Can't speak for anyone but myself of course, but I was pretty disappointed with the way Democrats under Obama tackled healthcare.

One of the big differences between Obama and Clinton in the primaries was that Clinton was in favor of an individual mandate, and Obama was not. We still ended up with an individual mandate, which is both offensive on grounds that the government is forcing you to find and pay for insurance (not always easy on the exchange), and on the grounds that the primary purpose of the mandate is to ensure that insurance companies stay profitable.

Former Al Gore running mate and future republican Joe Lieberman is often given credit for stopping the nationwide insurance exchange in favor of state-level exchanges, again tipping the market in favor of insurers.

Ending denials for pre-existing conditions was nice, as were a few of the other details, but it felt like a far cry from the hope and change voters were promised. Mostly it exposed more-of-the-same pandering to the rich and powerful. Last I checked Medicare For All polls quite favorably.

Whatever is worth doing is worth doing badly. Obamacare wasn't perfect, but it had tons of positive effects and could later be improved. Republicans seem to be the only ones with a 50-year plan and the discipline to see it through.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/americans-vi...

> 41% of Americans say the government should provide more assistance to people in need

> 30% say it's providing about the right amount

> 27% say it should provide *less*

41-57? If there are issues in America, it's because Americans want it that way.

> with an individual mandate, which is both offensive

I find the mandate entirely inoffensive. Its purpose is not to ensure that insurance companies stay profitable. Its purpose is to avoid adverse selection, and to ensure that everyone adequately ensures against health risks, to avoid forcing others to either pick up the tab or watch people being kicked out of hospitals and die miserably.