Biden's health care wins are being undone — and at the worst possible time (www.politico.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by circularfish@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sen. Ron Wyden, chair of the committee that oversees Medicaid, likened some states' attempts to stop people from losing coverage to "waving at somebody as their car goes by, and going, well, we contacted you."

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] circularfish@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I didn't really read it that way, but see what you mean.

But along those lines, I'm a "vote blue to keep the troglodytes out" type, and supported the ACA as an incremental step, but I'm also appreciative of the criticism coming from further left over current healthcare policy. If the ACA really was an incremental step, then we shouldn't be talking about backsliding -- the administration should be prioritizing a push in the other direction. We can debate what that entails, and may be about to today, but the discussion should be about getting more folks covered.

[-] Can_Utility@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

the discussion should be about getting more folks covered

The discussion first needs to be substantially increasing Democratic numbers in both houses of Congress.

Obviously nothing will change for the better without a Democratic majority in the House. A nominal majority requires at least 4 more Democratic seats. There are far fewer Blue Dogs and conservative Dems than there were 15 years ago, but I would imagine a maximal ACA successor would require at least 30 new members to make sure assholes like Gottheimer don't gum up the works.

The filibuster rules in the Senate basically mandate at least 60 senators to pass anything of consequence. Yes, it's a Senatorial rule; yes, it can be removed with a straight majority. As it stands right now, two senators are on record as opposing filibuster repeal, and there are probably a few others who are still attached to the rules of the Senate as currently constituted. A fight over the filibuster now would fail, and time spent in the next Congress fighting to abolish the filibuster is time lost for legislating. So assume a minimum of 60 Democratic senators to be able to operate free of Republican obstruction. Again, if you want a maximal bill, you need more than 60 senators, to get around problem children like Manchin and Sinema* and other conservative Dems.

We're obviously in the realm of LBJ after the 1964 landslide here, which helps to explain why progressive victories are so hard-fought and far between. People forget that a big reason LBJ was able to enact the Great Society is because he was backed by 288 Democrats in the House and 66 Democrats in the Senate. By comparison, Obama had 60 Democrats in the Senate for about six to nine months, which is how the ACA was able to pass but was also why the ACA wasn't better than it was.

If we want better outcomes, we need more (and better) Democrats.

*It's very possible that neither of them will be in the new Senate. It's also possible that on some issues they are stalking horses for other senators who prefer to let them draw the heat.

[-] RippleEffect@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

I think a lot of people are exhausted from weaponized health care. People want affordable coverage. Not the most expensive, least efficient health care in the world.

this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023

91 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10188 readers

675 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org