Knowing what you know now, would you have voted for ObamaCare....

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Essentially, in full view of our present knowledge of its effects, was it the right decision to pass ObamaCare? This isn't strictly asking if you want it repealed, you could argue that it's too late or dangerous to repeal it but it was still wrong to enact it.

I think the answer is still yes for me. The law has clearly failed in some areas of the country, and there are a few clearly bad provisions, the 30 hour rule being chief among them. But the majority of it is fundamentally sound, and I'm not entirely sure you can get a bill that's significantly better without resorting to socialist ideas like the public option.

[Blue3]

It has saved lives.

It has saved families from bankruptcies.


I probably could be in either of those 2 categories.


So, obviously: Yes.

[Intell]

No, full on for public option.

[DC Al Fine]

No, full on for public option.

I'll tell you a sad little story. In the 1980's, Canada's abortion laws were struck down. An attempt was made to craft a new law in conformance with the Supreme Court's ruling, but it was defeated by a coalition of pro-choicers and pro-lifers who thought the law wasn't strict enough. No abortion law was ever passed and Canada has zero restriction on abortion.

In short, don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

[Intell]

No, full on for public option.

I'll tell you a sad little story. In the 1980's, Canada's abortion laws were struck down. An attempt was made to craft a new law in conformance with the Supreme Court's ruling, but it was defeated by a coalition of pro-choicers and pro-lifers who thought the law wasn't strict enough. No abortion law was ever passed and Canada has zero restriction on abortion.

In short, don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

I believe a fight for public option would've resulted in an universal healthcare system be put full on in the spotlight, and I do believe, that people would've supported it, if democrats remained commited to fighting for it, not a half assed solution for blue dogs, which should GTFO, the party, if they didn't support such law.

The passing of half-based solution, allows Trump, to say he'll repeal and replace obamacare, aka, have an even sh**tty one in place.

The abortion situation in Canada is very sad, though I believe these are two different issues.

Short Term Pain, for Long Term Gain

[Person Man]

No, full on for public option.

I'll tell you a sad little story. In the 1980's, Canada's abortion laws were struck down. An attempt was made to craft a new law in conformance with the Supreme Court's ruling, but it was defeated by a coalition of pro-choicers and pro-lifers who thought the law wasn't strict enough. No abortion law was ever passed and Canada has zero restriction on abortion.

In short, don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

I believe a fight for public option would've resulted in an universal healthcare system be put full on in the spotlight, and I do believe, that people would've supported it, if democrats remained commited to fighting for it, not a half assed solution for blue dogs, which should GTFO, the party, if they didn't support such law.

The passing of half-based solution, allows Trump, to say he'll repeal and replace obamacare, aka, have an even sh**tty one in place.

The abortion situation in Canada is very sad, though I believe these are two different issues.

Short Term Pain, for Long Term Gain

I can see a parallel between Canada and Abortion and the US and Health Care. There have been at least 7 opportunities for HCR in the US since it became an issue 100 years ago. One of those times we got Medicare(aid), the next we got what we have today. Your abortion parable is pretty closely describes what happened under Clinton.
The Anti-Public Option Democrats still lost. Half measures and moving to the center don't work.

[LLR]

It's a useful bill that provides many people with healthcare. It ain't perfect, but it's good. I'm in favor, then and now.

[Intell]

No, full on for public option.

I'll tell you a sad little story. In the 1980's, Canada's abortion laws were struck down. An attempt was made to craft a new law in conformance with the Supreme Court's ruling, but it was defeated by a coalition of pro-choicers and pro-lifers who thought the law wasn't strict enough. No abortion law was ever passed and Canada has zero restriction on abortion.

In short, don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

I believe a fight for public option would've resulted in an universal healthcare system be put full on in the spotlight, and I do believe, that people would've supported it, if democrats remained commited to fighting for it, not a half assed solution for blue dogs, which should GTFO, the party, if they didn't support such law.

The passing of half-based solution, allows Trump, to say he'll repeal and replace obamacare, aka, have an even sh**tty one in place.

The abortion situation in Canada is very sad, though I believe these are two different issues.

Short Term Pain, for Long Term Gain

I can see a parallel between Canada and Abortion and the US and Health Care. There have been at least 7 opportunities for HCR in the US since it became an issue 100 years ago. One of those times we got Medicare(aid), the next we got what we have today. Your abortion parable is pretty closely describes what happened under Clinton.
The Anti-Public Option Democrats still lost. Half measures and moving to the center don't work.

Which is what the democrats did. :/

[SWE]

No

[Antonio the Sixth]

It has saved lives.

It has saved families from bankruptcies.


I probably could be in either of those 2 categories.


So, obviously: Yes.

Seriously, this.

No amount of edgy "accelerationist" drivel will ever justify opposing a policy that, however flawed, has made such a difference in the lives of many of the least fortunate. It's simply immoral.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This was my answer at the time...

Due to a sudden flare up of a serious chronic condition, Congressman Sibboleth will not be able to be at the vote today.

Quite happy to stand by this and my other posts from the time.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, I was amused at all the talk of healthcare 'reform' as being Obama's Waterloo... I mean, it might have been his Moscow or his Leipzig, but...

I DID CALL IT I DID

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Yes but very unenthusiastically and almost solely due to the expansion of Medicaid.

I say this as someone who is militantly opposed to its repeal.

[Kingpoleon]

No/Currently support repeal and a modified ObamaCare that keeps everyone insured in place

[Devout Centrist]

No, full on for public option.

I'll tell you a sad heartwarming little story. In the 1980's, Canada's abortion laws were struck down. An attempt was made to craft a new law in conformance with the Supreme Court's ruling, but it was defeated by a coalition of pro-choicers and pro-lifers who thought the law wasn't strict enough. No abortion law was ever passed and Canada has zero restriction on abortion.

In short, don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, the technical term for this sort of law is a dogs breakfast. There was never any need for anything so monstrously complex (certainly not when you consider the extremely limited scope of it all!) but this is what happens when you let wonks loose in government. And actually this applies to the awful politics of it as well; why was it sold in technocratic language about 'lowering costs' rather than as a moral necessity? I think this answers your point about the electorate never warming to the programme.

[Santander]

It is an affront to individual liberty, so of course I would've voted against it. I don't even mind the Medicaid expansion so much, but the core of Obamacare is a disaster. If we're going to take care of the poor, it is better to build a net that catches the few who slip through the cracks than taking over the entire system through regulations.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, there's a non-negligible possibility that the state of health care in the US by 2020 will be worse than it was in 2010, but I don't see how that's relevant to assessing the bill's impact. The only way that would make sense is if you're arguing that 1. Obamacare is what cost Hillary the election, or 2. Without Obamacare, Republicans would have adopted less right-wing positions on healthcare issues. 1 is blatantly ludicrous, and 2 is not something I can buy without solid arguments.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I suppose I'll try to defend the ACA a bit: it's easy to argue that it's a "dog's breakfast" in Britain because, of course, it is a "dog's breakfast" but the structure of the federal government, the nature of campaign finance laws and the experiences of attempting and failing to establish a universal healthcare system can all serve to explain why the ACA is a mess.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration faced concerted opposition to healthcare reform from industry and the lesson from this experience was that industry had to be placated in order to solve many of the healthcare system's problems. By definition, this meant that the ACA was going to be a law that pandered to rent-seeking interests but its proponents would argue that this was a necessary compromise. In retrospect, it's hard to see the ACA being enacted into law without these compromises.

Of course, the aspects of the ACA that were defined and constructed, in large part, by rent-seeking interests are pretty politically unstable, have turned out to be subject to an adverse selection spiral and haven't delivered cost efficiencies that were promised. Everything relating to health insurance exchanges has proven to be unpopular: the move towards deductibles as means of incentivizing cost-reductions, the health insurance mandate, the notion that people should "shop" to purchase health insurance etc. Republican obstructionism was successful enough and, aided by the courts, they managed to push poor people into the exchanges without subsidies.

So, in sum, I'm inclined to agree with Averroes. If I could go back in time, I'd encourage the Obama administration to focus on expanding Medicaid, the creation of an opt-in public option and a few other provisions. Because the healthcare industry's monopoly power and its rent-seeking behavior is responsible for the crisis of American healthcare, it was always stupid to attempt to do reform on their terms. I feel genuinely conflicted about this because the economist in me sees inefficiency and wants to do anything to reduce costs but, at the end of the day, the ACA was a terrible mechanism to reduce costs; jeopardizing Medicaid probably wasn't worth the ACA...

If I had to grade the ACA, I'd grade it using the following two metrics:
Coverage: C-
Cost: D-
Equity: C+
Total: D+

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Yes, there's a non-negligible possibility that the state of health care in the US by 2020 will be worse than it was in 2010, but I don't see how that's relevant to assessing the bill's impact. The only way that would make sense is if you're arguing that 1. Obamacare is what cost Hillary the election, or 2. Without Obamacare, Republicans would have adopted less right-wing positions on healthcare issues. 1 is blatantly ludicrous, and 2 is not something I can buy without solid arguments.

It's entirely relevant to the bill's impact: the Beveridge Model has proven itself to be so durable, in large part, because it transformed the structure of the healthcare industry, turning private sector employees into public sector employees, effectively destroying industry-based opposition to the law and aiding its allies. Considering that you've read about the Nordic model and are an aspiring political scientist, I can't comprehend why you wouldn't factor political considerations into your assessment of the ACA.

The ACA is an utter failure because it kept the system intact. We have to either destroy or neuter these rentiers in order for the provision of healthcare move towards something that's efficient and just.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, there's a non-negligible possibility that the state of health care in the US by 2020 will be worse than it was in 2010, but I don't see how that's relevant to assessing the bill's impact. The only way that would make sense is if you're arguing that 1. Obamacare is what cost Hillary the election, or 2. Without Obamacare, Republicans would have adopted less right-wing positions on healthcare issues. 1 is blatantly ludicrous, and 2 is not something I can buy without solid arguments.

It's entirely relevant to the bill's impact: the Beveridge Model has proven itself to be so durable, in large part, because it transformed the structure of the healthcare industry, turning private sector employees into public sector employees, effectively destroying industry-based opposition to the law and aiding its allies. Considering that you've read about the Nordic model and are an aspiring political scientist, I can't comprehend why you wouldn't factor political considerations into your assessment of the ACA.

The ACA is an utter failure because it kept the system intact. We have to either destroy or neuter these rentiers in order for the provision of healthcare move towards something that's efficient and just.

If given to choose between the ACA and the Nordic model, I will choose the Nordic model.

If given to choose between the ACA and the status quo (which is what the vote was about), I will choose the ACA because, thanks to the ACA, thousands of people who would otherwise have died or fallen into poverty haven't. The idea that the fact that the status quo marginally increases the probability that eventually, someday, maybe, the US might have universal healthcare, will never outweigh that. I don't understand how you can give up a small but real, tangible improvement in the name of a distant and purely hypothetical bigger one.

[NeverAgain]

Yes, see if Congress would sit in a locked room for a couple hours with no intention of repealing ACA but were forced to fix it, we'd see some of the BIGGEST improvements in healthcare reform ever. But the fact is, that the idea of "repeal and replace" has never been about the latter. The goal (for many Republicans), whether sinister or not, has been to fully repeal the bill, and have been holding their breath until it fails.

But, yes. This bill was a MAJOR step forward for healthcare reform, and has helped and will continue to help millions of Americans, until the day it dies at the hands of President Trump and Paul Ryan.

[Blue3]

No, full on for public option.

This position makes no sense. The question is: did you want something that's imperfect that saved and helped many lives, or nothing and therefore those lives weren't saved or helped?

So you're both saying you would rather have let people die, let families go bankrupt, because you wanted something more ideologically pure? Rather than accept the imperfect, and try to build progress from there? Either you didn't think it through, or you're more wedded to ideological purity than actually helping and serving others.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Yes, I don't like dead people.

[DavidB.]

Agree with Antonio and Blue3 here. The ACA is very imperfect but it has saved lives. Would obviously prefer to radically change the entire system and go "full-on public option", but that was not politically feasible back then and it is even less feasible now. It's not even feasible here in the Netherlands.