The Affordable Care Act is certainly not perfect legislation. Many of us would love to have seen a public option at the least, or something stronger. A large subset of us (myself included) would prefer a single-payer system somewhere between the Canadian model and the UK's NHS. This being said, the ACA has saved many, many lives. Current estimates put the number at or above 50,000. This was fact-checked by Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post. And although he's not usually all that friendly to Democrats, he could not deny that the claim is true.
This should be cause for celebration. Electing Barack Obama and enough Democrats in Congress to pass the ACA has saved tens of thousands of lives. It is also proof positive that the Republican hysteria surrounding the law - "death panels", people losing their insurance plans, et cetera - was baseless. We should be able to use this data to undercut much of the fearmongering coming from right-wing politicians and entertainers.
So I was surprised to read the following in a highly-recommended diary here today:
Here is the only substantial difference I see between the Obama and Bush administrations: Instead of huge costly all out invasions of other countries, Obama favors backing local insurgents to attempt to achieve the same neocon goals.
If a Bush clone (i.e. John McCain) had been elected in 2008, there would be no Affordable Care Act. Republicans might prefer the ACA to a single-payer system, but they vastly prefer nothing to the ACA. Indeed, McCain's health care plan (detailed nicely
here) was basically a death spiral waiting to happen. It contained the tired hobbyhorse of buying insurance across state lines (aka letting insurers sell junk plans in any state, not just theirs), and its tax credits would have led to about 10 million fewer people being insured.
So, in short: because Barack Obama and not John McCain was elected in 2008, 50,000 fewer people, and counting, are dead. Yet somehow this is not a "substantial difference" between the parties?
Criticism of Democrats is one thing. It's healthy. We need to do it. We should recognize that the Democratic party, and many Democratic politicians, are not as strong or as progressive as we want them to be. I completely agree with that statement and support pressure on these politicians. At the same time, we have to recognize that the two parties are not remotely the same. Although many of us lean more towards one of these ideas that the other, it is entirely possible - in fact it is vital - to keep both in mind at the same time.
As Paul Krugman says, there is a "huge, substantive gulf" between the Democratic and Republican parties. That gulf is big enough to fit many things, among them these 50,000 lives (and counting). So please don't tell me it's not substantial, or that the two parties are the same. And whatever you do... don't tell one of the 50,000 people in it.