?
He probably thinks that it doesn't go far enough and reinforces the private insurance industry.
Bingo.
Not if you oppose people being forced to pump up private insurers' profits or taxing union health plans.
TNF, you're a senator, you have always accepted compromises to your piece of legislation (example: your estate tax). Why are you such a true leftist irl, you know it's impossible to have all you want in politics.
Obama could have gotten single-payer if he wanted it. He didn't want it. He wanted to push through Romneycare, which is what we all have to live with, and which is useless if not counterproductive in that it's throwing people off their insurance plans left and right, making union members who have fought hard on the picket lines pay a tax on that insurance, and then forcing everyone to pump up insurance industry profits by requiring everyone to buy for profit insurance.
I believe in compromise, but what Obama rammed down our throats is not compromise. It is a full blown giveaway to corporate America which no self-respecting progressive should support.
And single-payer is a compromise between our current regime of mandatory rents to private insurance toll booths and a NHS regime. The fact that all Democrats - including "independent" "socialist" Bernie Sanders - voted for it demonstrates how utterly rotten and irredeemable the party is (unfortunately, it took me until 2009 to figure out that no amount of "more and better democrats" was going to bring about single-payer, jobs guarantee, end of imperialism, adjudication of mortgage and securities fraud, etc.). We are often presented with the false dichotomy that we had to have Obamneycare or nothing, and if we oppose Obamacare we're somehow against universal healthcare. A lot of people will soon find out that their junk insurance is just that, and that they've been paying a toll booth that takes them off a cliff into bankruptcy (how conveeenient for the banksters!).
