You're wrong if you think that adding to the Rethug drumbeat against Obamacare

[pnwmom]

will bring us closer to single-payer.

It won't. It will just help to prove to millions of uninformed voters that Obama's major achievement was a disaster -- and will make them that much more likely to hand the Presidential reins over to the GOP.

And they won't be fixing the ACA by turning it into single-payer. Their plan is to dismantle it. And to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid and every other Great Society program.

The idea that selling insurance across states lines will fix all the problems is ludicrous, but it's all they have. They don't care if millions of previously uninsurable people lose their new insurance.

If the Rethugs get their way -- with your help -- the decades that Senator Ted Kennedy, the Clintons, and so many others struggled for universal healthcare will be for naught. And Colorado and every other state will be denied the chance they have right now to experiment with single-payer -- with the help of ACA money.

No, the ACA isn't perfect. Of course it has flaws, like every major new program. But if you help the Rethugs -- by exaggerating those flaws, and joining in with their chorus that the ACA is a failure -- you won't help the country move a single step closer to single-payer.

You'll help the GOP dismantle the only healthcare gains we've made in 50 years. And you'll help to hand over the Presidency to them, instead of to any Dem.

[Historic NY]

1. They are just blinded by the light....

there is lots of shit to finish off fixing and refining what we got now. I think back to how f--ked up Social Security was and Medicare when they started they weren't perfect and they evolved. If you think starting over with the present crowd in DC is the answer then let me know, I have a bridge in mind picked especially for you.

[rhett o rick]

2. So who is working to improve it? My rates went up 33% for 2016. Others have seen rates

go up even more. This isn't sustainable. I love that the ACA got millions on insurance that didn't have it, but with these rate increases I don't see how this can go on. You post is mocking people that want help now. I volunteer at a foodbank and we have a homeless shelter also. Those people need help now.

[Historic NY]

3. So did you check for cheaper rates as was suggested.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/31/the-3-real-reasons-why-obamacare-premiums-are-risi.aspx

[rhett o rick]

4. You can't be serious.

From the article:
"Although Obamacare has indeed played some role in lowering the uninsured rate and in coercing insurers to spend more of their premium dollars on patient care, it may not ultimately be successful in keeping premium cost inflation down, despite marketplace transparency and increased competition within states."

These rate increases are going to kill us.

[Historic NY]

5. You know everything is rising and I'm not getting a COLA....

https://www.healthcare.gov/ you might find something that keeps up


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2016-affordable-care-act-insurance-rates-are-climbing/2015/10/26/2b51f4c2-7c0e-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html

[pnwmom]

8. "it may not ultimately" -- yeah, so what? Why not give it a chance to work

instead of aiding the Rethugs in trying to tear it down before it's even had a chance?

You need to go back onto the exchange and see what all your options are. Chances are there's a decent policy that is more affordable than the one you've had.

[rhett o rick]

16. I want more. Some here say that I have no right to want more. Every American needs

affordable heath care. Even with the ACA I see many that still can't afford it. By letting things continue to get worse with some excuse of "pragmatism" we alienate people who don't see our party as favoring the people. HRC is not one of the common folks. Her and Bill belong to the 1% and her campaign, her foundation, and even her personal wealth benefits from money from the super rich that gain as the 99% loses. We need change. People are dying for lack of decent health care while some of us say there's no hurry.

[pnwmom]

18. You won't get more by throwing your voice in with all the Rethugs who want to destroy it.

Our only hope of getting single payer or Medicare for all is to get a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress.

That won't happen if people like you help convince the uninformed voters in the middle that President Obama's major achievement -- the ACA -- has been a disaster. It certainly has flaws. But just as certainly, it's a major improvement over the NOTHING 18 million had before.

[rhett o rick]

19. STRAWMAN I don't throw my voice in with the Republicons.

I won't get more if HRC becomes president. Her first allegiance is to her supporters and they don't want single payer.

We got where we are because conservatives have dominated both the Republicon Party and the Democratic Party. It's time for a change. It's time to throw out the corrupt establishment that is owned by the super-rich.

[pnwmom]

21. If the Dems lose -- whoever the candidate is -- the Rethugs are likely to toss the ACA out.

And you can say goodbye to the possibility of single-payer for several more decades.

[rhett o rick]

22. If HRC wins say goodbye to single-payer. The class war isn't between Democrats and

Republicons. It's between progressives and conservatives. HRC is conservative.

[pnwmom]

23. We're still better off than we'd be without the ACA. With the ACA

any state can use the funds to set up single-payer, and Colorado is attempting to do that.

If the Rethugs win 18 million people will be without insurance or expanded Medicaid or anything.

[rhett o rick]

24. I agree that things can always be worse, but that's no excuse not to fight for the more unfortunate

among us. At some point we have to throw out that nasty "pragmatism" that is slowly killing us. And all the way down, we keep saying, "this is better than ________". There is an old Hungarian saying that each small slice of the sausage you give away is insignificant until you finally end up with just the string."

If our founders had the attitude that their situation was better than ______ , we'd still be under British control.

Clinton may fight for social justice, but never at the expense of her close friends in the 1%. That means that any costs of social justice will be borne by the 99% that can't afford it.

We have a unique chance to change things with Sen Sanders. He has gotten people out to support him that had lost hope. Young people are now interested and I think he has a chance to win over moderate Republicans that don't want anything to do with the idiots running. These people wouldn't support Clinton. Therefore, Sanders will do better in the general than Clinton.

The other reason is that we should vote to end the corrupt control of our government by the super-wealthy in lieu of voting for a continuation.

[pnwmom]

26. It's a reason not to help the Rethugs tear down Obama's real accomplishment.

We don't gain anything by exaggerating the problems or posting Rethug-derived reports about how the ACA is on a death spiral, or similar nonsense.

You don't hear Sanders denigrate the ACA because he's smarter than many of his supporters. He voted for it because he knew it was the best we could do. And trying to tear it down after only a couple years of operation won't accomplish anything -- except aiding the Rethugs.

[rhett o rick]

29. And I will say it again, the ACA has brought much needed health insurance to many

that need it. However, I will not be afraid to criticize bad aspects of it. I will not stop fighting for better health care for Americans. I am not convinced that HRC will fight for the 99% if it impacts her friends in the 1%. You are aware that her and Bill are members in good standing of the 1% club and accept money from them for their foundation, her campaign and her personal fortune. I strongly believe that those donating so much money will get rewarded at the expense of the 99%.

[meaculpa2011]

25. Social Security and Medicare did not...

involve massive giveaways to the insurance cartel.

[Hekate]

28. Great gif

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. The only thing that is going to get us closer to SP

is to keep a Democrat in the WH and get so many progressives that support SP elected to Congress that it can't be filibustered by Republicans. Helping Republicans tear it down will not help. And let's not kid ourselves, when Republicans talk about "replacing" ACA, it sure as hell isn't with SP.

[pnwmom]

7. Exactly. That's the only way it will happen. nt

[leftstreet]

9. We'll fix it later!™

[pnwmom]

10. Read the history of Medicare. It didn't spring up, full-blown and perfect.

The original bill was improved on over the years. That's how it's worked with most major bills.

[leftstreet]

11. Yes, when it started you had to buy it from the exchanges. Oh, wait...

Medicare will get the same corporate treatment as time goes on

And the politicians will do nothing to stop it

[pnwmom]

12. It wasn't till 1980 that the Federal government legislated

for Medigap policies. Up till then, seniors were on the hook for 20%, without any reliable plans for covering the "gap" -- which could be a huge amount in the case of hospitalizations.

[leftstreet]

13. LOL thanks for proving my point. Private, for-profit policies

to cover a 'gap' in monies that SHOULD be coming from the commons

No matter

[pnwmom]

15. The system works fine now. Every senior I know is happy with Medicare or Medicaid.

And you're deluded if you think countries with single payer aren't constantly having to fine-tune their programs to keep costs down while maintaining good service.

Reality is that any good health care program will have to be complicated. Life is complicated.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. No Democratic Congress since 2010

What do you expect?

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Ok, so I'm wrong. Now, let's look at when you have been wrong and calling for settling for less

and made similar arguments about how the Republicans will plunder the village if we don't do the pragmatic thing and give up.
Here is you in 2006:
There is no reason at all that Federal and state laws cannot be rewritten so that civil unions are completely equivalent, legally, to marriage.
But if we keep churning up this issue, if we keep insisting on everything or nothing, if we insist on hanging on to that word "marriage" no matter what-- we may very well get nothing. Because on June 5 the Senate will be voting on a Federal amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage or its equivalent. And an amendment to the Constitution would be infinitely more difficult to change than the federal law (DOMA) we now have in place.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2617695

2008, same song:
But I think if we had started out 10 or 15 years ago pushing hard and ONLY for civil unions, then we might not have had DOMA. And we might have had a lot more states with civil unions, and even federal recognition of them by now.

I am still concerned that pushing for marriage before key elections -- like this one -- could cause a backlash that could make things even worse. What would be worse? A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x69391


You are often wrong, in ways we can see due to record and retrospect.

[Hekate]

27. Thank you pnwmom. The memes around here are nothing short of asinine.