General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sorry, but I don't buy the "But we couldn't have gotten single-payer" defense [View all]Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'nothing to show for it' to 'far less to show for it'.
The ACA has a number of good provisions, and is a step forward overall. Now we just need to turf out private-for profit insurance companies from the equation. Get rid of the massive amount of healthcare spending that doesn't actually go towards providing healthcare.
Yes, it wasted a major opportunity to make the serious structural change in healthcare that the country needed. But people actually are getting healthcare they didn't before.
And lots of people 'angry' and 'pissed off'? Sure, because getting them so has long been the Republican modus operandi. If the ACA hadn't passed, they simply would have found something else done by Dems to get people 'pissed off and angry'.
I also think you're wrong on #3. Provisions in the law DO make common types of healthcare more accessible, and incentivize healthcare facilities to actually go farther in trying to keep patients from relapsing and winding right back up in the facility in a short period. This means 'better in quality', because they're taking more time to work on keeping the patient healthy even after they leave, rather than just 'treat em and street em'.
So it's a mix. We blew an opportunity to do a better law, and we handed the GOP more political weapons to attack us with, but in on the healthcare side, healthcare actually will be more accessible for millions of people, and will be better to some extent.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):