Challenge to Democrats re: ACA

[dblack]

Much has been made about how the individual mandate, and most of the ideas that formed ACA, were - if not Republican ideas outright - at least designed to appeal to the perceived pro-business bias of conservatives. I think there's some truth to the point of view that ACA is largely a "Republican" idea - certainly if you look at what Romney did in MA. And it's certainly plausible that, with the right set of circumstances, Republicans might have produced something very much like ACA.

My challenge to Democrats who are currently supporters of ACA is to consider and answer the following questions: If the tables were turned, if McCain had won in 2008, if Republicans had controlled congress, and something fundamentally the same as ACA had been passed without any Democrats voting for it, how would it change your views on the law? Would you still support the individual mandate? Would you have fought against it when the legislation was being considered? Would you advocate the repeal of, at least, the individual mandate? Or would you still see the law as important reform, albeit imperfect, and support it the same way you do now?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I think you knew the answer before you typed the first character.
Having said that...I am pretty confident that conservatives would not be supporting it like Democrats are.
Just goes to show you....

 

[dblack]

I think you knew the answer before you typed the first character.
Having said that...I am pretty confident that conservatives would not be supporting it like Democrats are.
Just goes to show you....

I wouldn't say that. Not all of them are partisans. I suspect there are many who would stick to their views regardless. Likewise, there are many liberals who don't currently support ACA.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Much has been made about how the individual mandate, and most of the ideas that formed ACA, were - if not Republican ideas outright - at least designed to appeal to the perceived pro-business bias of conservatives. I think there's some truth to the point of view that ACA is largely a "Republican" idea - certainly if you look at what Romney did in MA. And it's certainly plausible that, with the right set of circumstances, Republicans might have produced something very much like ACA.

My challenge to Democrats who are currently supporters of ACA is to consider and answer the following questions: If the tables were turned, if McCain had won in 2008, if Republicans had controlled congress, and something fundamentally the same as ACA had been passed without any Democrats voting for it, how would it change your views on the law? Would you still support the individual mandate? Would you have fought against it when the legislation was being considered? Would you advocate the repeal of, at least, the individual mandate? Or would you still see the law as important reform, albeit imperfect, and support it the same way you do now?

I would have supported reform of our system of care no matter who proposed or passed such a bill - emphasis on reform.

 

[Howey]

Much has been made about how the individual mandate, and most of the ideas that formed ACA, were - if not Republican ideas outright - at least designed to appeal to the perceived pro-business bias of conservatives. I think there's some truth to the point of view that ACA is largely a "Republican" idea - certainly if you look at what Romney did in MA. And it's certainly plausible that, with the right set of circumstances, Republicans might have produced something very much like ACA.

My challenge to Democrats who are currently supporters of ACA is to consider and answer the following questions: If the tables were turned, if McCain had won in 2008, if Republicans had controlled congress, and something fundamentally the same as ACA had been passed without any Democrats voting for it, how would it change your views on the law? Would you still support the individual mandate? Would you have fought against it when the legislation was being considered? Would you advocate the repeal of, at least, the individual mandate? Or would you still see the law as important reform, albeit imperfect, and support it the same way you do now?

My view on the law is it has always been not enough but a step in the right direction.

 

[dblack]

Much has been made about how the individual mandate, and most of the ideas that formed ACA, were - if not Republican ideas outright - at least designed to appeal to the perceived pro-business bias of conservatives. I think there's some truth to the point of view that ACA is largely a "Republican" idea - certainly if you look at what Romney did in MA. And it's certainly plausible that, with the right set of circumstances, Republicans might have produced something very much like ACA.

My challenge to Democrats who are currently supporters of ACA is to consider and answer the following questions: If the tables were turned, if McCain had won in 2008, if Republicans had controlled congress, and something fundamentally the same as ACA had been passed without any Democrats voting for it, how would it change your views on the law? Would you still support the individual mandate? Would you have fought against it when the legislation was being considered? Would you advocate the repeal of, at least, the individual mandate? Or would you still see the law as important reform, albeit imperfect, and support it the same way you do now?

My view on the law is it has always been not enough but a step in the right direction.

Are you saying that your view would be the same under the Republican scenario? If they had passed it, would you have felt like the individual mandate, with no public option, was an acceptable compromise? Or would you have pressed your reps to fight it? Would you still be pressing them to fight it?

 

[dblack]

Much has been made about how the individual mandate, and most of the ideas that formed ACA, were - if not Republican ideas outright - at least designed to appeal to the perceived pro-business bias of conservatives. I think there's some truth to the point of view that ACA is largely a "Republican" idea - certainly if you look at what Romney did in MA. And it's certainly plausible that, with the right set of circumstances, Republicans might have produced something very much like ACA.

My challenge to Democrats who are currently supporters of ACA is to consider and answer the following questions: If the tables were turned, if McCain had won in 2008, if Republicans had controlled congress, and something fundamentally the same as ACA had been passed without any Democrats voting for it, how would it change your views on the law? Would you still support the individual mandate? Would you have fought against it when the legislation was being considered? Would you advocate the repeal of, at least, the individual mandate? Or would you still see the law as important reform, albeit imperfect, and support it the same way you do now?

I would have supported reform of our system of care no matter who proposed or passed such a bill - emphasis on reform.

I believe you, and appreciate your consistency.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Much has been made about how the individual mandate, and most of the ideas that formed ACA, were - if not Republican ideas outright - at least designed to appeal to the perceived pro-business bias of conservatives. I think there's some truth to the point of view that ACA is largely a "Republican" idea - certainly if you look at what Romney did in MA. And it's certainly plausible that, with the right set of circumstances, Republicans might have produced something very much like ACA.

My challenge to Democrats who are currently supporters of ACA is to consider and answer the following questions: If the tables were turned, if McCain had won in 2008, if Republicans had controlled congress, and something fundamentally the same as ACA had been passed without any Democrats voting for it, how would it change your views on the law? Would you still support the individual mandate? Would you have fought against it when the legislation was being considered? Would you advocate the repeal of, at least, the individual mandate? Or would you still see the law as important reform, albeit imperfect, and support it the same way you do now?

I am a liberal...but not a registered Democrat. But I will answer anyway.

I prefer single payer. But the ACA is a step in the right direction.

You actually answered your own question. Liberals supported Romneycare in MA.

Liberals are capable of looking beyond party to see the benefits of something.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Much has been made about how the individual mandate, and most of the ideas that formed ACA, were - if not Republican ideas outright - at least designed to appeal to the perceived pro-business bias of conservatives. I think there's some truth to the point of view that ACA is largely a "Republican" idea - certainly if you look at what Romney did in MA. And it's certainly plausible that, with the right set of circumstances, Republicans might have produced something very much like ACA.

My challenge to Democrats who are currently supporters of ACA is to consider and answer the following questions: If the tables were turned, if McCain had won in 2008, if Republicans had controlled congress, and something fundamentally the same as ACA had been passed without any Democrats voting for it, how would it change your views on the law? Would you still support the individual mandate? Would you have fought against it when the legislation was being considered? Would you advocate the repeal of, at least, the individual mandate? Or would you still see the law as important reform, albeit imperfect, and support it the same way you do now?

My view on the law is it has always been not enough but a step in the right direction.

Are you saying that your view would be the same under the Republican scenario? If they had passed it, would you have felt like the individual mandate, with no public option, was an acceptable compromise? Or would you have pressed your reps to fight it? Would you still be pressing them to fight it?

You said that like Republicans wanted the public option. Odd.

 

[dblack]

Much has been made about how the individual mandate, and most of the ideas that formed ACA, were - if not Republican ideas outright - at least designed to appeal to the perceived pro-business bias of conservatives. I think there's some truth to the point of view that ACA is largely a "Republican" idea - certainly if you look at what Romney did in MA. And it's certainly plausible that, with the right set of circumstances, Republicans might have produced something very much like ACA.

My challenge to Democrats who are currently supporters of ACA is to consider and answer the following questions: If the tables were turned, if McCain had won in 2008, if Republicans had controlled congress, and something fundamentally the same as ACA had been passed without any Democrats voting for it, how would it change your views on the law? Would you still support the individual mandate? Would you have fought against it when the legislation was being considered? Would you advocate the repeal of, at least, the individual mandate? Or would you still see the law as important reform, albeit imperfect, and support it the same way you do now?

I am a liberal...but not a registered Democrat. But I will answer anyway.

I prefer single payer. But the ACA is a step in the right direction.

You actually answered your own question. Liberals supported Romneycare in MA.

Liberals are capable of looking beyond party to see the benefits of something.

My experience has been that liberals, especially in the guise of 'Democrats', split along authoritarian/libertarian lines approximate like Republicans do. And I wouldn't be surprised to see the corporatist/authoritarian leaning Democrats support ACA even if the Republicans had passed it. Just like corporatist/authoritarian Republicans support ACA even though the Dems passed it.

But there are also liberals who look past party lines who realize that ACA sells out their core principles. Those are the folks I'd hope to reach out to with this thread.

 

[dblack]

My view on the law is it has always been not enough but a step in the right direction.

Are you saying that your view would be the same under the Republican scenario? If they had passed it, would you have felt like the individual mandate, with no public option, was an acceptable compromise? Or would you have pressed your reps to fight it? Would you still be pressing them to fight it?

You said that like Republicans wanted the public option. Odd.

Did I? How so? Do Democrats want it? Why didn't they vote for it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Much has been made about how the individual mandate, and most of the ideas that formed ACA, were - if not Republican ideas outright - at least designed to appeal to the perceived pro-business bias of conservatives. I think there's some truth to the point of view that ACA is largely a "Republican" idea - certainly if you look at what Romney did in MA. And it's certainly plausible that, with the right set of circumstances, Republicans might have produced something very much like ACA.

My challenge to Democrats who are currently supporters of ACA is to consider and answer the following questions: If the tables were turned, if McCain had won in 2008, if Republicans had controlled congress, and something fundamentally the same as ACA had been passed without any Democrats voting for it, how would it change your views on the law? Would you still support the individual mandate? Would you have fought against it when the legislation was being considered? Would you advocate the repeal of, at least, the individual mandate? Or would you still see the law as important reform, albeit imperfect, and support it the same way you do now?

I am a liberal...but not a registered Democrat. But I will answer anyway.

I prefer single payer. But the ACA is a step in the right direction.

You actually answered your own question. Liberals supported Romneycare in MA.

Liberals are capable of looking beyond party to see the benefits of something.

My experience has been that liberals, especially in the guise of 'Democrats', split along authoritarian/libertarian lines approximate like Republicans do. And I wouldn't be surprised to see the corporatist/authoritarian leaning Democrats support ACA even if the Republicans had passed it. Just like corporatist/authoritarian Republicans support ACA even though the Dems passed it.

But there are also liberals who look past party lines who realize that ACA sells out their core principles. Those are the folks I'd hope to reach out to with this thread.

The ACA employs private health insurance companies. Thus....it is not the ideal liberal solution.

But....it does force accountability upon these companies. No longer is one's ability to pay going to determine whether or not they can get preventive care. No longer will anyone be denied coverage due to previous illness.

These factors are consistent with my core principles.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Are you saying that your view would be the same under the Republican scenario? If they had passed it, would you have felt like the individual mandate, with no public option, was an acceptable compromise? Or would you have pressed your reps to fight it? Would you still be pressing them to fight it?

You said that like Republicans wanted the public option. Odd.

Did I? How so? Do Democrats want it? Why didn't they vote for it?

Now you are being obtuse.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Quality dodge.

 

[dblack]

I am a liberal...but not a registered Democrat. But I will answer anyway.

I prefer single payer. But the ACA is a step in the right direction.

You actually answered your own question. Liberals supported Romneycare in MA.

Liberals are capable of looking beyond party to see the benefits of something.

My experience has been that liberals, especially in the guise of 'Democrats', split along authoritarian/libertarian lines approximate like Republicans do. And I wouldn't be surprised to see the corporatist/authoritarian leaning Democrats support ACA even if the Republicans had passed it. Just like corporatist/authoritarian Republicans support ACA even though the Dems passed it.

But there are also liberals who look past party lines who realize that ACA sells out their core principles. Those are the folks I'd hope to reach out to with this thread.

The ACA employs private health insurance companies. Thus....it is not the ideal liberal solution.

But....it does force accountability upon these companies. No longer is one's ability to pay going to determine whether or not they can get preventive care. No longer will anyone be denied coverage due to previous illness.

These factors are consistent with my core principles.

i don't doubt it. You're not really the sort of person I'm hoping to reach here LL.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Quality dodge.

You talking to me?

I am pretty sure that you cannot explain what you are trying to say with that comment. Want to give it a go?

 

[dblack]

Quality dodge.

You talking to me?

[ame=http://youtu.be/CyZ4EINmDU8]You talking to me? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LoneLaugher]

Quality dodge.

You talking to me?

[ame=http://youtu.be/CyZ4EINmDU8]You talking to me? - YouTube[/ame]

You dumpin' on your own thread?

 

[dblack]

You talking to me?

[ame=http://youtu.be/CyZ4EINmDU8]You talking to me? - YouTube[/ame]

You dumpin' on your own thread?

I do my own trolling, thank-you-very-much!

 

[rightwinger]

Much has been made about how the individual mandate, and most of the ideas that formed ACA, were - if not Republican ideas outright - at least designed to appeal to the perceived pro-business bias of conservatives. I think there's some truth to the point of view that ACA is largely a "Republican" idea - certainly if you look at what Romney did in MA. And it's certainly plausible that, with the right set of circumstances, Republicans might have produced something very much like ACA.

My challenge to Democrats who are currently supporters of ACA is to consider and answer the following questions: If the tables were turned, if McCain had won in 2008, if Republicans had controlled congress, and something fundamentally the same as ACA had been passed without any Democrats voting for it, how would it change your views on the law? Would you still support the individual mandate? Would you have fought against it when the legislation was being considered? Would you advocate the repeal of, at least, the individual mandate? Or would you still see the law as important reform, albeit imperfect, and support it the same way you do now?

I supported it in the 90s, why wouldn't I support it in 2009?