Quote:
Originally Posted by cuserounder
I'd argue the exact opposite. Instead of doing what they really wanted when they had the numbers to jam it through, they wussed out and basically took the Republican health reform ideas from 20 years ago and went with that.
If they got single payer or a public option through, they probably have a much more popular program right now... and one that would be MUCH tougher to repeal.
It was worth noting during the democratic primary that the Bern coalition was basically completely unimpressed and (often downright hostile) with anything legislatively that Obama administration did. So Ds try to pass a moderate healthcare reform in the ACA and are brutally battered from the left and the right for doing so for years to come. This kind of outcome isn't sustainable. Also, i think
Yglesias' take that Obama's administration really blew it by not having any high profile banker prosecutions, from the public perspective all the rich wallstreet elite got off easy for their role in the great recession, when during the saving and loan crisis and aftermath 100's of execs were
prosecuted and went to jail. The public doesn't understand the nuances of dodd-frank and other financial reforms, but they do notice major prosecutions or the lack thereof. Dodd-Frank is also another good example of a moderate win that was savaged as a corrupt failure by both the bern coalition and republicans. Same goes for Obama's foreign policy or his attempt at passing TPP.