You cannot rationally argue against this: Many, many lives will be saved by the ACA

[cali]

I'm not going to say millions because I don't know the numbers, but they're clearly substantial. Yes, yes, it's a flawed vehicle for change but it is change and I believe that it's likely the beginning of positive change- beyond the many lives that will be saved simply because of the legislation as it stands now. Fewer women, for instance, will die of breast cancer because it will be detected earlier for a substantial number of women- particularly low income women. Adult children covered under their parents' policies will receive care without being bankrupted, and that's already happening.

States like Vermont will put in place a single payer plan and that now becomes much easier to do. States will innovate.

The ACA is an opportunity and it's simply foolish to moan about how we should have had single payer. As they say in these parts "You can't get there from here". We couldn't get single payer. It wasn't a viable option given the mechanics of D.C. As for the theory that had the entire legislation been dumped by the SCOTUS, we'd now have a chance to go straight for single payer, well, that borders on idiocy.

[Bluerthanblue]

1. happily agree with you Cali-

[Whisp]

2. k&r

[SidDithers]

3. DU rec...

ACA is the foot in the door. Once a state, likely Vermont, activates a single-payer program, or even just a public exchange option to for-profit insurance, other states will follow like dominoes.

There's no way in hell that single-payer would be instituted as a federal program. It will grow from individual state programs until the entire nation is covered.

Sid

[Wounded Bear]

6. Isn't that how Canada does it?

HC is guaranteed by the National government, but the provinces handle the details?

[SidDithers]

8. Yup...

We have federal standards outlined in the Canada Health Act, that all provinces must meet, but health care in Canada is administered provincially.

Sid

[Wounded Bear]

9. I could see the ACA morphing into that...

The exchanges are a perfect chance to do so, and the expansion of Medicaid sort of primes the pump.

Several states are looking into it. Vermont is well on the way to a single payer plan; I believe they've already filed for waivers to the Federal govt to implement it. Any decent single payer plan would make the exchanges superfluous.

[Junkdrawer]

4. You cannot rationally argue against this: Many, many more would be saved by Universal Healthcare...

If this is a step along the way, what is the next step? And how does this aid that step?

If it is a cleverly disguised poison pill whose job is to make Universal Healthcare a political impossibility....

[cali]

5. but I can (and did in the op) address the foolishness of pretending that that was even

the remotest of possibilities given the politics.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Before the big Obamacare/Tea Party blowup....

most Americans wanted Universal Healthcare.

Seems Rahm (and Pres. Obama) decided to leverage this support into modest Health Insurance reform though the Public Option bait-and-switch tactic.

My fear is this: by the time people of modest means find how crappy their government mandated minimum insurance is, it will be ridiculously easy to make Government and Heathcare a bad association in peoples minds.

At that point, our side would need to make people understand that ACA and Universal Healthcare are two different things.

So, I'm in a very tenuous Wait-And-See stance. Seems to be a common position on the Left.

[CleanLucre]

10. okay. thread over.

[DearAbby]

11. Is it pretty....no

Does it go all the way? .... No

But it does take us in the right direction. Always better moving forward, than going back. I am sick of that crap.

Let's keep the good parts, get rid of the bad parts...WE HAVE SOMETHING WE CAN WORK WITH.


The "All or nothing" shit, is just that, SHIT. And it doesn't help people like me, walking sick. Not sick enough to go to the ER...just walking around in pain and LIMBO.

[NNN0LHI]

12. Not very often do I agree 100% with a thread on DU but this is one of them

[cali]

15. Thank you, Don.

I value your opinion.

[valerief]

13. Yes, but the most important thing in the world is to make the right rich people richer.

Saving lives doesn't matter to our govt. If it did, we wouldn't have WAR.

[hfojvt]

14. that begs the question

can you rationally argue FOR it?

If so, then why didn't you?

"they're clearly substantial"

I am supposed to believe this because you say so?


"adult children ... will receive care without being bankrupted ..."


Are we saving lives now, or saving bankruptcies? And can you give me a number on that? How many "adult children" ages 21-26 were going bankrupt every year (or dying) before ACA?

It's not a rational argument, or a solid rebuttal, but I would be really, very surprised if that number was very much greater than 9.

Then again, I seem to remember Al Franken writing that 26 children a year drown in 5 gallon buckets. (26 is not the exact number and I am not gonna look it up, but it was more than a few iirc).

Phrases like "simply foolish" and "borders on idiocy" do not belong in a "rational" argument. They are insults, a rhetorical tool which can be effect, or seem effective to people who already agree with you, but they are not arguments based on facts or reason.

At this point, I wonder if I should hit "post my reply" or delete. I don't like my own tone. Maybe it is the heat. Or stress. Or the end of a long week (after I work another 7-8 hours, of course). I get tired of the theme which says "there are two kinds of people in the world. There are those who agree with me, and there are idiots/fools/irrational people."

[BlueCheese]

16. I agree that the law will do a lot more than doing nothing.

So in that sense, yes, it is a step forward. And yes, had the Supreme Court struck down the ACA, we would have gotten nothing.

On the other hand, a lot of Democrats were against Medicare Part D the way it was written, and it also did an unquestionably good things. I think the underlying argument in both cases is that we don't often get opportunities to try to fix things. 2009-2010 was a rare moment when the stars aligned in the form of a Democratic president, House, and Senate, and a national urging to get things done. People are disappointed because they were hoping for more, and it's not really clear when the next chance to do something will be.

[drb]

17. Yes, but here's the republican problem with that:

Some of those saved will be black or brown people. That's what is driving them nuts.