Do we think that makes up for all that is awful about the POS?

Nope.

Do we grudgingly accept it as the ONLY good thing about the POS?

Yep.

Does that make the POS anything more than a POS that helps far fewer people than it should?

Nope.

For many of us, the goal was not "passable legislation," it was putting together a package of legislation that would expand access to and affordability of health CARE.  While we now have the right to insurance, we still have to get past what is often a high financial hurdle before we ever obtain actual care - care that still comes with a cost in the form of deductibles and co-pays.  Congress handed the insurance industry a four-year head start on raising premiums and reducing coverage.  We effectively said to the industry, "we know you are, in large part, the reason health care is in such crisis in this country, but never fear - we're going to reward you for that."  

Many of us were more focused on what would be best for our physical, mental and financial health than we were on the political fortunes of the president, and chafed at passing "something" in order for Obama to get a big political win.

Back-room industry deals and meetings with the upper echelon of the industry hierarchy signaled that regardless of what Obama was out in public saying, he was doing his best to keep the industry happy - and that approach was never, ever going to result in the kind of reform that was actually needed.

When Obama took single-payer off the table, and wouldn't even allow it to be discussed or debated, even Krugman should have known what kind of "reform" we were likely to get.  Just as the extension of unemployment insurance could have been done on a stand-alone basis, much of the little that is good about the ACA could also have been done on a stand-alone basis.  The giveaway to the wealthy on the tax cut deal is the same thing that was done in the giveaway to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry: in both cases there was never an attempt to even try to do what was right for us - they went straight to "compromises" that weighted the benefits heavily in favor of those who were already reaping them.

1. By liberal friends I was meaning those here who think that the legislation provided no significant benefits.  There are many here who believe that.

2.  I use Obamacare because I don't see it as an insult.  It's good law. Obama signed it.  I want him to take full credit for it.  We need to change the fundamental thinking on HCR and that starts with not being afraid to own it.

Link

"As many people obtain their insurance from an employer, there is naturally a moderate correlation between state unemployment rates and insurance rates. One of the main outliers in this respect is Massachusetts, which in 2006 passed a law both requiring most residents to obtain insurance and providing a state-regulated health insurance plan to certain low-income residents. Massachusetts has by far the lowest rate of uninsured citizens--5 percent--but a moderate unemployment rate of 8.2 percent. Other states with unemployment rates between 8 and 9 percent have far higher uninsured rates than Massachusetts, ranging from 12 percent to 26 percent."