Right, but laying out policy might have allowed the GOP to look less foolish now.  It probably wasn't in their best interest during the campaign.

 

Plus, Obamacare wasn't a particularly strong issue to run on.  The less most Dems talked about it the better off they were.

Really? The GOP shifted the election with 'repeal and replace' since the ACA was so 'bad' because only one side talked about it. It certainly has flaws but it was a big improvement and campaigning on how to improve it would have helped rather than hurt.

 

Really? The GOP shifted the election with 'repeal and replace' since the ACA was so 'bad' because only one side talked about it. It certainly has flaws but it was a big improvement and campaigning on how to improve it would have helped rather than hurt.

 

I think you're looking at this too rationally to explain how people lined up behind Trump,

 

I think you're looking at this too rationally to explain how people lined up behind Trump,

You just aren't making any sense. 

 

You just aren't making any sense. 

 

50% of the America Public had a negative view of Obamacare.  Every Dem that stood up and said "We should keep it, but" stopped being listened to long before they got to anything after the "but".

 

It was a toxic subject to celebrate, even in passing.  Venturing into the weeds of policy ideas in debates would only highlight support of a bill that, regardless of the merits of those feelings, was largely unpopular.  

 

Hell, "repeal and replace" largely worked precisely because it verified the anti-ACA that half the country wanted without discussing policy in any meaningful way.

Edited May 10, 20179 yr by TheLeviathan

 

50% of the America Public had a negative view of Obamacare.  Every Dem that stood up and said "We should keep it, but" stopped being listened to long before they got to anything after the "but".

 

It was a toxic subject to celebrate, even in passing.  Venturing into the weeds of policy ideas in debates would only highlight support of a bill that, regardless of the merits of those feelings, was largely unpopular.  

 

Hell, "repeal and replace" largely worked precisely because it verified the anti-ACA that half the country wanted without discussing policy in any meaningful way.

Or did people have an unfavorable view of the ACA because the GOP was the only one talking about it?

They continually attacked it until it was largely unpopular. 

 

Or did people have an unfavorable view of the ACA because the GOP was the only one talking about it?

They continually attacked it until it was largely unpopular. 

 

Regardless of why it was unpopular - at the time of the last elections it was already unpopular.  You stated that you wanted the Dems to stand up and campaign on something people adamantly disliked.  I'm not sure why you believe that would have been successful.  

 

Now, you can argue they did a poor job selling it at the outset of the legislation, but we're long past that point at the election.  Any time they talked about it was toxic to their election chances and anything they said that might have made good policy would only assist the Republicans.  They had to hope to win while dodging the issue and put their fixes in later.

ACA is more popular then ever fwiw.

 

What about allowing insurers to sell across state lines?  

 

that does nothing. It's a red herring to distract from the real causes. Plus, the barriers to entry are enormous, this won't create new companies.

 

Again, just my opinion....

What I'm about to type is my own opinion, and not my employers......(I am supposed to type that on social media when talking HC).

 

We know from decades of experimentation across the US, Europe, Australia, NZ, Japan, etc......the only thing that actually works is single payer. By works I mean, is cheaper, and produces better outcomes for the population. We know this with certainty. Israel's plan seems to work also, but it is an isolated case, and a very homogeneous and small society. Of course, Israel's plan is basically the ACA, except you are legally required to buy insurance, and for at least a 2 year commitment.....

 

In lieu of a single payer, I still like my idea of giving every citizen 2K a year or so into a savings account from birth. That money can ONLY be used for HC or education. The exact dollar amount? I'd bet it could be closer to 10K a year if we did things right, maybe more. I'd supplement that with catastrophic insurance supplied by the government, so no one would go broke if they had cancer, or whatever.

 

The next least worse plan is something like the ACA, but that's such a terrible compromise (as in, going halfway rarely works), that it only puts lipstick on the pig that is our system...

 

What I'm about to type is my own opinion, and not my employers......(I am supposed to type that on social media when talking HC).

 

We know from decades of experimentation across the US, Europe, Australia, NZ, Japan, etc......the only thing that actually works is single payer. By works I mean, is cheaper, and produces better outcomes for the population. We know this with certainty. Israel's plan seems to work also, but it is an isolated case, and a very homogeneous and small society. Of course, Israel's plan is basically the ACA, except you are legally required to buy insurance, and for at least a 2 year commitment.....

 

In lieu of a single payer, I still like my idea of giving every citizen 2K a year or so into a savings account from birth. That money can ONLY be used for HC or education. The exact dollar amount? I'd bet it could be closer to 10K a year if we did things right, maybe more. I'd supplement that with catastrophic insurance supplied by the government, so no one would go broke if they had cancer, or whatever.

 

The next least worse plan is something like the ACA, but that's such a terrible compromise (as in, going halfway rarely works), that it only puts lipstick on the pig that is our system...

I like how this form of health savings account works (everybody gets something) complemented by a catastrophic insurance. That creates price sensitivity and protects against bankruptcy type health issues. A better version of what I proposed in another thread.

Single payer would also be better than where we are at and is almost certainly the best version of the ACA that could be designed. It's very limited since it fulfills the campaign promise 'if you like your health care you can keep it'. Keeping that system doesn't work long term.