I’ve watched Pres Trump push to have the ACA replaced and/or dismantled, and when that doesn’t seem to be happening, he has been advocating letting it die a death of a thousand cuts. But he hasn’t put forward a replacement plan. I haven’t ever seen a list of “This is what I object to” about it.
I have a working theory that our president feels threatened by Mr Obama, and is trying to dismantle anything that could be seen as a legacy for the 44th POTUS. Hearing the media constants referring to the ACA as Obamacare seems to be like rubbing salt in his wounds, a constant stinging.
So if the ACA had been consistently called ACA, and not Obamacare, would it have had a chance of remaining in place?
That’s an interesting question. It wasn’t by accident that Republicans branded the bill “Obamacare”, and made it stick. That’s what everyone calls it now, even though sometimes I’ll hear a Democratic politician say Affordable Care Act, and it stands out when they do. I don’t remember the last time I’ve heard a Republican call it by its name.
This question appears to be predicated on the assumption that Trump actually has a philosophy and spends the time and effort to look for a rationale basis for formulating goals. I can think of no reason (and see no evidence) for this assumption.
As a parallel example, for his recent attack on transgender military personnel, his “reasons” were lies that he used to rationalize his attack. It is far more likely that some group of extreme bigots brought fear mongering stories to his attention and he reacted. His claim to have talked to “his generals” was a lie. His claims of excess cost was a lie. His claims of disruption to morale was a lie. He simply had a need to blurt/tweet hatred, either to satisfy the bigots or to draw attention away from some of his other behavior, and acted on that need.
Referring to the ACA as Obamacare does not “sting” him. He welcomes that name and uses it himself in order to build up his image in front of his perceived supporters.
The name means nothing. The only thing that matters is that it is associated with a black president, something that Don the Con cannot abide by. You’re talking about a guy who wouldn’t rent to black people and whose black casino employees have to hid whenever he comes down to the floor.
Ugh. Yeah, if Hillary had been president, and we had HillaryCare, Trump would think it was just hunky dory. The racism card is getting pretty threadbare these days. The GOP is a disaster, and it doesn’t help by creating a false narrative to fight them.
The fact is, the Republicans have been milking the hate for Obamacare for a long time, and Trump seems to have jumped on that bandwagon. I doubt the name had much of anything to do with it.
And people keep asking why the Democrats keep losing elections. (No, not the only reason. A reason. And yes, Republican spread misinformation, too, probably worse. But somehow, they still manage to win.)
Is winning because you are better at spreading misinformation something to be proud of…or is “The ends do not justify the means” just a silly thing we’ve put behind us?
I am sure that if the ACA had been enacted by a white president, Republicans would still hate it.
Absolutely the narrative and decisions of the Republican party over the last 9 years have been affected dramatically by race, but the implication that Republican distaste for a major piece of Democratic legislation is based in racism is a little . . . myopic at best.
Hillarycare was a different beast. Obamacare is warmed-over Romneycare, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation. Why, pray tell, was it suddenly anathema to Republicans?
Just to be clear, that is not what I said. I expect there is some racism within the Republican Congressional membership and some who “hate him because he is black”. But I think race had little, if anything, to do with the Republicans’ campaign against Obamacare.
Race and racism play prominent roles in two ways: the GOP base’s view of public entitlements, and the GOP base’s view of Obama as President. Both factors affected how Obamacare was treated by the GOP.
Conservative views on public entitlements are driven in no small degree by racism, and this applies as much to Hillary Clinton’s plans as Barack Obama’s. If you doubt the role of racism in that ideology, I suggest you review the history of pretty much any public entitlement program. You could start with public housing or the GI bill or public schools. Wherever you go, you will find large majorities of support for public goods made available to whites and declining support once made available to non-whites.
It’s also of course true that the GOP base’s view of Obama was also driven in large part by race. Indeed, if we learned anything from 2017, it’s that birtherism was far from some fringe conspiracy theory that discredited right-wing figures–it hit at the core of right-wing populist anger about Obama. Playing those same chords won them a presidential election with the least qualified candidate of all time.
That certainly eliminates a big part of the issue–the effect of racism on public support for public entitlements. But there’s still the other issue–anti-Obama sentiment caused by racism that would not be present for, say, Tim Kaine. I don’t know how you’d measure that, but I’m prepared to defend the premise that it was pretty significant, especially if you believe (as I do) that the rhetoric about Obama being foreign was, in the end, just racism.
It would have been opposed. I’m not sure they would have succeeded at such complete and total opposition.
Haven’t the last few weeks revealed that they don’t actually have coherent policy opposition to the ACA? They still want to maintain subsidized and regulated health insurance sold through exchanges and incentivized for purchase through some form of penalty on failing to buy insurance.