And the Affordable Health Care Exchanges are UP

[T-Rexx]

Why didn't the dem's pass a social health care system when they controlled it all?

Because Barack Obama wanted to accommodate the Republican viewpoint on healthcare. He believed he could get support from Republicans if he backed their own plan.

It is one of his gravest errors.

 

[Jack Springer]

Bullshit. Obama met privately with large insurance companies where the basic plan was laid out then given to dem's in Congress to build around the Obama's basics. Republicans were not involved.

 

[Sausy]

Obama's idea of Republicans working with him is to get them on board with what he supports, not give and take. He knew he could NEVER get single payer, at least not at first so this mess was concocted. Some of the specifics of health reform even conservatives can support, but as a whole though "defunding" is a horrible waste screaming loud to the high heavens that we should replace the whole act with something far less unwieldy and heavy handed is not. "Obamacare" wasn't well thought out at all, as if we're going to drastically reform medical care delivery in this country, should have started with respecting the federal system and using the states as laboratories for certain kinds of reform policies. Not develop a one size fits all system full of confusion and laced with exceptions. And gives every incentive for companies to restrict or eliminate their own policies so they can shift workers to these fucked up "exchanges".

 

[T-Rexx]

Bullshit.Republicans were not involved.

Except, of course, for the fact that Republicans designed Obamacare. You guys even implemented it in Massachusetts.

You only abandoned it and refused to participate further in its passage when the president agreed with you.

 

[T-Rexx]

Obama's idea of Republicans working with him is to get them on board with what he supports, not give and take. He knew he could NEVER get single payer, at least not at first so this mess was concocted.

Those two statements are contradictory. First, you state that Obama would not work with Republicans. Then, you state that he could not get the Democratic (single-payer) plan passed, so he was forced to go with the Republican plan.

You ignore the fact that Obama got rid of the one redeeming feature of Obamcare - the public option - in an attempt to appease Republicans prior to its passage in 2010. You ignore the fact that Obamacare has been successfully amended nineteen times since its passage, every one an attempt to appease Republicans.

Obamacare was designed by Republicans. It was heavily modified prior to its passage as a result of Republican input. And it has been amended nineteen times to address GOP "concerns." And yet, you contend that "Obama's idea of Republicans working with him is to get them on board with what he supports, not give and take."

I can't imagine how Obama could have done more to accommodate Republicans. The problem is not that Obama refuses to "give and take." It's that all Obama does with the ACA is give.

"Obamacare" wasn't well thought out at all, as if we're going to drastically reform medical care delivery in this country, should have started with respecting the federal system and using the states as laboratories for certain kinds of reform policies.

You mean, like, trying it out in Massachusetts first, before implementing it on a wider scale?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Obama's idea of Republicans working with him is to get them on board with what he supports, not give and take. He knew he could NEVER get single payer, at least not at first so this mess was concocted. Some of the specifics of health reform even conservatives can support, but as a whole though "defunding" is a horrible waste screaming loud to the high heavens that we should replace the whole act with something far less unwieldy and heavy handed is not. "Obamacare" wasn't well thought out at all, as if we're going to drastically reform medical care delivery in this country, should have started with respecting the federal system and using the states as laboratories for certain kinds of reform policies. Not develop a one size fits all system full of confusion and laced with exceptions. And gives every incentive for companies to restrict or eliminate their own policies so they can shift workers to these fucked up "exchanges".

Maybe your party should have come to the table in actual good faith and an attempt to govern and give constructive input, instead of merely trying to obstruct the entire process, filibuster it, and then waste taxpayer money calling 42 futile repeal votes. I can't take this kind of commentary seriously when you're defending a party that made absolutely no good faith effort whatsoever to come to the table and govern like adults.

 

[Jack Springer]

Will Obama fire Sibelius?