• FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    You said he “gave people access to healthcare” I agreed.

    What else is there to engage with in your comment?

    Assist me in understanding.

    • Nalivai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Wait, seriously? Like, seriously, you’re not joking? You really can’t get the point from the original comment? You have read it and that was your understanding? Be honest, if not with me than with yourself, did you really read it, or just pretended to read and now digging your heels?

          • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Your point was that he got people health care coverage that otherwise wouldn’t have been covered. I agreed with that point.

            My point is that his presidency led us to trump.

                • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  If it makes you feel any better I’m lost as well since the points they made in their attempted speech is just incorrect.

                  From 2000 through 2008, majorities ranging from 54% to 69% believed the federal government should ensure universal coverage in the U.S. (link)

                  The rest is bizarre word ramblings, “he achieved something that nobody thought possible”, “his legacy will be dismantled”.

                  It’s kinda interesting, like he’s specifically blaming you for hurting Obama’s reputation and the country at large… Not that people in charge should be held accountable or have some sort of standard for what they campaign for. I’m happy for the people who benefited from ACA, but plenty people still don’t and I imagine a lot of people don’t realize you are fined if you’re uninsured because of the act. Reminds me of being penalized for being homeless.

                  In other words, unless the insurance premiums exceed 8 percent of your income, you’re a religious objector, a taxpayer with income below the tax-filing threshold, or a member of an Indian tribe, you’re required to have insurance. That is, unless you’d rather pay the penalty, which is enforced through the tax code system.

                  It’s that same fucking shtick with the whole student loan debacle. Keep the current profit generating system in place and pass laws and subsidies to help prop it up and stay as lucrative as possible. Any actual awareness or targeting of the greed is completely swept under the rug, so it’s hard for me to get excited about this one step forward-two steps back bullshit. Especially when there’s already so many perfectly acceptable examples around the world to learn and develop functional systems from.

                • Nalivai@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  I mean, it was one-sided conversation from the beginning. And only you had the power to change it, all this time.