Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Xyzse

(8,217 posts)
46. It could mean either of the two.
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:52 PM
Mar 2016

During the time, Obama did take the Universal Healthcare option off the table even before actual negotiation started.
That shows a lack of support from the President, as the leadership was not on board with the idea, then of course one could say it would not work in the "Federal" level at that point.

Which is why I didn't really see this as a big deal as that was the only reasonable method at the time.

Don't get me wrong, I am still quite happy that the ACA has passed, even though I consider the implementation flawed and the law needs work.

It is also one thing to basically say, we will try our hardest to get the best possible outcome, rather than saying flat out that something can not be done.

answer and link geek tragedy Mar 2016 #1
Quite misleading, particularly as that article mentions that you post says that: Xyzse Mar 2016 #42
No, in Washington means at the federal level. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #45
It could mean either of the two. Xyzse Mar 2016 #46
who cares? yourpaljoey Mar 2016 #2
No one except the right wing of the party who don't support single payer. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #31
Did we have a presidential candidate running on single payer then? think Mar 2016 #3
No, but we had a huge Democratic majority in the house and a supermajority of 60 in the Senate. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #4
Sooner with Bernie than with Hillary. Hillary is just too corrupt. People are tired of corruption. think Mar 2016 #9
zzzzzzzz. Blah blah corrupt oligarch blah blah nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #10
So typical of you to just ignore corruption. pathetic even. think Mar 2016 #11
no, I ignore substance-free insults and sloganeering. nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #14
Goldmans Sachs, Citigroup, Jp Morgan, USB just to name a few of the sleasiest banks think Mar 2016 #17
so you respond with more substance-free insults and sloganeering nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #18
No. I respond with banks that routinely violate US laws that your candidate think Mar 2016 #20
so your position is that anyone who gets paid by a bank is corrupt? nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #21
She's a politician running for president. She will appoint people to regulate and police these banks think Mar 2016 #24
President Obama took in millions of campaign contributions from Wall Street employees in 2008. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #29
Hillary's taking DIRECT INCOME. Somehow you all don't seem to understand that is more liquid think Mar 2016 #30
still no poof of quid pro quo-still waiting redstateblues Mar 2016 #27
Which makes it all the more peculiar that he didn't lift a finger to prevent DanTex Mar 2016 #5
You don't know that. Quit making stuff up. senz Mar 2016 #23
If he did, he failed. Hoyt Mar 2016 #28
Hey Hoyt: Senators don't run states. senz Mar 2016 #32
US Senators are senior political figures in most states and have a lot of pull. Hoyt Mar 2016 #35
Oh a nice ad hominem from a Hill fan with a Woody Guthrie avatar. senz Mar 2016 #36
Not as bad is your post above invoking your vast knowledge of civics. Hoyt Mar 2016 #37
Sweetie, I don't have osteoporosis. Sorry! But your sexism/ageism is duly noted. senz Mar 2016 #39
Woo hoo! You modified your original reply! senz Mar 2016 #41
That's what my auto correct did. But we've become accustomed to how Sanders' supporters play. Hoyt Mar 2016 #43
Bullshit. senz Mar 2016 #44
Promise anything to get elected. nt LexVegas Mar 2016 #6
lol, isn't that what ol' Hill is doing? senz Mar 2016 #40
Are you for healthcare as a right or not? SHRED Mar 2016 #7
I agree with 2010 Bernie Sanders. nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #8
Do you favor a Medicare-for-all or not? SHRED Mar 2016 #12
I favor allowing 55-64 year olds the right to buy into Medicare geek tragedy Mar 2016 #13
I support that... SHRED Mar 2016 #15
sure, roll it out over time. Drop the age of eligbility by 2 years per year, and pretty soon you geek tragedy Mar 2016 #16
You're quite the Sanders supporter Capt. Obvious Mar 2016 #19
Yes indeed. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #26
It COULDN'T start at the Federal level in 2010. He knew that. senz Mar 2016 #22
exactly.....times have changed....The affordable care act took us halfway virtualobserver Mar 2016 #34
ohhhhh, Bernie's minions are going to spit all over your shoes for this!!!!! Bill USA Mar 2016 #25
Bernie doesn't have minions. He's not that full of himself. senz Mar 2016 #33
Not until he is President, then we can. Motown_Johnny Mar 2016 #38
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»True or false?: in 2010 S...»Reply #46