The President’s campaign health care plan was “universal by American standards” because no one would be forced to buy health insurance.
That’s not actually the plan he supported, plus he insisted again and again that ACA covers everyone, and furthermore he would never have signed it if it didn’t cover everyone.
Does this mean he can veto it now?
So, basically, you’re taking back everything you’ve said for the last several posts.
You’re so incoherent and inconsistent it’s almost impossible to discuss anything with you. Who the hell knows what point you’re trying to make, because it’s constantly changing and even contradicting the immediate previous post!
And you are failing to understand even the most basic nuance. What I believe is universal coverage and what the President said was universal coverage are two different things. The President didn’t endorse the adaher/Elvis universal coverage plan that leaves 10% uncovered because they’d rather not bother. He endorsed a plan which he said “covers everyone”. Which was not true.
Get it now?
And speaking of incoherence, if you endorse the PResident’s view that ACA covers everyone, then that means we’re done. Right?
No, you’re totally incoherent. This is entirely different from what you were saying a few posts ago.
The ACA doesn’t cover everyone. Like the President, I hope that it is part of the ultimate solution that, eventually, will cover everyone.
The Democrats are just wrong, OK? Period. 
It’s like pulling the cord on a talking doll sometimes. You do get a variety of talking points, depending on where the cord runs out, but they never change.
But he said it did. If it doesn’t, then that seriously diminishes his legacy. He matched Bill Clinton’s health care record. How many new people did SCHIP cover? About 7 million:
And it does it for only $5 billion/year.
So let’s review: Clinton covered 7 million people for $5 billion. Obama covered a lot more, 30 million, but it took him $100 billion/year to do it. Gotta go with Clinton on this one.
Non-snarky part: no, he (somewhat hyperbolically) suggested that the ACA will help the US provide universal coverage. I hope this will come true as well – and I think in the long term, the ACA is the start of an evolution in US health care towards a universal system. The ACA is a big improvement, but obviously doesn’t get us all the way there.
Moderately-snarky part: I’m sure you’re oh so concerned about Obama’s legacy. We all know you want nothing but the best for him, and of course you have no interest at all in convincing people that he’s a stupid poopyhead.
adaher – just get over your totally irrational (and increasingly desperate-looking) hatred of the ACA. It’s the law of the land, it’s not going away (especially considering the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to vacate and re-hear Halwig-Burwell), and it’s helping millions get insurance. If Obama and others made some predictions and statements about it that were false, then that’s no good, and it reflects poorly on them – but it doesn’t change all the good stuff for Americans the ACA is responsible for.
But it does have consequences for the next step.
I also hope you’ll correct anyone the next time they claim that the President got UHC passed.
What makes you think another “step” will be necessary? An adjustment here and there, a bit of tinkering, come back later for a bit more. A lot like the Death by a Thousand Cuts, except for being the exact opposite.
I don’t think it’s necessary, but a lot of ACA supporters see this as just a step on the path to something very different. It seems more likely to me that we’re all stuck with what we have, for better or worse, for a very long time. Probably as long as most of us are alive.
There will be fixes, but what kind? Seems like the only fixes the public wants will weaken the law, not strengthen it.
Long term predictions based on short-term trends have a very poor track record.
THen in that case, the GOP will be able to privatize SS any day now!
Sure, things can change. ACA could become wildly popular, the Democrats could someday win the White House and both chambers of Congress with a filibuster proof majority, and having laid the groundwork for improving ACA in a way the public supports, can then proceed to do it. There’s just a few problems with that: a) Periods of unified control of government are rare and Democrats have lost HUGE only two years later the last four times they’ve won control of the government. With only two years to work with, will they really prioritize health care again, or perhaps climate change, or immigration, or some future issue we can’t see now? b) Democrats don’t try to persuade the public that liberalism is good. Rather, they react to whatever public opinion is and try to tailor the candidates to the district or state they are running in. That means you’ll never get a liberal majority, which means no single payer.
Funny that you bring up SS, considering how significantly it’s changed over the years since it first came into existence.
It was popular and so easy to expand. Expanding an unpopular program, especially when the stakeholders risk losing what they have in the process, much more difficult.
There’s no way to know, considering there weren’t good opinion polls back then.
Good enough. Social Security and Medicare were polled and were very popular. Mainly because people thought they were getting something for nothing. When the pain came, the programs already had too many beneficiaries.
ACA was politically dumb in that it brought the pain before anyone even got health insurance. Thank God for the CBO. If we’d had it back then…
Nobody ever thought SS was something for nothing. People still have this vision that there is a room with a lot of shoeboxes in it and every payday they put money into their box and then when they retire that money comes out of their box. Everybody that gets money out of SS put something into it. In most cases they eventually get more than they put in but some put in thousands and never see a cent.
Medicare is nothing more than subsidized insurance. It isn’t something for nothing, at most it’s something worth more than the price paid.
Where is the pain of SS and Medicare? Who is feeling it?
The ACA was politically dumb only in that the proponents thought the American public was smart enough not to fall for the ridiculously outrageous lies that were being told to smear it. They should have pushed back against the Quittinator’s “death panel” bullshit on day one.
Cite for Social Security?
No it didn’t.