>So maybe it's not the best solutions (see above), but it's what could get passed. New regulations were needed.
>
>OK. I think I get it now. If I am wrong, am certain that you will correct me.
>
>There were problems with the financial sector so we needed more regulation, We were unable to pass effective regulation that really addressed the problem, so we passed Dodd-Frank instead because we really needed to do something and at least Dodd-Frank was something. Makes a lot of sense to me - NOT.
>

No. Strong regulations were needed. Entrenched forces resisted, so regulations not as good got passed. It's the nature of lawmaking. Different parties have different interests and compromise is required.


>Kinda like passing the ACA because we needed to do something about high medical costs and uninsured Americans. That did not exactly work out too well either.
>

Ask the millions of people who have health insurance now who didn't. What we got is nowhere near as good as having a single-payer plan, but a lot of people have coverage who didn't and are able to get regular health care who weren't. If you read in depth about the process, you'll see that what kept the ACA from being better was entrenched business interests.

On a related note, I saw a graph the other day that tracked the number of visits to doctors for children before and after Medicaid. Before, there was a direct relationship to family income. After, kids had reasonably equal #s of visits without regard to income.

Tamar