’t only staying for their insurance, that part of the morale equation would be off the plate.
And big companies like it because they will get less competition.
Even in red Arizona I remember how a consumer report on local TV news showed how it was before the ACA, one woman was starting to go on business on her own but the cost of just finding an insurer for her because of a preexisting condition (a bit overweight) became a deal breaker, she had to go back to her big corporate job.
A form of job lock and one big reason why I do think that opponents of universal health coverage or similar are in reality opposed to people being as free as they are in other developed nations.
You can take that modhat and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. I post what I want , when I want.
STOP WORRYING ABOUT what the other party has or has not done.
YOUR PARTY could have/should have done better.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2019/feb/health-insurance-coverage-eight-years-after-aca
465 of Americans are under insured due to costs, plans or some combination of the two, all to insure 2-3% of Americans.
I’d say that was quite a gap.
That’s because you are, or at least want to be, a good employer.
Not all companies have the same motivation.
That’s an easy warning for you.
Also you are out of this thread, or a suspension will follow.
I’m completely serious. Stop posting in this thread.
I presume you mean 46.5%. The supposed cause-and-effect that you imply is absolutely false and is unsupported by the study you cited. The continuing problems with the shitshow that is health care in the US is due to things like employers trying to hold down costs against gouging by private health insurers, who are an intrinsic part of the system and in my opinion should not exist at all (Republicans adamantly refused to support the public option, which would have offered an attractive alternative and a path to single-payer). The only small connection that can be drawn between the ACA and higher costs (according to your own cite) is coverage for those with pre-existing conditions – i.e.- a legal mandate that sick people should be provided health care instead of being left to die. Do you have a problem with that? I don’t.
ETA: I just saw that the referenced poster will no longer be with us in this thread, so that will be my last reply to him.
Shut the fuck up and suspend me dickwad
or ever most likely 
Too bad. I was hoping someone, anyone, could defend or explain the Republican position on healthcare and the ACA. Aside from obstructing progress just for the sake of obstructing progress.
I think they DID:
I don’t know that there’s much more to it than that
That was insane how he went off like that. Is it that stressful to be a Republican these days?
Well that turned dark pretty quickly.
In retrospect, this pair of sentences is amusing; don’t worry about what the other party has or hasn’t done, immediately followed by a criticism of the other party.
I apologize if this is too far off-topic, but: I feel like the rise of Trumpism has given liberal and moderate men a taste of something too many young women experience on a regular basis. That is: you’re in what seems like a regular space, having what seems like a regular conversation, when some dude starts getting oddly insistent. It’s not even necessarily clear at first what he’s trying to do, and if you guess right he’ll deny it vociferously and cast aspersions on your character for thinking such a thing. But he persists, and the more you try to be reasonable, the more unhinged he gets. Until finally, he sees that you’re maintaining your boundaries, and then he really loses it–screams obscenities, maybe throws in some threats, until the bouncer has to kick him out. And only then do you realize you can hear your heart pounding in your ears, and you look back on that weird beginning and start to notice some red flags in those questions he was “just asking.”
And after a while, you can see it coming. I did, here.
Great analogy – thanks!