Iowa insurance market collapse could ground young entrepreneurs' dreams

Re:Iowa insurance market collapse could ground young entrepr... by mikeash on Friday June 23, 2017 @01:07PM (#14620763)

I can and will blame one voter for a lost ballot. Republicans controlled 40 seats. Democrats controlled 58 and had two independents who mostly leaned their way. They needed all 60 of those votes to pass something. Lieberman was one of those independents, and he explicitly threatened to filibuster any bill that included a public option, while the other 59 accepted it.

Republicans were going to vote against the ACA no matter what it contained. That means they had no power over the content of what got passed. Lieberman had huge power over the content.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Iowa insurance market collapse could ground young entrepr... by humanrebar on Friday June 23, 2017 @01:34PM (#14621018)

No faction should force through a marginally popular, sweeping change by the skin of it's teeth.

This is one of the reasons why the Constitution and amendment process exist. The Supreme Court ruled that the passage of the ACA was technically OK (I disagree, but that's moot I guess) but they didn't rule whether it was wise.

I'm saying given the political and practical mess on this issue, it was unwise. I think partisan finger pointing is likewise a bad idea.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Iowa insurance market collapse could ground young entrepr... by mikeash on Friday June 23, 2017 @02:10PM (#14621342)

60% shouldn't be considered "skin of its teeth" and historically wasn't. It only is now because the Senate has become fairly dysfunctional.

I don't see how it's "partisan finger pointing" to explain why the lack of a public option is the responsibility of a single independent senator. It vaguely fits for stating that the 40 Republicans were never going to vote for any form of the ACA, but that's really just a statement of fact.

[ Parent | on HN ]