Republicans were very open to healthcare reform prior to Democrats ramming ACA down their throats. Democrats can probably get many aspects of ACA "fixed" if they're willing to compromise on other issues near and dear to Republicans. But if Democrats offer nothing, they'll likely get nothing...except all the blame of course. Funny how that works.So you claim GOP wanted to compromise and when reminded that they would not compromise you call him a moron? Okay Doc.
Republicans were very open to healthcare reform prior to Democrats ramming ACA down their throats. Democrats can probably get many aspects fixed if they're willing to compromise on other issues near and dear to Republicans. But if Democrats offer nothing, they'll likely get nothing...except all the blame of course. Funny how that works.
The bolded is a lie and you know it.Republicans were very open to healthcare reform prior to Democrats ramming ACA down their throats. Democrats can probably get many aspects fixed if they're willing to compromise on other issues near and dear to Republicans. But if Democrats offer nothing, they'll likely get nothing...except all the blame of course. Funny how that works.
And mainstream support for portability which was a major step in the right direction. Many Republicans have been very open to reform...if anyone is trying to rewrite history on this point....it's you.You have to be joking. Is this like the 'Democrats overwhelmingly supported the Iraq War' thing where you rewrote history in your head?
Republicans were not open to meaningful health care reform prior to the ACA. Their solutions boiled down to selling insurance across state lines (not very helpful) and tort reform (laughable).
It's doing a damn good job too. Wall Street loves Obamacare...profits are skyrocketing at the expense of the middle class. This is the kind of wealth inequity mechanism that progressives can believe in.Obamacare was created to defund the middle class.
And mainstream support for portability which was a major step in the right direction. Many Republicans have been very open to reform...if anyone is trying to rewrite history on this point....it's you.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-mccain-health-care-plan-more-power-to-families
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...es-universal-health-coverage-via-tax-credits/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act
Now the Democrats are crying about how bad the penalties and subsidy overpayments are for their constituents. I say make them suffer or repeal the ACA or Obama Care.
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-democrats-seek-relief-health-080314080.html
Read some of the comments on this article and you will see what the country really thinks about Obama Care.
You democrats made up all these stupid laws up about ACA and now you are crying about it. Suffer the consequences or revoke the law.
Coverage considered unaffordable The minimum amount you would have paid for premiums is more than 8% of your household income.
That sounds a bit unsavory. Labeling it as redistribution of wealth sounds far better to many.Obamacare was created to defund the middle class.
I've showed that they were willing to work on reforms...which supports my original point. No, these proposals didn't go as far as ACA so they of course would not be considered credible alternatives in your opinion. The reality here is that ACA was a huge sell out to the healthcare industry and Big Pharma...but hey, that's a "credible alternative" we can believe in!Uhmmm, did you even read your own links?
McCain's health care plan: selling across state lines! (does nothing to help the pre-existing condition problem)
Ryan plan:
1. Two years after the ACA so I'm not sure how mentioning it shows how they were open to healthcare reform pre-ACA.
2. Wasn't even a bill, it was a speech that he gave where there is no indication of what support it would get or what the bill would even actually look like.
Healthy Americans Act: The republican 'co-sponsors' wouldn't even commit to voting for the bill they ostensibly sponsored.
Wow, talk about some really credible alternatives and oppenness to reform. Seriously, get out of the media bubble.
I've showed that they were willing to work on reforms...which supports my original point. No, these proposals didn't go as far as ACA so they of course would not be considered credible alternatives in your opinion. The reality here is that ACA was a huge sell out to the healthcare industry and Big Pharma...but hey, that's a "credible alternative" we can believe in!
Can you provide us those 'reasonable alternatives'?
So far the bill is actually working quite well. It has met or exceeded nearly every projection, something that is quite rare for a bill of this complexity.
You might want to look at some objective analysis of the ACA and get outside of that media bubble. You would be very surprised by what you learn, I imagine.
You may not personally believe that their suggested reforms went far enough, but my point stands...many Republicans were willing to explore various healthcare reform proposals prior to ACA. This is fact...deal with it.So you showed that they were willing to make campaign promises and speeches about health care reform while never actually doing anything, and the one bill that you mentioned didn't even have Republicans saying they would actually vote for it.
BTW, that bill also contained an individual mandate that Republicans hate so much that they based their opposition to the ACA primarily on that. Let me just call bullshit on their 'support' for that right now.
So if by 'open' you meant 'willing to make empty statements about' then sure. Real openness to compromise on health care reform? I can't roll my eyes large enough that anyone would actually buy that nonsense.
You may not personally believe that their suggested reforms went far enough, but my point stands...many Republicans were willing to explore various healthcare reform proposals prior to ACA. This is fact...deal with it.
You didn't say they were willing to explore, you said they were "willing to compromise" and "offered many reasonable alternatives." Saying something in a campaign speech isn't "offering" a reasonable alternative. Drafting a bill that won't receive a yes vote from its own co-sponsors isn't "offering" a reasonable alternative.You may not personally believe that their suggested reforms went far enough, but my point stands...many Republicans were willing to explore various healthcare reform proposals prior to ACA. This is fact...deal with it.
it has met every projection?
LOL. What are you smoking?
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_bl...mbers-miss-by-at-least-50-vs-projections.html
Oh wait, if you change the projections then you meet them.
You didn't say they were willing to explore, you said they were "willing to compromise" and "offered many reasonable alternatives." Saying something in a campaign speech isn't "offering" a reasonable alternative. Drafting a bill that won't receive a yes vote from its own co-sponsors isn't "offering" a reasonable alternative.
They were largely not open to the depth of reform that you personally wanted to see. I'll agree with this, but to say they weren't open to reform efforts is a lie. Are we now going to argue semantics? If so, I'm not interested in playing word games.Even though I don't think their suggested reforms went nearly far enough that doesn't even matter.
All you can find is a campaign proposal and a speech, along with a bill that had a few co-sponsors who never said they would vote for the bill and which contains a provision that the Republican Party categorically rejects.
They are facts, and they show that the Republican party was in no way open to health reform. I mean that's the best you could come up with, some speeches. If anything, you've helped show what a lie this supposed 'openness' to reform really was.
Calling you on your bullshit when you try to redefine "healthcare reform" to mean "potato" isn't playing word games.They were largely not open to the depth of reform that you personally wanted to see. I'll agree with this, but to say they weren't open to reform efforts is a lie. Are we now going to argue semantics? If so, I'm not interested in playing word games.
Perhaps my previous rhetoric was a little exaggerated. Let's just say that there was substantial support among Democrats for the Iraq War and leave it at that. Fair enough?Just like the whole "Democrats were all for Iraq too" thing, this is needed to explain away their own failures.
They were largely not open to the depth of reform that you personally wanted to see. I'll agree with this, but to say they weren't open to reform efforts is a lie. Are we now going to argue semantics? If so, I'm not interested in playing word games.
Perhaps my previous rhetoric was a little exaggerated. Let's just say that there was substantial support among Democrats for the Iraq War and leave it at that. Fair enough?
So any reform that doesn't include preexisting conditions is "potato" in your little world. Got it.Calling you on your bullshit when you try to redefine "healthcare reform" to mean "potato" isn't playing word games.
A solid majority of Democrats (58%) in the Senate supported the Iraq War...I consider that to be substantial. Democratic support in the House for the Iraq War was lower but still quite significant (82 Yea, 126 Nay). Attempts to frame Democrats as widely opposed to the Iraq War (at least initially) are very misleading, if not dishonest.I have to say that 43% support among elected officials isn't particularly substantial to me, but it is certainly a more defensible claim than before, so fair enough.