The only reply to criticisms of the ACA is that the criticizer must be rich? What a sorry excuse for political dialogue. So now I tell you that I�m not rich and actually grew up in a working class household? Now my critique has more validity? Oof.
The problem is Obama never pushed for any established universal system. He could�ve even proposed a system similar to Germany�s or Japan�s, which isn�t socialized or single payer. But for-profit private insurance - the problem - was never questioned.
Then you�ll say �It wouldn�t fly.� But you have to propose bold, transformative plans to get them. Not Romney�s plan.
No, the criticism is not of any criticism to the ACA.
The criticism is of YOU as a critic of the ACA.
The criticism is substantive; you arguing like a rich kid without any actual skin in the game is just an attributive cause to the substantive criticism. When you blithely dismiss cutting the uninsured population in the US in half as nothing, that's what you sound like, regardless of if you like it or not.
That "you have to propose bold, transformative plans to get them" is just more bumper sticker sloganeering.
It's like me saying I'm going to keep on contacting Jennifer Lawrence until she marries me because you can't make the shots you don't take. It's just an empty and hollow statement used to ignore the real world reality of the situation.
Back out here in the real world, in 2008 Obama had to back off the public option and expend all of his political capital even to get the ACA through his own party, and that's even before the GOP spent his entire Presidency and the first two years of Trump's presidency repeatedly trying to destroy even what he could get through.
But he's just a dogsh!t sellout because he couldn't get Medicare for All?
I don't know if you're actually just some rich kid brat who has never honestly worried about if you have access to health coverage or not, but it's certainly what you sound like.