It proves nothing of the sort, since Democrats aren’t going to change the law in any meaningful way. So only 12% support the Democrats’ position on the law, vs 38% who support the Republican position. The remaining 49% could go either way depending on which changes they want and which party is willing to make those changes.
Not with your party’s reflexive opposition preventing it, even when it’s their own fucking proposal, no. But that is not because of lack of desire, even though you’re desperately trying to explain it to yourself that way.
Risibly wrong, as has been patiently explained to you enough times by now.
With a reasonable Republican party, Democrats would almost certainly agree to some changes. But the party is not reasonable at this time.
They’ve made a few small changes. But obviously Americans want much more than small tweaks. That’s the Democratic disconnect. The President keeps on talking about ‘tweaks’, while the Democrats who actually have to win their close races are talking about real reforms. Real reforms which may still not go far enough to win over Americans, but which Harry Reid still won’t bring up for a vote, and which the President would not sign in any case.
The Democratic position, regardless of who you choose to blame for it, is to keep the law as-is. That’s what Republicans will hang around their necks in 2014 and 2016.
What major changes do the Democrats support?
Yes, like a medal of honor.
Asks the guy who thinks any changes mean “repeal”. 
When you demand changes, and you don’t get them, what comes next? Grin and bear it?
What part of “it’s over” do you …
Never mind.
I’d support a true socialized system where all health facilities are government run, all health care staff are civil servants, and everybody gets whatever treatment they need, no questions asked. If Republicans supported that and passed it, I’d start posting as BobLibRep.
A phased-in expansion of Medicare eligibility, along with the necessary phased-in expansions of funding (primarily removing the cap and progressivizing the tax), would do it for me. Recall that reducing the minimum age to 55 was part of the Senate bill before Lieberman (R.-Aetna) got it killed.
But in no case should we go back to the Before Times. “Repeal” per the **adaher **plan, which lacks the “replace” part that was always a lie (and maybe he’ll grasp that someday), would be just that, though.
So, where in this polling are those radical moonbats who want the ACA to expand further into socialized medicine? Does that make us part of the “repeal” set?
I’ve said it before, but the idea of actually taking the ACA fight into the 2016 POTUS race - six years after it became the law - seems spectacularly stupid to me.
And c’mon guys, by 2016 there will be 10-15 million people (if not more) who owe their insurance directly to the ACA. Running on a platform of taking those benefits AWAY will be political suicide.
It’s not happening. The ACA fight is over. The GOP lost. Deal with it.
Yeah, but, remember, this is a party that has no other rallying cry THIS year than “Benghazi!”
Tru dat! As Benen points out, red-state Dems such as Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagan are embracing the ACA as a campaign issue.
:dubious:
:rolleyes:
Obama gambled, big time and downtown. So did the Republicans. The Pubbies gambled that they could rig the game, put as much pain up front as possible, put off any actual benefits so far into the future that they would win before that happened, declare it all a huge failure, and then we wouldn’t hear any of this socialized medicine crap for another twenty years.
Obama gambled that he could ride that out long enough for the benefits to come online, and slowly build up credibility. It was a big risk, and he went for it. The main reason the Pubbies cooperated even to the extent that they did was their certainty it would fail. Main reason it didn’t is because the “system” we had was so totally fucked up that even this mongrelized hybrid monstrosity would demonstrate more efficiency, if it worked at all it would work better.
Frankly, I didn’t think he could do it. Second time I underestimated that man. One thing about being a pessimist, I love being wrong.
The pubbies did not cooperate at all to any extent because they knew it wouldn’t fail.
Well, then 2014 should be a good election for Democrats. Enjoy it.
But let’s be clear. The law isn’t going to undergo any major changes, probably ever. So you’d better learn to love ACA as it is today, because that’s pretty much what it will look like 100 years from now if it isn’t repealed. Single payer has never happened in a country that already had a multi-payer universal system. Single payer only happens when that’s what a country decides to build from scratch. No one’s going to say, “You know, I really love my insurance, but what I’d really love is Medicaid.”
Know what else? No country that has single-payer, or even any other system of essentially universal coverage, would even consider going to the system we had before Obamacare. Anyone who suggested it would be dismissed as mad.
But you’re going to keep trying anyway, aren’t you?