So this is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, though, because Obamacare was based on the Heritage proposal from the 90's and Romneycare in MA in the 00's. I'm not sure insuring 28,000,000 people is a disaster while keeping premium increases -on average- below what they were prior to the ACA. The problem Conservatives have is how do you create a universal access system that is affordable for all patients. Apart from single payer, there is no way to do that. Conservatives are going to find out rather quickly that because of how Obamacare is structured, repealing it will create more problems than what currently exist. Fixing Obamacare's issues are really simple; expand Medicaid everywhere and introduce a Public Option. What Obamacare has done is show that the for-profit insurance industry is extraneous and a parasite on our health care system, nor can it be sustained as a business model that guarantees patient coverage and results in a profit. The two cannot exist in the same space in a for-profit market.
It's not that terrible a law. Your big hissyfit seems to be surrounding the requirement that everyone buys insurance. Well, if you don't want to buy insurance, then you should be arguing for Medicare-for-all. That way, all you have is a payroll tax and that's it. No more premiums, no more co-pays, no more deductibles, no more co-insurance, no more prescription drug costs. Employers don't have to cede a large chunk of their budgets for benefits (the average worker costs $17K to insure, with the employee paying about $5K and the employer paying about $12K).
It is delivering on its promises. 28 million people now have insurance. Medicare's solvency was extended thanks to switching to an outcome-based model. The uninsured rate is the lowest ever. Premiums, on average, have risen at rates below that of the 8 years prior to Obamacare. With subsidies, the average family is saving money. Like Julie Boonstra...you remember her, right? She was that GOP sow who cried fake tears about how she was a victim of Obamacare when the reality is that she benefited from the law and saved ~$2,500 a year thanks to the subsidies...the amount Obama said she would. Does the law still need work? Yes, it's far from perfect. But there is no doubt it is a marked improvement upon what was in place before.
Well, Hillary did win the popular vote by a significant margin. While Trump won the electoral college. Based on the aggregate vote totals, voters clearly preferred Democrats to Republicans. It's just a technicality that Trump won. Add to this that Russia was working with the Trump campaign, and you don't really get the picture you're describing. And substantial losses? What about 2012? Didn't Democrats pick up Senate and House seats? And they picked up Senate and House seats in 2016 too. So you are holding up two mid-term elections -that had the lowest voter turnout in years- as indicative of a larger public mood when we just finished an election where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Democrats picked up House and Senate seats, and a couple state legislatures. Modest gains, but gains nonetheless. Conservatives have really gerrymandered themselves into a corner. With an expected court ruling tossing out all those gerrymandered maps, 2018 will be an interesting year.
