Maybe this is the nut of our discussion. The first two years of his administration, he had control of Congress or at least enough clout with it to get some things done. After much debate and so forth, the ACA was passed and has been the source of much froth in Washinton and across the country. It was a bad compromise but was it better than not doing anything at all?
For the last six years, Obama has been saddled with a completely antagonistic and unbending right wing controlled Congress. His actions have been largely defensive. Would a belligerent Obama have been more or less effective?
I am interested in reading your answers. My thoughts on this is no to both questions. The ACA still has insurance companies in the driver's seat with regard to financial control of the healthcare industry so, bad compromise. On the other hand, it expanded the number of people who can afford "insurance" actually, health care coverage, by federally subsidising those who qualify. It is anathema to the right because it is a step towards single payer system, which is why I think it was better to get the act passed before Obama's window of opportunity was closed. Also, a belligerent Obama would have in my opinion been less effective because it would have prevented any opportunity to work with the right wing congress. Would you rather that Obama shut down Washington until universal healthcare is passed and Glass Steagal is re-instituted?
they get exactly what they want.
