[netsharc]

Obama himself has said to that Obamacare (well ACA) is like (to use my own analogy) a "patch" on a a system that can't just be reimplemented (most of it due to political reasons). It's not terrific but it's what was able to be done.

Whereas e.g. single payer was an unachievable pipe dream from where they were standing in 2008/09. And he'd rather have something a bit better rather than go for the excellent system and fail and be left with the bad system.

[shiroiushi]

And why was it "an unachievable pipe dream"? As I remember it, the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress, as well as the White House, for about 2 years. They could have passed anything they wanted.

[netsharc]

A others have replied, some Dems were quite red, a lot of politicians are more eager to preserve their jobs than burn political capital...

The excerpt from his book: https://archive.is/V5TVM . He also talks about "political capital" and whether it'd be more wise to spend them on e.g. recession recovery. Ctrl-F for "More than forty-three million Americans were now uninsured" to skip the introduction about how the system got to the way it got.

[triceratops]

You're remembering wrong. They had a super-majority for only about 6 months. After that Republicans could hold up legislation via filibustering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Senate_spec...

[ein0p]

Because they’re owned by Big Pharma and Big Healthcare. Same as Republicans. Also because we'd much rather fund wars than solve such problems.

[netsharc]

I was complaining about the state of discourse on HN the other day. Your comment is example number... I don't know what number, I've lost count.

[tstrimple]

Joe Lieberman sabotaged the public option.

[chgs]

If one person has such power you aren’t really in a democracy

[tstrimple]

The senate is not Democratic. Senators represent states, not people. Unfortunately the house is very poor at representation as well since the number of seats has been frozen. Too many compromises with slave holders built into the foundation of our country to have anything approaching a functional system. Those compromises have been hampering democracy and progress ever since.

[zdragnar]

Perhaps you don't understand how voting works? When the difference between minority in favor (not passing) and majority in favor (passing) is one person, then yes, one person has such power.

Democracy doesn't mean that the minority gets to overrule the majority when they feel like it. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

[tstrimple]

Unfortunately that’s exactly what “democracy” in the US means. Without a super majority, any individual can hold up any legislation they want outside of budget reconciliation. It will be that way as long as the filibuster exists in its current form.