Amergin posted:

Listen to the interview I posted earlier about this topic. Republicans actually voiced support for the ACA in some instances in order to rile up lobbyists against certain provisions that would have actually done something to fix our healthcare system.

This is crazy, folks. You're all looking at a huge piece of legislation that doesn't do much and kicks 90% of the problems underlying our healthcare system down the road, and you're calling that one of the best legislative reforms passed in the last two decades?! You're putting this in the league of Glass-Steagall (my bad, thanks Trab), the removal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and - hell, I tell you what, go down this list of just what Clinton did and tell me the ACA is on par with half of those pieces of legislation.

Y'all are either entirely too depressed or entirely too drunk.

quote:

The ACA was enacted when the Dems had control of both houses of Congress. Please keep telling me how it was the best the Dems could do in the face of terrifying lobbyists from big pharma, hospitals and medical device manufacturers. Obviously to pass anything of substance, you need a backbone, and none of the loving Dems at the time had one, but they and MSNBC and HuffPo and Mother Jones tell you it was the best they could do and you just accept that like a loving pat on the head of a good dog.

This apologetic liberalism is sickening.

Gounads posted:

The minimum requirements are what I consider the biggest flaw of the ACA. Very high deductible catastrophic plans should still be offered.


But saying you're paying for mammograms is completely disingenuous. For a population X there will be Y mammograms. Y will be less than X/2. So at best, you're paying for half a mammogram. But the same thing happens in reverse for prostate screenings or to a lesser degree heart disease. Don't include pregnancy/birth related costs and it mostly works out even. And if you ask me, women/men should share the pregnancy cost.

Trabisnikof posted:

You mean the repeal of Glass-Steagall, right? Because Glass-Steagall was passed in the 30s. And of course repealing Glass-Steagall helped usher in the 2008 crash. So impactful and huge, but not exactly "good."

DADT is a great piece of legislation, just like Lilly Ledbetter, but isn't anywhere near the scale of the ACA.

Trabisnikof posted:

I'm curious, what's the last better large scale reform legislation before ACA? Clear Air Act of 1990? I'm honestly kinda stumped (please don't mention Welfare reform).

Trabisnikof posted:

There are lots of improvements possible, but we're still far better off with it than without it. Accelerationists need not apply.

Joementum posted:

Zeitgueist posted:

LOL the weakest possible defense of a legislation ever, accompanied by a passive aggressive accusation of accellerationism.

A single dollar a month to every citizen would also fit the description of "There are lots of improvements possible, but we're still far better off with it than without it."

Amergin posted:

I agree that men and women should share the pregnancy cost, but in the case of mammograms and prostate screenings, I don't think you can assume those costs even out. They may, they may not, but I'd still prefer to have the option as a young healthy male of not shouldering the cost of covering my own mammograms nor prostate screenings.

DemeaninDemon posted:

People who bitch about insurance covering what they don't use are just future old people bitching about school levies.

zoux posted:

I don't have kids why should I pay for schools????

zoux posted:

I don't have kids why should I pay for schools????

Amergin posted:

I agree that men and women should share the pregnancy cost, but in the case of mammograms and prostate screenings, I don't think you can assume those costs even out. They may, they may not, but I'd still prefer to have the option as a young healthy male of not shouldering the cost of covering my own mammograms nor prostate screenings.

bassguitarhero posted:

I remember being in high school going door-to-door in my community asking people to vote for a bond measure that would give my school some much-needed funds and I got this answer from most of the people I canvassed.

amanasleep posted:

Holy poo poo Obama's crappy because he's not Clinton now? Never thought that one was supposed to be a proper conservative concern troll on liberals. That was an old Firebagger canard.


That's more like it. Obama just needed more backbone to activate his power ring convince Republicans, Democrats, and the most powerful industries in America to come together to enact legislation that Amergin's favorite president Bill Clinton failed to enact 20 years earlier.

zoux posted:

It would be cool if we lived in an actual society.

bassguitarhero posted:

I remember being in high school going door-to-door in my community asking people to vote for a bond measure that would give my school some much-needed funds and I got this answer from most of the people I canvassed.

420DD Butts posted:

"Well, if you don't want some former high school kids who couldn't get a proper education breaking into your house at night and tying you up while they steal all your stuff, you should probably consider giving them opportunities beyond a life of constant desperation"

bassguitarhero posted:

I remember being in high school going door-to-door in my community asking people to vote for a bond measure that would give my school some much-needed funds and I got this answer from most of the people I canvassed.

zoux posted:

It would be cool if we lived in an actual society.

zoux posted:

That's what the police state is for sir.

zoux posted:

It would be cool if we lived in an actual society.

DemeaninDemon posted:

I would have gone with "you want the dude measuring out your bp medication to know some basic math and science, right?"

zoux posted:

Forcing insurers to provide for people with pre-existing conditions is a huge boon to a ton of people, so it's a bit better than that.

I'm a huge critic of the ACA but even I have to grant it has good aspects and is worth defending to a point.

Amergin posted:

I agree that men and women should share the pregnancy cost, but in the case of mammograms and prostate screenings, I don't think you can assume those costs even out. They may, they may not, but I'd still prefer to have the option as a young healthy male of not shouldering the cost of covering my own mammograms nor prostate screenings.

Amergin posted:

The insurance industry needed one thing changed, and that was preventing them from refusing to cover you due to pre-existing conditions.

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Eliminating price discrimination based on gender and pre-existing conditions, and reducing it significantly based on age, was an explicit goal of the PPACA. What reason other than selfishness is there to be opposed to this? Obviously a young, healthy male on the individual market is paying more than pre-PPACA, but the other end of this is that, among other things, women don't get charged more for daring to have ovaries.

Amergin posted:

And it's at this point liberal defense of the ACA flounders and it turns into immature Reddit-worthy snark.

420DD Butts posted:

It's sad that the best arguments we could possibly give to old fygm suburban types is to play into their fears and not, you know, basic human understanding and compassion.

420DD Butts posted:

It's sad that the best arguments we could possibly give to old fygm suburban types is to play into their fears and not, you know, basic human understanding and compassion.

amanasleep posted:

This coming from the premier importer of that brand of snark ITT.

Back on topic. Every liberal I know was sickened by what they saw as a lack of spine during the enacting of the ACA because the Public Option wasn't on the table. The reality is that the Health Care reform failure of Hillarycare back in the day defined the true limits of what was possible in 2009. The Democrats also controlled congress in 1993, plus they even had a white guy president! And yet Hillarycare was defeated by some Bill Kristol faxes and a clever ad. And Hillarycare was not much different from what Obamacare turned out to be.

zoux posted:

If appeals to human compassion and understanding worked better than appealing to the lowest common denominator then communism wouldn't just work in theory.

quote:

According to U.S. census figures, 98.7 percent of the population growth in this country from 2000 to 2010 took place beyond a two-mile radius of any downtown area. About 70 percent of that growth took place 15+ miles out. And in the 51 national major metro areas (those with a population of more than one million), the increased population in the 5-15 mile range was 4.4 million, while the increase was 11.5 million in the areas 15+ miles from the central core.

The reason these numbers are important is that the political decisions made in state capitals often follow where people are moving. Hence, governors are more likely to steer money to sprawl cities for interchanges and road widening than to move funds into inner ring suburbs for rehabilitation or economic development. And the reason for that is the changing demographics of these suburbs: once Democratic union strongholds, they have morphed into part older white Republicans and part minority Democrats. In effect, they have little political pull.