Home | About | Donate

Overwhelmed by Voters Angry About ACA Repeal, GOP Rep Sneaks Out Backdoor


Overwhelmed by Voters Angry About ACA Repeal, GOP Rep Sneaks Out Backdoor

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

One day after voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a Republican Congressman in Colorado was caught sneaking out the backdoor of a community meeting on Saturday after being overwhelmed by constituents concerned over the future of their healthcare.

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman had invited Colorado voters to the Aurora Central Library in suburban Denver to meet "one-on-one" with the lawmaker and "discuss the issues that are important to them."


Single payer is the only way to go and Democrats and Republicans are both unable to say it while the large majority of the people endorse it. Their corporate masters won't allow it.
We've been sold down the river by the duopoly again and again, while the major players of each despicable party argue over who hates Russia more!
Maybe we are all suppose to be impressed that we have the most most frightening military force the world has ever seen while the rest of the country is in shambles.


Here we go with the duopoly garbage again. Guess what? There's a pretty big Democratic constituency that wanted a public option, including the president, in the ACA. He also wanted better negotiating with drug makers. You can listen to him speak at length about it in an interview at Vox. But there's one party that had the ability to block these things, if not slow them down. That party also cut Bernie's community health plan funding once they attained congressional majorities. And, there are congressmen and Senators from districts that feature lots of people employed in the healthcare industry. Snap your fingers and things are easy though, right?


I'm thinking maybe it's time for those pitchforks. We the People are sick and tired of being ignored and betrayed.


I don't get the logical assumption that underlies your argument. All the things you said were true in isolation. How does that invalidate critiquing what the Republicans are doing in isolation? Chomsky has critiqued the Democrats for those very reasons and is now horrified at what the Republicans are doing. It makes sense to point out that the right wing is going to harm lots of people and won't put in place anything that makes the situation even moderately better for anyone but their top donors. I want single payer, the ACA was written by the very industries we have to challenge. That is an issue. However, it also expanded Medicaid and did put in place some policies that helped low income people in general. I think it's perfectly legitimate to critique that alone at times. Not every article should be a broad view of this situation. This is a perfect opportunity to make the case for single payer, but I gotta say, the single payer parts of our system are also under attack now. So is Social Security. If they cut or partially privatize Social Security, we could strongly critique that too. It'd be okay if we critiqued that in isolation. It would also make sense to point out that Bill Clinton wanted to do privatize Social Security when he was president and that Obama was supportive of cutting it during his time in office. If an article just focused on privatizing Social Security, it might not mention what the Democrats have been willing to do in recent decades. It could just focus on what the right wants to do, detail the negative impact and focus on disasters like Chile's privatized pension system. There's lots of different ways to fight this, analyze this and lots of different ways to get people to think of this in a broader context. Saying the Democratic Party is corrupt is an easy sell here, and I agree.


Maybe you need some more of the story. Paul Street lays it out for those they may have buried their heads in the sand for too long.


My comment was a bit of an unthoughtful reaction--my bad. I just get tired of pretending that, even in our two-major political party country, we act as if politics isn't about coalitions. The "duopoly" actually consists of multiple groups and interests from various areas of the country. In this respect, the I'll-never-vote-for-the-duopoly-I'm-better-than-you nonsense I see parading around the internet is just lazy thinking at its worst.

At the most basic political government organization level, coalitions can fluctuate too. If the Greens picked up 50 seats in Congress, to have any power, they'd have to caucus with a major party to elect a speaker. If most of these Greens were from the West Coast, especially port areas, they are likely to look at trade a bit differently than Greens in the upper mid-West. Would a Green peel off and vote for Speaker Ryan if Ryan proposed looser trade policies that benefitted port cities on the West Coast? Throwing tariffs on goods from China is likely to effect their districts negatively, after all. If they want to continue to have a role in government, they're in big trouble if they sign onto President Trump's huge tariffs. In this case, we may have "Tri-opoly" in Congress, but with a tense coalition built on trade policy. The outcome would not necessarily be any different than what we have at present in terms of trade policy. It could be worse if the Greens only give conservatives more power (like the Lib Dems in Britain for example).

This happens all the time.


Maybe this will help you see the bigger picture. This is nothing new.


LMFAO!!!... Sorry, fell off my chair... LMFAO :slight_smile:


Hmm. Isn't this the same state that overwhelmingly rejected single-payer health care?


Let's be clear the TPP was not about trade, it was about corporations making a power grab on democracy. The ISDS provisions would give unparalleled power to not elected arbitration panels. Only a few sections of the TPP even discussed trade.

And thank you to Wikileaks and Julian Assange.


This Counterpunch article gives a good history of Obama's positions on single payer and how he threw it under the bus.


I wasn't talking about TPP. My point was the duopoly nonsense, how silly it is. Undermine public interest rules is exactly why Republicans in the House amended the administrative procedures act.


They need to get rid of the mandatory enrollment. This is the only thing I hate about the ACA. This is another way to tax the middle class to pay for someone else.. Being forced is not right. I do not understand why this is constitutional.


The Congressman is obviously a coward.


They may be republicans, but people are waking up…"now, wait just a dag-gon minute, you can't take my health care away, Obamacare looks great iin comparison to nothing!"


Without mandatory enrollment the ACA is not economically sustainable. Only single payer is economically sustainable. If you don't have single payer you have either an economically unsustainable program or mandatory enrollment.


THE ZOMBIES ARE FINALLY WAKING UP! Too bad it's too late as they are already dead.


How do you do preexisting conditions and garanteed coverage without the mandate? We would be mandated in a socialized system via taxes, right? That's how the problem is resolved in other countries. Well, like it or not, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts called the mandate a tax.


A public option is not single-payer. https://www.healthcare-now.org/single-payer-education/