Post removed

[JaneyVee]

1. Are you ok?

[brush]

2. Don't get the reason for this post

This is DU. I dare say 95%, maybe up to 99.9% of the regulars on here preferred single payer but understand it would never have gotten through Congress — too many reug and blue dog votes would have sunk it.

That ACA is what we have. It's a big improvement over what we have. 169 reasons won't change that so why this exercise in self-flagellation?

Oh, now I see. You just have 15 posts. Thanks for your concern.

[LWolf]

4. I have 38,000.

That's almost 20X your count, and 10X your time, here on DU. I have my own concerns with the ACA, and have never been shy about saying so. Perhaps you could decide to disagree with the poster without claiming some kind of territorial privilege. I'm wondering if that's the way you were treated when you arrived here a short year and 1800 or so posts ago. I hope not.

I disagree with you. It's simply a false statement to say, "it would never have gotten through Congress." That's an opinion. It could have been a prediction, if it had been allowed to GET to Congress, and then we could have determined the validity of the prediction. It didn't, though. It wasn't even allowed in the room when the ACA was being crafted. In those circumstances, it's not possible to say what might have happened if it HAD been part of the conversation.

I believe it's likely that single-payer would not have been part of the final outcome. It's presence, though, might have pressured the group that crafted the ACA into at least allowing a public option, and, once having been allowed at that table, it would BE at that table for every future discussion, instead of locked out of the room, and the realm of possibility. Notice my use of the phrase "I believe," clearly acknowledging that it's my opinion, not some sort of pre-determined fact.

I believe that trying to shut people down who advocate for the better option instead of the lesser evil is counter-productive. I also think that saying you prefer the better option, and then advocating for the lesser evil, is what has caused the Democratic Party's inexorable shift from the left to the neoliberal right, and that is no step forward on any front.

Meanwhile, my ONLY concern when it comes to health care is just that: Health CARE. The ACA is not about CARE, it's an insurance mandate. If there is a net advance in the number of people who can get CARE without sacrificing their rent, food, utility, and fuel budgets, I'm okay with it. That doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that having insurance means that one can afford care, that I'm going to ignore the reality of deductibles and copays, of the private insurance industry's profit motive, or of how that motive sets up obstacles to TRULY affordable CARE.

That would be dishonest and disingenuous.

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. One step at a time....try to stay focused mkay?

We are still a long way from Single Payer. I am sure you believe that the demise of the ACA would suddenly make everyone liberals and demand Single Payer. But that is just not going to happen. The only path to Single Payer now is through ACA and beyond. This is not productive right now...you can stamp your feet and hold your breath till you are blue....but ACA is here to stay.

[LWolf]

6. I don't have any trouble with focus, thanks.

I do have trouble with the suggestion that the ACA, which is an insurance mandate, is somehow going to lead to a single payer system. The foundation is wrong.

I also have trouble with you being sure about anything I believe. You simply don't have the background knowledge to determine what I believe, and your suggestion, as well as demonstrating ignorance, is ludicrous.

First, nowhere have I advocated for the "demise" of the ACA.

Second, I haven't "stamped my feet," nor "held my breath," nor any other kind of tantrum behavior, and the suggestion that I have is false, is misdirection, and is an extremely weak ad hominem.

Third, your statement about "the only path" is your opinion, although you didn't bother to present it that way, and it's an opinion backed with neither evidence nor logic.

Finally, NOTHING is "here to stay." That's a ridiculous statement that adds nothing to any debate.

Of course, nothing I have said has anything whatsoever to do with "the demise of the ACA," or whether or not it is "here to stay." You are tilting at windmills, like some other people whose focus is so narrow that they can't beyond their own nose. I understand that you feel defensive because the ACA is under attack, and you are somehow invested in its future. Many feel that way. Some because they see it as Obama's legacy, and their first priority is promoting his image and record. Others because they've waited so long for some sort of action on health care that they are willing to embrace ANYTHING that offers some hope, well-founded or not. Others because the ACA WILL actually help them. And others because they are more interested in scoring political points for the party than any issue. I don't know what your motivation is. I don't care what your motivation is. To be honest, I don't really care what you think about the ACA.

If you want to debate the ACA or anything else with me, bring something substantive to the discussion, and leave the ad hominem behind. Or just find a more receptive audience for your opinions.

[jpak]

3. !

[madrchsod]

7. you mean medicare.

medicare pays only 80%. drug plan and the 20% are optional payments. unless one can afford the extra 20% medical bankruptcy is still what one faces.

[sabrina 1]

8. Yes and that needs to be changed. We absolutely NEED a National HC system unless no one

views the tens of thousands of deaths of human beings each year in this country due to lack of such a system.

I have zero patience with those who refuse to see this as a National Emergency. That is over half a million American deaths, NOT by terrorists, by our refusal to fight for those lives, since 9/11.

Sick to death of all the excuses, the defeatism, the 'we can't do it. What was the slogan in 2088? 'Yes, we CAN'? When did it become 'no we can't on an issues as serious this massive loss of life due to something that is easily fixed?

[madrchsod]

10. i totally agree...

[Denzil_DC]

9. My goodness, Chuck, you're a real big fan of this "Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog"

judging by your journal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/~Chuck%20Smythe

I checked Dan's blog out: http://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/

Quite a RW libertarian paradise there, from what I've seen.

Rifffling though his categories and some of his comments, Dan doesn't seem to like leftists at all, among probably WAY more than 169 other things that many folks on DU generally stand for--unions, Barack Obama, the ACA, gun control, environmentalism ...

Funny that.

You wouldn't happen to actually be Dan, would you, Chuck?