(1) Is Obama Care a step in the wrong direction? (I say no)
(2) Should it be repealed (No, again)

I think your phrasing contains the presupposition that Obamacare is, de facto, a step in the wrong direction--your question being, given its wrongness, should it be repealed. I'm not fond of that implication.

"I think those are two separate questions...I think your phrasing contains the presupposition that Obamacare is, de facto, a step in the wrong direction--your question being, given its wrongness, should it be repealed. I'm not fond of that implication."

...stating that Obamacare is a "step in the wrong direction" implies that Obamacare lessened the chances of getting to a public option or a "government-run" program, which means doing nothing was better. At least doing nothing wasn't a "step" in any direction.

Saying that it was a "step in the wrong direction" means it is worse than the status quo.

I'm talking about the grammatical structure you used here, and how people will read the question. People will think you--yourself-- mean, given that Obamacare is a step in the wrong direction ...

I think some editing is in order if you want your meaning to come across properly.

I do not in the least believe Obamacare is a step in the wrong direction. I think it is a vast and important step forward from the existing status quo.

"I'm talking about the grammatical structure you used here, and how people will read the question. People will think you--yourself-- mean, given that Obamacare is a step in the wrong direction ... "

That's irrelevant. No one is going to assume that I am the one making the claim, and that is irrelevant to posing the question or to how people respond.

You're just collecting names of people who believe Obamacare is a step in the wrong direction and should be repealed. Looking for the real knuckle draggers.

It should not be repealed, but used as a basis on which to build medicare for all!!!

and suggest adding a choice where it is a step in the right direction.

The viewpoint that it is a step in the right direction is a valid viewpoint and should be a choice in the poll.

"The viewpoint that it is a step in the right direction is a valid viewpoint and should be a choice in the poll."

You either believe it's a step in the wrong direction or you do not.

You want to ask a separate question.

There is no question related to repeal that includes "step in the right direction."

Every response to the poll implies that it is a step in the wrong direction. Even if you don't want it repealed.

Maybe just change the "Hell No" choice to "it is not a step in the wrong direction".

"Every response to the poll implies that it is a step in the wrong direction. "

No, if you are against repeal, you do not believe it's a step in the wrong direction. That is what no "implies."

"Just do a little editing and this can end. "

Again, a "step in the right direction" is implied with a no vote.

No one who wants the law to remain in place believes it's a step in the wrong direction...no one.

but if you can't grasp this then we are both wasting our time.


Because Obamacare is a step in the wrong direction, should it be repealed?


Is only a slight change to your "Should Obamacare be repealed because it's a step in the wrong direction?"


This is how your title reads.


Other responses to this OP include:


The PP-ACA is a step in the RIGHT DIRECTION DAMN IT!!!

I think those are two separate questions

A dumb ass question

No. It is a step in the right direction.



I won't bother responding to anything else in this thread. The vast majority of the time I agree with your posts and I am in no mood to continue to argue semantics. Have a good day.

Someone up above just gave you the answer, yes there are people who think the ACA took us farther away from a public option or universal healthcare and thus WAS a step in the wrong direction but who also believe that the ACA is better than the status quo so shouldn't be repealed.

"Someone up above just gave you the answer, yes there are people who think the ACA took us farther away from a public option or universal healthcare and thus WAS a step in the wrong direction but who also believe that the ACA is better than the status quo so shouldn't be repealed."

As I said here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024753672#post4), saying that Obamacare is a "step in the wrong direction" implies that Obamacare lessened the chances of getting to a public option or a "government-run" program, which means doing nothing was better. At least doing nothing wasn't a "step" in any direction.

Saying that it was a "step in the wrong direction" means it is worse than the status quo.

You can't say that it was both a step in the wrong direction and also a step in the right direction.

Given that the law expanded Medicaid, which is a single payer program, the premise is absurd.

because repeal would deprive millions of people of thei healthcare coverage. I'm not one of those people. I think it's a step in exactly the right direction, but I think there are many DUers who don't really like it and yet don't want it repealed.

"A person may believe that it is a step in the wrong direction, but not want to see it repealed, because repeal would deprive millions of people of thei healthcare coverage. I'm not one of those people. I think it's a step in exactly the right direction, but I think there are many DUers who don't really like it and yet don't want it repealed. "

...I'd want to know how providing access to health coverage for millions of people (including the millions of newly Medicaid eligible) is a "step in the wrong direction"?

thus nobody benefits and everybody gets the wrong impression of the other guy.

Simpler to try and understand their point of view, and help clarify.
We are one team and respect, thoughtfulness is essential.

I realize there are many who willfully misunderstand,
but not everybody. Some genuniely want to get the benefit
of what is posted.

My impression of this poll OP, because of the way it's worded, is:

(1) the OP believes Obamacare is a step in the wrong direction,
and wants to know if it should be repealed; or

(2) the OP has an agenda which is difficult to discern.

I think it would be helpful if you clarified precisely what you
mean, and what you are hoping to learn, or demonstrate, with
the poll. Otherwise, in light of the other recent fiery discussions
related to ACA, it seems a bit like flamebait.

I've followed many of your posts in support of the president
and ACA, so for you to be posting a poll suggesting "a step
in the wrong direction" is confusing to me. I don't get the
purpose of it.

You can assume I am trying to give you a hard time, for
some reason, which I'm not -- or you can just explain,
kindly, what it's for. Maybe I am just very thick-witted.

I have no agenda other than I hate misunderstanding
in all forms.

"I've followed many of your posts in support of the president
and ACA, so for you to be posting a poll suggesting "a step
in the wrong direction" is confusing to me. I don't get the
purpose of it. "

...here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024753672#post4), saying that Obamacare is a "step in the wrong direction" implies that Obamacare lessened the chances of getting to a public option or a "government-run" program, which means doing nothing was better. At least doing nothing wasn't a "step" in any direction.

Saying that it was a "step in the wrong direction" means it is worse than the status quo.

I'm not sure where the ongoing "misunderstanding" comes from since you imply that you read through the responses.

The OP is poll, a question.

I read it as two questions.

It's not a step in the wrong direction; rather a brave
effort in the right direction, and for the right reasons.

The law should not be repealed; rather it should be
improved and in the direction of universal coverage for all.

I still don't get the point of the poll... but c'est la vie.

Has anyone on the putative left, or who self-identifies as a partisan Democrat, called for the repeal of the ACA? The most I've seen from anyone are calls to strengthen it with a public option (which isn't politically feasible or achievable at present).

"Has anyone on the putative left, or who self-identifies as a partisan Democrat, called for the repeal of the ACA?"

...at least one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024749214

Still, I'll repeat the point I made above.

Stating that Obamacare is a "step in the wrong direction" implies that Obamacare lessened the chances of getting to a public option or a "government-run" program, which means doing nothing was better. At least doing nothing wasn't a "step" in any direction.

Saying that it was a "step in the wrong direction" means it is worse than the status quo.

is not part of the reality-based community. No denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and elimination of caps on coverage? In a country where catastrophic medical expenses were the number one cause of personal bankruptcy, that's a huge step forward. No, it's not single-payer and it doesn't set up an American NHS, but it's a start, at least.

Deflected question to repeal or not.

Noooooooooooo.

As opposed to what, going back to poorjustdiecare?

because those who proclaim it was "a step in the wrong direction" and who also refuse to admit that it was at least "a step" away from the status quo, (where pushing for more change is available), only want to hurl insults without real solutions. They are no different from Lyin' Ryan and his ilk who proclaim they have "other plans", which are ultimately vaporware.

poo flinging.

I am not going to vote yes in the poll however because I do not support repeal unless single payer is implemented.

"I am not going to vote yes in the poll however because I do not support repeal unless single payer is implemented. "

Do you think Congress would immediately pass single payer?

If it's repealed, all funding is repealed.

Now it may well be the case that our bought and paid for politicians won't vote for it, but polls consistently show that the public supports single payer so it is the people who say it is not realistic who are out of touch.

Your suggestion that all funding and benefits would disappear are false, I clearly said the only way I would support repeal would be if single payer were implemented at the same time. That means the funding and benefits would not disappear they would just be implemented under the new single payer system.

"Now it may well be the case that our bought and paid for politicians won't vote for it, but polls consistently show that the public supports single payer so it is the people who say it is not realistic who are out of touch. "

So if you believe they "won't vote for it," why do you think it "realistic"? Polls don't vote bills into law.

"Your suggestion that all funding and benefits would disappesr are false, I clearly said the only way I would support repeal would be if single payer were implemented at the same time. That means the funding and benefits would not disappear they would just be implemented under the new single payer system."

No, it's not false: Repeal...benefits and funding disappear, and then Congress begins debate on single payer.

What you really are implying is not a repeal, but this: Congress begins debate on single payer leading to passage of such a law, and then repeal Obamacare.

That scenario nothing to do with repeal. It is the only way that benefits and funding would not disappear.

In that case, what is likely to happen is that a buy-in to Medicare for all or a full access to a public option is added to the law.

You may want to give politicians a pass for not voting for something that is in the public interest and their constituents want, but I don't.

I said very clearly that I would only support a repeal of Obamacare if single payer was passed at the same time, I never said that I would repeal first and then pass single payer. An Obamacare repeal and a single payer system could both happen at exactly the same time in a single bill.

I would also support adding a buy-in to Medicare for anyone into the current bill though, I am not suggesting an all or nothing approach.

"You may want to give politicians a pass for not voting for something that is in the public interest and their constituents want, but I don't. "

...did I say that?

"I said very clearly that I would only support a repeal of Obamacare if single payer was passed at the same time, I never said that I would repeal first and then pass single payer. An Obamacare repeal and a single payer system could both happen at exactly the same time in a single bill."

Again, if you think "our bought and paid for politicians won't vote for it," how is that realistic?

In this unrealistic scenario, Obamacare would be the law of the land while this is being debated and until it becomes law. So that isn't a repeal. It would replace Obamcare.

Maybe if you stated it this way ...

Better than the previous status quo? I think most reasonable people buy that. The best bill that was possible if the President really believed in it and had really used his resources to push it through? A step toward single payer? I doubt it. But okay, it is better than the previous status quo.

"A step toward single payer? I doubt it. "

...there is no "doubt" in my mind because single payer waiver and funding is a feature of the law.

"for Vermont, probably yes. Nationally? I doubt that we will see that"

...are farther along in the process than you realize.

All but seven states have single payer activist groups.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024747402

Still. It would have been nice to see the President push for the public option and SETTLE for the ACA. That way maybe the Republicans would shut up with their lies about the ACA being socialism and so the American people had a chance to understand what options were available...

"Still. It would have been nice to see the President push for the public option and SETTLE for the ACA. That way maybe the Republicans would shut up with their lies about the ACA being socialism and so the American people had a chance to understand what options were available..."

...losing and are going to lose this argument.

But hopefully in future policy debates we start from what we want rather than start with what we think the Republican lawmakers will settle for. GOP politicians are just political hacks and they could care less about early gestures of nicety. They laugh and make it play to their advantage.

The Single Payer option deserved a very public and informative debate to help Americans understand what they could have had. We didn't get that.

My guess if a real and informative discussion of single payer was presented we'd at the very least gotten a better written ACA and less opportunity for Republican obstructionism. And perhaps, just perhaps, the argument could have been persuasive with the AMERICAN PEOPLE that a public option served the people better and legislation to that effect enacted. The rest of the industrial world seems to get it. Why shouldn't we?

JMO.....

While the mandate to buy private insurance without offering a public option instead was a step in the wrong direction, that can certainly be fixed without repealing the rest of the law.

"While the mandate to buy private insurance without offering a public option instead was a step in the wrong direction, that can certainly be fixed without repealing the rest of the law."

The public option was a choice on the exchange. The mandate would still have been there, and would be there if added. It would be an option that would be there along with private plans. For anyone not participating in the exchange, the mandate would still be for private insurance.

This is why the move to single payer is key. The law creates a path toward single payer, and the best hope for realizing that is to start. In fact, I think when Vermont's system is up and running, the dominoes will fall much faster.

The pre-ACA system was spiralling the drain anyway. Insurance companies were stuck in a vicious spiral of restricting their customer base, then jacking up prices to offset the fact that they had fewer people paying in, so that each new claim had a larger impact on payouts, then losing more customers because they couldn't pay the new, higher premiums, then rinse and repeat the cycle.

As you note, the key to getting there faster is going to be that little loophole provision allowing states who think they can 'do it better' to set up their own, better system.

I suppose that people who make such claims would rather not deal with the implications of what they're proposing.

Or are you making a list for your purity test?

Either you want the law repealed or you don't.

Overall, 59 percent do.



This chart showing support for several provisions of Obamacare needs more exposure.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024748702

and its part of your purity poll

Anyone who wants the law repealed isn't interested in 'improving it."

Is that hard to understand?

It that too hard to understand?

You could keep repeating the irrelevant point, but it will do no good.

looks to me like another in the never ending drum beating for the current administration. Why didnt you include a couple other choices in your push poll?

Either we are all supposed to love every period and comma in the piece of shit or we are with the Teahaddists.


Sad fucking talking point

or we are with the Teahaddists."

So, Ted Cruz has a poll about "Obamacare" on his Facebook page:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024753680

A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024755799

Shocking!

Even more shocking that you think that was the goal.

Increase your post count?

They piously intone about how the the ACA was passed without their votes (Yeah, because the GOP SOP and/or default is to object to anything from the administration) and that we need to start over. Excuse me, but if the Republicans didn't rush to improve access to health care when they had control of the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House, and indeed Mitch McConnell's office went after SCHIP users (Google Paul Krugman's "The Sliming of Graeme Frost&quot , and the fact that people were bankrupted by medical bills even when they had insurance, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the glorious solution. We've seen the Ryan budget plan. We've seen Republican governors resist expanding Medicaid. Until the GOP as a whole can prove it's anything other than virulently opposed to ordinary people, they can go boil their heads.

single payer or public option.

Unfortunately, I am not convinced people will quit griping because the costs will still be more than folks "want to pay" for health care. Medicare for all will not have low enough premiums to make gripers stop, unless it is tightly managed (which will have folks screaming about death panels, restrictions on meds, rationing, etc.). In fact, had we gone straight to single payer, we'd have the right wingers yelling along with even more "liberals" calling Obama a POS for doing what would be necessary to control costs for the good of everyone.

There is no point in simply getting rid of it and going back to status quo, to push for another progressive reform. So its a neat little strawman to drag around while admonishing your imaginary idealogical enemies on the left. There are ways to achieve true egalitarian, universal health care in the US without repealing it (or passing it in the first place).

Another question would rather be: "Should the ACA ever be drastically reformed or changed in pursuit of a more fair, efficient and equal system?"

But hey, if you are 100% happy with your shit sandwich, I guess you would say no to this too

Medicaid funding would end, companies would revert to dropping people...you are suggesting the status quo regardless of your frame.

The question is, how do we get there from here?

Do we build on the ACA, or repeal it?

You seem to be suggesting that we, over time, pass new laws, and make modifications which improve upon, and potentially replace the ACA. But not to repeal it.

Which I think would be a NO to the OPs question.

Please share; I'm sure they haven't occurred to any of our Democratic members of Congress...

perfect, but it will be, as it will continue to be worked on, and I'm grateful and glad.

As for the whiners, they never, ever had a suggestion on how to provide a program that would do this, they never did anything to offer a program, never worked toward one, and STILL have no ideas. I've been waiting for one of them to offer up one idea. So far nothing, because they never had any ideas. All they have is whininess.

I'm glad Obamacare passed. As you note, those who criticized it failed to offer a real alternative.

While we're at it, we should repeal Social Security since it doesn't provide an adequate retirement pension.

and it should not be repealed.

What in the fuck are you thinking of?

Really. You think Obamacare should be repealed and we throw all those millions of people back off health care? Really?

No, I don't think Obamacare should be repealed because I don't agree that it's a "step in the wrong direction.

I asked the question, and as I said here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024753672#post4), saying that Obamacare is a "step in the wrong direction" implies that Obamacare lessened the chances of getting to a public option or a "government-run" program, which means doing nothing was better. At least doing nothing wasn't a "step" in any direction.

Saying that it was a "step in the wrong direction" means it is worse than the status quo.

Given that the law expanded Medicaid, which is a single payer program, I think the claim is absurd.

But since we didn't, this is vastly better than what we had before. It's not worse than the status quo. Yes there may well be some people who are a little worse off now, but they are far outweighed by those who are vastly better off.

And the expansion of Medicaid has been limited, unfortunately. I happen to live in a state (NM) that expanded it, but 23 states are not doing that. One can only hope that the citizens of those states finally figure out they are being royally screwed over, since not expanding Medicaid will be vastly more costly in the long run.

"And the expansion of Medicaid has been limited, unfortunately. I happen to live in a state (NM) that expanded it, but 23 states are not doing that. One can only hope that the citizens of those states finally figure out they are being royally screwed over, since not expanding Medicaid will be vastly more costly in the long run."

...I don't think the rest of the states will be able to hold out too long. This weekend NH became the latest state to sign on: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024752890