j.r. leonard

That’s what I mean by stealing bases. You’re jumping from one place to another without doing the work to connect the dots

I don't really accept your characterization of the effects of the ACA. Its effects are complicated, but it worked pretty well in urban and suburban areas and struggled in rural areas bc rural HC is REALLY hard, particularly as those areas are stagnating for other reasons.

Let’s be clear. I’m not arguing against the ACA. I’m arguing against the idea that support for the ACA, or really any specific policy, is a reasonable proxy for moral or ethical behavior. You can be for expanding coverage and think the ACA is not a good law

So, moralizing about universal health care generally is ok, but moralizing about the ACA specifically is not.

I wouldn’t do either, but I’d say the former is more defensible

My particular problem here is that the ACA relies heavily on redistribution from the wrong people while preserving the profits of incumbent interests. And that makes it a particularly bad proxy for moral reasoning

Is there any possible way we could have passed a more preferable law given the political constraints of 2009?

And if not, then how is ACA not the best achievable bill?