Maybe there would not be so much interest in reviving Single Payer NOW, if the Political Operatives for the ACA had played their 'Bargaining Chips' a bit differently, BACK THEN?
Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters
by Peter Wallsten, wsj.com -- Jan. 26, 2010
[...] The friction was laid bare in August when Mr. [Rahm] Emanuel showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides. Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obama's health-care overhaul."F—ing retarded," Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items. [...]
On health care, Mr. Emanuel negotiated with Republicans, pharmaceutical and health-insurance companies.
He also supported Congress dropping liberal ideas that didn't have enough support, in particular the "public option," a provision in which the government would provide health insurance for a large swath of the population. "Rahm's approach, like the president, is not ideological. It's practical," says Bruce Reed, chief executive of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council [DLC] and a frequent recipient of Mr. Emanuel's phone calls. "The administration's strategy has been to pass health-care reform, not die trying." [...]
Something is better than nothing ... right? 'We can always go back and fix it later' ... (such was the rationale given, to placate the discounted and disrespected progressive-Democrats, at the time).
Maybe, IF the Political Operatives for the ACA, hadn't gone ALL-IN on the big-bet of simply trusting in the 'good-will' of the Insurance Corporations -- to work in the public’s interests ... maybe We the People would have a Health Choice, the DOESN’T include having to pay their ever-rising CEO Salaries and Corporate Dividends.
Elimination of 'public option' threw consumers to the insurance wolves
by Wendell Potter Commentary, publicintegrity.org -- Feb 16, 2015
When members of Congress caved to demands from the insurance industry and ditched their plan to establish a “public option” health plan, the lawmakers also ditched one of their favorite talking points, that a government-run plan was necessary to “keep insurers honest.”Getting rid of a government-run insurance option was the industry’s top objective during the health care reform debate. Private insurers set out to persuade President Obama and Congressional leaders that they were trustworthy. [...]
When he was running for president, Obama regularly talked about the need for a public option. That was one reason why many health care reform advocates supported him instead of Hillary Clinton.
He kept insisting on a public option for months after he was elected. He said on July 18, 2009, “Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange—a one-stop-shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest...”
SO what exactly, “is keeping insurance companies honest” NOW -- since they got their profit-boosting prize -- simply for 'showing up' to the Bargaining Table?
It's easy for politicians to promise to "fight for us" when they're running for office -- and an entirely different story, when it comes to sticking to those promises, when the Lobbyist Chips are being called in.
Unless you're a Candidate that’s not beholden to such corporate Lobbyist interests, in the first place, that is.