https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...

An estimated 20 million individuals have gained coverage under the ACA. Since open enrollment began in 2013, more than 15 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. In addition, 12.7 million were enrolled in Marketplace plans after the third open enrollment period (not everyone enrolled in Marketplace plans or Medicaid was previously uninsured).

Insurance coverage among Americans has significantly increased since ACA implementation, especially those in Medicaid expansion states and among subpopulations targeted by the law, namely the poor, childless adults, ethnic minorities, and young adults.

https://www.kff.org/affordable...

I mean the data is the data, more people have health insurance now than they did before 2010, the ACA market has like 12m signups per year, even if say half of those would have other insurance options sure but that's still more and if you want to say "Medicaid expansion doesn't count" then sure you can say that but fact is before the ACA less people had access to health insurance.

Can't just say metrics don't exist, this is fairly trivial to measure. Show me your chart.

But you definitely aren't obsessed with race.

You know as a liberal I'm not necessarily opposed to Senate by State Legislature, I think it would help make people more aware of theit state elections more. I think a new amendment could be fitted with rules that avoids the issues that brought about the 17th to begin with (corruption, deadlocks, different rules) so maybe you pair it with some standardized rules for the Houses on how the selection works.

It is not the only systemic issue though for sure so surely we can agree also with expanding The House, a full gerrymandering ban nationwide, maybe enacting proportional representation, since we are talking about original, spiritual intent here that is just as if not more important.

No, it succeeded in *some* of its goals. It reduced the number of uninsured, helped many millions who did not have access to insurance gain access. The preexisting conditions change is so successful and popular that Republicans and Trump try and take credit for it. Also while it's biggest failure was controlling costs it also very much kept the rate of rise in costs down from where it was pre-2010 and where it was expected to go from there.

It certainly didn't help that Republican's refused to partake in any of it, have sued and their media has lambasted it at every turn and then picked it apart piece by piece.

Now the rub for the folks who dislike the ACA is that it is in fact the conservative health insurance system and the only viable replacements are the systems elsewhere in the world which are more subsidized and regulated. It's why we haven't seen the "replace" and only "repeals".

It's either go more socialized or bring back the early 2000s' era which is not a great campaign issue. Good luck.

Are you kidding me? "Bidenflation"? It was all over the news for years, it's probably the #1 issue that won Trump the election. This is revisionist history, sorry.

December 19, 2008: President Bush approved a bailout plan and gave General Motors and Chrysler $13.4 billion in financing from TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) funds, as well as $4 billion to be "withdrawn later".

It's intentional that bad faith actors try and pin Obama with TARP. It's the same when Trump gets a pass for the economy in 2020 but Biden must take all the blame for 2021.

Ok, what is is the 3rd option for coal?

Sure, whatever makes you feel better about it. For nuclear power in particular amongst energy generation I think it's the only option that's been proven to work.

France, China, India, Brazil, Canada, you look at the under construction list of reactors worldwide and I believe all of them have a an SOE behind them. The economics of nuclear are unique enough amongst energy generation it just totally gears it towards that model.

It's called "my anti-climate-change political position is falling apart more every year so I have to grasp onto the arguments of the past for dear life".

It's just the same chud arguments we've heard for years.

Also just to tack on because I can't believe I missed it, this backs up my main point: OPG is a wholly government owned enterprise.

Yeah I'm not saying never but if I had to devise a plan and spend money to build reactors right now I'm going to go with LWR or PWR, shrimple as. Doesn't mean you can't also support and fund SMR projects but those are future things.

Does burning it help or hurt the air? That's the choice, there is no 3rd option.

If "clean coal" wasn't just a scam for decades maybe there would be, but it was a scam. It's better left in the ground.

No SMR designs have reached anywhere close to production ready but AP1000 reactors exist and more and more of them are going up around the world.

Going with a proven design isn't the issue, to me it's more just putting loans out there and relying on private energy companies to build it (unless the loans are going to the data center companies, and then, well, that's a mess) instead of just, say, building the plants directly, like what was done for Watt's Bar (TVA) and almost every other nuclear plant in the world.

If this doesn't shake out then the conservative method of nuclear power can be considered once a failure again since 1990. Maybe it's time to try a different way if people actually care about this. Embrace a State-Owned-Enterprise for nuclear.

But are you sure all those so-called scientists haven't just made thousands of mistakes?

Have you considered the idea that those so-called measurements might severely hurt my feelings?

Have you considered that Al Gore is cringe?

Have you considered wealthy people still fly private and therefore all those scientists are wrong and fake?

Have you considered my politics requires climate change to be fake?

Have you considered I take a road trip once a year and haul things 4 times a year so I need 12MPG engines?

Think about me before you go "researching" and "reading"

This also doesn't so much apply to the obvious thing, private prisons (although those are an issue they really are a small percentage of prisons in America) but moreso what nobody likes to say it's the funding ("profit") of law enforcement. Your local PD, sheriffs office and state police all are incentivized to arrest and incarcerate as much as possible and maintain their sky high funding levels.

My town just increased property taxes this year and over half of those funds ($230 million) is going to law enforcement, when crime rates overall are down.

You are a bore with nothing to actually say so either make a real point of fuck all the way off. You're just a reactionary stooge. Now go an react to my actual points some more since you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

Yeah because you leave us with little other explanation in the empiric s. Is it the economy? No. Is it crime? No. Is it jobs? No. Drill any of you down and it'll be "culture" which really, just means race. You also elected a admin who does it pretty explicitly about race, otherwise explain the exceptions for white South Africans?

Oh you mean illegally withholding funds that Congress had legislatively spent and against his authority? Also the embarrassment of having the President threatening a foreign leader not for America's interest but for his own? Ever heard the calls Giuliani also had with Ukraine? It's actually disgusting. Oh and it was in service of a Russian lie!

Maybe, there's a lot of illegal shit to dig through though. Emoluments? Impoundment? It's the Trump firehose of bullshit, there's so much it's hard to focus. Republican's were not even willing to impeach him after he plotted to overthrow the election so let's not get into a comparison of standards here, you're gonna lose.