Obama won in a landslide. The democrats owned both houses.

People at the time really thought Obama would be on the the side of the people- not the rich. I mean, come on, he was our first black president; you would have thought he would at least be on the side of the blacks.

If he had been, then Bernie wouldn’t have been such a sensation. If he had been, and Hillary was like, “Obama and the DNC has anointed me his successor, and I will continue to do all the great things he has done,” Bernie wouldn’t have existed. Bernie was the message that Obama had actually failed. Flint was real.

Anyway. If Trump has one Lieberman senator stopping him from getting some signature item, you can bet that their meeting isn’t going to end with that signature item being scuttled, it’s going to be that Lieberman would be afraid he’ll lose everything.

Trump is extreme, but Obama could have made the final push. Same with our black torture rendition site.

For me, seeing Obama is cringe. I wonder if that viewpoint is radical. I mean, Obama is a saint when compared to Trump, but…

Perhaps I am unjustified.

Yeah.

I also think he could have closed Guantanamo.

And I even think he could have bailed out the people that lost their houses and not the people that owned (banks, through predatory loans) the houses.

I still think he should have nationalized the banks that failed and renamed them to “Bank A” and “Bank B.” But no, no consequences for the rich under Obama just like everyone else.

Crazy huh.

As far as the first part of your response: Hmm, that’s interesting.

As far as the, “Bruh, do you not remember…”

Yes, I remember how Obamacare was passed.

Do you you remember how it seemed like a public option should pass- it had a ton of support- people were rallying behind it.

And then DroopyDog Senator Lieberman had that touted “meeting with Obama” and the public option was scuttled.

From the moment that happened, I thought, “Lieberman’s the fall guy. The democrats don’t want the public option, and Obama isn’t any different from everyone else before him.” (think Flint, think Guantanamo, think Bank bailouts, think Bank Bailouts again). If Obama had wanted it, he could have done it. I mean, look at Trump. He didn’t.

At the time I was furious with Lieberman and Obama- now, just Obama.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-15-la-naw-health-senate16-2009dec16-story.html

But Democrats have majorities in California and NYC and other blue states. The republicans aren’t necessary for this to happen. I think?

Are they closer to a public option than NY? NY really isn’t a public option.

It’s “basically that.” But it’s not “actually that.”

A public option would provide necessary health care at zero cost. Without regard to your income. Without regard to your job.

This creates a situation, where if you earn a little bit more, you get “taxed” a lot. And quite frankly, sometimes it’s better to earn less and get healthcare than to earn more and lose it.

Also, I’m under the impression, and could be wrong about this, but I believe NYC gets the funding for the NYC state of health from the federal government. So it can be held as ransom, by bullies like Adams or Trump.

I’m suggesting that NYC should do an actual public option not using federal money. Instead binding together with other states to increase leverage and lower costs.