11 ms·

When he was elected, I was happy, perhaps he could enact the changes that needed to be made to reign in some of the spying, ridiculous defense contracts, and ot

by Agustus 11y ago

When he was elected, I was happy, perhaps he could enact the changes that needed to be made to reign in some of the spying, ridiculous defense contracts, and other items. I based this on the "not red or blue country" speech at the DNC convention. That hope passed quickly when he made the "I won" comment to the Republicans instead of just assuaging or listening to their now valid concerns. I would argue that the obstructionism during the first two years should not be considered a factor based on the make-up of the Congress. The Democrat congress and President would have been able to hold the majority if they had not stirred up the hornet's nest of populism from the right through the healthcare act fiasco. Had he just focused on creating jobs, winding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to a manageable level of involvement, and proselytized about family being important, we would not be having Trump running for office today.

actsasbuffoon 11y ago
> the healthcare act fiasco The Affordable Care Act was based on RomneyCare, which in turn was based on model legeslation from ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Counsel). They're a conservative organization that writes bills and gives them to republicans to propose. The republican reaction was just showmanship; a cry of indignation for the sake of the cameras.
- bsbechtel 11y ago
  I can't speak for the OP, but he may not be talking about the actual law or it's basis, but the execution of it, which has been a fiasco. We're 3 years into it, and insurance agents and "qualified" healthcare navigators still don't know what they're doing because it's so complicated. Never mind the security issues and complete lack of usability that is the healthcare.gov marketplace.
  - knodi123 11y ago
    > complete lack of usability that is the healthcare.gov marketplace Oh come now. This is ridiculous hyperbole, and even the underlying idea is pretty weak at this point. I used the marketplace last June and it presented information clearly and effectively, and I had no problems going from zero to well-informed and insured in no time at all. The launch may have been a fiasco, but it's a pretty good site today.
    - bsbechtel 11y ago
      If you have any sort of edge case when it comes to getting insurance, it's still has issues.
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  This probably is way way off-topic, but.... While on the face you seem to be decrying the polar tribalism that characterizes contemporary politics, you are using that very tribalism to make your argument. But the fact that some folks who label themselves "conservative" have advocated something does not obligate all people, or even any other people, who also label themselves "conservative", to also support it. Or will you criticize other Republicans for failing to get on board with Trump's nonsense?
  - yompers888 11y ago
    Thank you for articulating how parent is arguing.
  - actsasbuffoon 11y ago
    I appreciate the nuance of your argument. It's a good point in general, and I personally don't fit cleanly into any existing party. That said, I think we can reasonably propose that most of the sound and fury over the ACA was political theater. Mitt Romney wasn't decried when he passed a nearly identical law in Massachussetts. In fact, the RNC chose Romney to run against Obama in 2012, so it clearly didn't hurt him much. Ask yourself this: if John McCain had beaten Obama in 2008, and he proposed taking RomneyCare to the national level, do you think he would have drawn the same kind of criticism from republicans as Obama did? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a republican problem. Democrats probably would have been furious with McCain if that had happened. They likely would have decried the lack of public option, and they would have called it a massive hand-out to private insurers. Democrats are not any better. They only supported the ACA because it was backed by their guy. Obviously I'm speaking in blanket statements, and there will be individuals that this doesn't apply to. However, I'm pretty confident that these statements are true in the average case.
    - mdturnerphys 11y ago
      This kind of argument seems to ignore the idea of federalism and limits on federal power. Just because something might be a good idea for one state doesn't mean that it's a good idea (or constitutional) at a federal level.
jandrese 11y ago
The fiasco was the instant and complete evisceration of the single payer options originally present in the law. If private insurance companies can't do a better job than a big bloated government run institution, then they shouldn't be protected--they should be allowed to die. The public option would set a minimum bar that the companies would have to stay above to stay in business. Instead, the thing the detractors feared has basically come to pass. Insurance companies in areas where there is not a lot of competition and suddenly a legal mandate for people to join are screwing over those people enormously. It's like if Comcast run your healthcare insurance. Plus it did little to address the expensive and inefficient army of middlemen required to run the current system. Your doctor still needs people on staff dedicated to calling the insurance companies to talk to their middlemen to haggle over the need for every single procedure and then to haggle price and then to make a mountain of paperwork to document it all. It is an enormous waste of time and manpower but it pays a ton of salaries.
setpatchaddress 11y ago
Obama made clear as early as the 2008 primaries that he wasn't going to be very good on civil liberties. (But he didn't have to be this bad.) What valid concerns did Republicans have during the past eight years? Do tell. I've not heard of a single one. Trump is the inevitable outcome of 50 years of racist, belligerent fear mongering and bad-faith governance on the part of the Republicans. You can draw a straight line from Nixon through Reagan through W. to get to Trump. Obama had nothing to do with it.
- ctlby 11y ago
  They're on point about his general lawlessness. It started with the Chrysler bailout (almost as soon as he walked into office!), and it continues to this day with e.g. the retroactive provisions in his latest anti-inversion proposal. > Trump is the inevitable outcome of 50 years of racist, belligerent fear mongering Trump is the inevitable outcome of eight years of liberal grievance peddling. His supporters are just trying to claim their share of the spoils of victimhood.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- th0waway 11y ago
  haaaaaaaaa! Might as well say Obama is the inevitable outcome of 50 years of narcissistic, pansy, Me First hippies.
- Agustus 11y ago
  1. The healthcare law will increase costs. Check that with where the premiums were at prior to implementation and then after. 2. Russia is a concern. Check that against our attempts at "reset." 3. Iran will not adhere to the document they signed with the Nuclear Act. Check that with the current ballistics tests. I could go on, however, please do tell me what current racist governance the Republicans are engaging in. How far into the echo chamber are you that you believe this, please point to what actual racist policies Reagan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush have implemented?
criley2 11y ago
>"if they had not stirred up the hornet's nest of populism from the right through the healthcare act fiasco" To blame the President for this is ridiculous. Our centrist President promoted a conservative think-tank idea battle tested in the laboratory of a large state, and was ridiculed as a marxist and a communist who was on the level of stalin. No hyperbole, these very attacks and words have become so common in conservative media that I am being very literal here. The healthcare fiasco you point out was a manufactured fiasco. The compromises made: conservative ideas, preservation of the private market, total lack of centralization are wholly anti-left anti-social ideas, and yet the opposition to him was as if he was an actual communist. >"we would not be having Trump running for office today." I consider this supremely naive. The leaders of the national Republican party met before Obama was inaugurated and created the now-infamous obstructionist plan. They promised each other: NO COMPROMISE, no assistance, no crossing the aisle. The only answer to ANY Democrat in the White House was simple: TOTAL uncompromising obstruction with the only valid and acceptable outcome being ideologically pure conservative policy. The depth of the manufactured fiasco is proven by the simple history. A conservative idea to preserve the private market in the healthcare industry was hilariously tainted as socialist and the GOP successfully dragged their voters through another round of the Red Scare. This is indisputable: the renowned conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation is the genesis of the individual mandate which was battle tested by a Republican state administration. And yet, the second a centrist Democrat touches the plan, it's immediately the worst form of communism ever conceived... >we would not be having Trump running for office today. Trump is running today because the Republican Party promised their voters the Blood of any America-Destroying Commie-Democrat and failed to deliver what they could never deliver. Republican leaders and Republican media stoked a fire for eight years and now they cannot control the four alarm blaze they've transformed their party into. This is not Obama's fault. This is purely cause and effect. When you stoke a fire irresponsibly you get an irresponsibly large fire. Obama is a bystander. Republicans could have and would have stoked this fire for anyone who does not pledge fealty to their ideology. Look at how the #NeverTrump movement stokes this fire for Trump who they believe does not pledge true fealty to their conservative ideology. This is now how their party operates: Pledge fealty or you the problem that must be fixed, a RINO, an anti-Christ, a Muslim, a Marxist, a Leftist. Pledge fealty or you're the enemy. Obama was just a convenient target.
caseysoftware 11y ago
> I would argue that the obstructionism during the first two years After the 2008 election and until the 2010 election, it was a Democrat House with a Democrat Senate with a Democrat President. It wasn't filibuster-proof (not like they do them anymore anyway) but the Democrats were in charge.
- deciplex 11y ago
  They actually did have a filibuster-proof majority for something like a few months, in between the fight over the Minnesota recount and Senator Kennedy's death. It's pretty much the only time during Obama's Presidency that Congress has been able to get shit done.
- umanwizard 11y ago
  > It wasn't filibuster-proof That's the exact problem, and it almost entirely invalidates your point.
  - wwwdonohue 11y ago
    He had the cap on executive bonuses removed while Chuck Grassley was on the floor of the Senate calling for AIG employees to commit suicide before the American people. Pretty remarkable achievement for a President capable of accomplishing very little else save for a pharmaceutical-industry supported healthcare bill.
    - argonaut 11y ago
      Where did you find that he had the cap removed? All the sources I can find are that the cap went through.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
wwweston 11y ago
> The Democrat congress and President would have been able to hold the majority if they had not stirred up the hornet's nest of populism from the right through the healthcare act fiasco. Yeah. The Democrats stirred up populism from the Right by enacting a policy solution that closely followed health care policy solutions supported at one time by the Heritage Foundation and the 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate. That's how we got here. Plus nakedly uncompromising partisan power grabs like Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.
- Agustus 11y ago
  This analysis demonstrates how people just take sound bites, package them, and then spout it out in arguments. The Democrats party pushed forward on healthcare reform. The tide was moving that something had to be done and there was movement to look at this, however, there were many different policies being proposed; President Obama was lying when he said "No one" has suggested other options, I know for a fact that I sent him an e-mail containing alternatives to those he was going for. Romneycare was not liked within the Republican party, the concepts of what it took to enact, what it required to run, and what it asked of its populace were not well received. So, just because he was the one who tried it, does not mean that the entirety of the Republican party supported it. So, yes, the Democrats stirred the opposing party's populist sentiment through many policy decisions that affected them. The Republican party members argued that the healthcare reform proposed by the Democrat party was ridiculous, would raise rates, and affect those who were independent business owners. As we sit here, rates are higher, the reforms are not occurring, and independent business owners are downgrading employees left and right (good pun Agustus) from full-time to part-time. Finally, it's all politics. Joe Biden was in the same position on another supreme court nominee and did the same thing. It is all political. The media reports that he is a centrist, but based on my reviews of his opinions, he is left leaning with a few moments of conservatism; which is the optics President Obama wants to force a stand-off with the parties.
  - wwweston 11y ago
    > President Obama was lying when he said "No one" has suggested other options, I know for a fact that I sent him an e-mail containing alternatives to those he was going for. If you're suggesting that Obama has at any point contended that there were no other policy alternatives besides what ended up in the PP/ACA, I don't know what to tell you. Feel free to cite the statement you're sure he was lying about, though, I'm sure it will pair well with your own statement about the problem of people taking sound bites and packaging them. Sadly, I do think it's likely Obama ignored your personal email containing our nation's policy solutions. > just because [Romney] was the one who tried it, does not mean that the entirety of the Republican party supported it. Sure, I don't expect the entirety of the Republican party to have supported it; the entirety of the Democratic party didn't. And among those that did there are many who'd be the first to tell you they think it could be improved (including Obama himself). Given past endorsement and even adoption from some Republican segments with conservative bona fides any reasonable person would have expected some support, if the Republican party were actually doing policy at all rather than pure theater. > The Republican party members argued that the healthcare reform proposed by the Democrat party was ridiculous, would raise rates, and affect those who were independent business owners. The Republican party also argued that it would create government death panels, provide free care for all illegal immigrants, micromanage doctors, bring on a totalitarian state, that it was too big/too complicated, would bankrupt/enrich private insurers, bankrupt the country, etc etc. Many arguments were made about the reform. Very few of those that took place in the public sphere were in any way about the actual policy. Most of yours aren't, either. Nor is it clear that your perception of what is actually happening is accurate: > As we sit here, rates are higher Increasing rates have been a fact of life in the insurance market for decades. All PP/ACA had to do in order to be an improvement was slow down the rate of increase: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/11/12/388800.htm http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/11/12/388... > the reforms are not occurring Since I'm personally acquainted with people who now have access to insurance and care, I think it's safe to call this false on that basis alone. Or we could talk about how the socialists at Forbes magazine reported that the cost curve was already starting to bend circa 2013: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-su... > independent business owners are downgrading employees left and right (good pun Agustus) from full-time to part-time. "Are Republicans right that employers are capping workers’ hours to avoid offering health insurance? The evidence suggests the answer is 'yes,' although the number of workers affected is fairly small." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-cutting-hours-in-response-to-obamacare/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-c... Again, there are people among the Democrats (Obama included) who'd be the first to admit that PP/ACA was the legislation they could get passed back in 2010 rather than ideal. There have been actual invitations to revisit the policy and see if we could improve on some of the known flaws, including this one. > Finally, it's all politics. Joe Biden was in the same position on another supreme court nominee and did the same thing. Describe, exactly, what you think "the same thing" is.

by Agustus 11y ago

actsasbuffoon 11y ago

> the healthcare act fiasco The Affordable Care Act was based on RomneyCare, which in turn was based on model legeslation from ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Counsel). They're a conservative organization that writes bills and gives them to republicans to propose. The republican reaction was just showmanship; a cry of indignation for the sake of the cameras.

bsbechtel 11y ago
I can't speak for the OP, but he may not be talking about the actual law or it's basis, but the execution of it, which has been a fiasco. We're 3 years into it, and insurance agents and "qualified" healthcare navigators still don't know what they're doing because it's so complicated. Never mind the security issues and complete lack of usability that is the healthcare.gov marketplace.
- knodi123 11y ago
  > complete lack of usability that is the healthcare.gov marketplace Oh come now. This is ridiculous hyperbole, and even the underlying idea is pretty weak at this point. I used the marketplace last June and it presented information clearly and effectively, and I had no problems going from zero to well-informed and insured in no time at all. The launch may have been a fiasco, but it's a pretty good site today.
  - bsbechtel 11y ago
    If you have any sort of edge case when it comes to getting insurance, it's still has issues.
CWuestefeld 11y ago
This probably is way way off-topic, but.... While on the face you seem to be decrying the polar tribalism that characterizes contemporary politics, you are using that very tribalism to make your argument. But the fact that some folks who label themselves "conservative" have advocated something does not obligate all people, or even any other people, who also label themselves "conservative", to also support it. Or will you criticize other Republicans for failing to get on board with Trump's nonsense?
- yompers888 11y ago
  Thank you for articulating how parent is arguing.
- actsasbuffoon 11y ago
  I appreciate the nuance of your argument. It's a good point in general, and I personally don't fit cleanly into any existing party. That said, I think we can reasonably propose that most of the sound and fury over the ACA was political theater. Mitt Romney wasn't decried when he passed a nearly identical law in Massachussetts. In fact, the RNC chose Romney to run against Obama in 2012, so it clearly didn't hurt him much. Ask yourself this: if John McCain had beaten Obama in 2008, and he proposed taking RomneyCare to the national level, do you think he would have drawn the same kind of criticism from republicans as Obama did? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a republican problem. Democrats probably would have been furious with McCain if that had happened. They likely would have decried the lack of public option, and they would have called it a massive hand-out to private insurers. Democrats are not any better. They only supported the ACA because it was backed by their guy. Obviously I'm speaking in blanket statements, and there will be individuals that this doesn't apply to. However, I'm pretty confident that these statements are true in the average case.
  - mdturnerphys 11y ago
    This kind of argument seems to ignore the idea of federalism and limits on federal power. Just because something might be a good idea for one state doesn't mean that it's a good idea (or constitutional) at a federal level.

jandrese 11y ago

The fiasco was the instant and complete evisceration of the single payer options originally present in the law. If private insurance companies can't do a better job than a big bloated government run institution, then they shouldn't be protected--they should be allowed to die. The public option would set a minimum bar that the companies would have to stay above to stay in business. Instead, the thing the detractors feared has basically come to pass. Insurance companies in areas where there is not a lot of competition and suddenly a legal mandate for people to join are screwing over those people enormously. It's like if Comcast run your healthcare insurance. Plus it did little to address the expensive and inefficient army of middlemen required to run the current system. Your doctor still needs people on staff dedicated to calling the insurance companies to talk to their middlemen to haggle over the need for every single procedure and then to haggle price and then to make a mountain of paperwork to document it all. It is an enormous waste of time and manpower but it pays a ton of salaries.

setpatchaddress 11y ago

Obama made clear as early as the 2008 primaries that he wasn't going to be very good on civil liberties. (But he didn't have to be this bad.) What valid concerns did Republicans have during the past eight years? Do tell. I've not heard of a single one. Trump is the inevitable outcome of 50 years of racist, belligerent fear mongering and bad-faith governance on the part of the Republicans. You can draw a straight line from Nixon through Reagan through W. to get to Trump. Obama had nothing to do with it.

ctlby 11y ago
They're on point about his general lawlessness. It started with the Chrysler bailout (almost as soon as he walked into office!), and it continues to this day with e.g. the retroactive provisions in his latest anti-inversion proposal. > Trump is the inevitable outcome of 50 years of racist, belligerent fear mongering Trump is the inevitable outcome of eight years of liberal grievance peddling. His supporters are just trying to claim their share of the spoils of victimhood.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
th0waway 11y ago
haaaaaaaaa! Might as well say Obama is the inevitable outcome of 50 years of narcissistic, pansy, Me First hippies.
Agustus 11y ago
1. The healthcare law will increase costs. Check that with where the premiums were at prior to implementation and then after. 2. Russia is a concern. Check that against our attempts at "reset." 3. Iran will not adhere to the document they signed with the Nuclear Act. Check that with the current ballistics tests. I could go on, however, please do tell me what current racist governance the Republicans are engaging in. How far into the echo chamber are you that you believe this, please point to what actual racist policies Reagan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush have implemented?

criley2 11y ago

>"if they had not stirred up the hornet's nest of populism from the right through the healthcare act fiasco" To blame the President for this is ridiculous. Our centrist President promoted a conservative think-tank idea battle tested in the laboratory of a large state, and was ridiculed as a marxist and a communist who was on the level of stalin. No hyperbole, these very attacks and words have become so common in conservative media that I am being very literal here. The healthcare fiasco you point out was a manufactured fiasco. The compromises made: conservative ideas, preservation of the private market, total lack of centralization are wholly anti-left anti-social ideas, and yet the opposition to him was as if he was an actual communist. >"we would not be having Trump running for office today." I consider this supremely naive. The leaders of the national Republican party met before Obama was inaugurated and created the now-infamous obstructionist plan. They promised each other: NO COMPROMISE, no assistance, no crossing the aisle. The only answer to ANY Democrat in the White House was simple: TOTAL uncompromising obstruction with the only valid and acceptable outcome being ideologically pure conservative policy. The depth of the manufactured fiasco is proven by the simple history. A conservative idea to preserve the private market in the healthcare industry was hilariously tainted as socialist and the GOP successfully dragged their voters through another round of the Red Scare. This is indisputable: the renowned conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation is the genesis of the individual mandate which was battle tested by a Republican state administration. And yet, the second a centrist Democrat touches the plan, it's immediately the worst form of communism ever conceived... >we would not be having Trump running for office today. Trump is running today because the Republican Party promised their voters the Blood of any America-Destroying Commie-Democrat and failed to deliver what they could never deliver. Republican leaders and Republican media stoked a fire for eight years and now they cannot control the four alarm blaze they've transformed their party into. This is not Obama's fault. This is purely cause and effect. When you stoke a fire irresponsibly you get an irresponsibly large fire. Obama is a bystander. Republicans could have and would have stoked this fire for anyone who does not pledge fealty to their ideology. Look at how the #NeverTrump movement stokes this fire for Trump who they believe does not pledge true fealty to their conservative ideology. This is now how their party operates: Pledge fealty or you the problem that must be fixed, a RINO, an anti-Christ, a Muslim, a Marxist, a Leftist. Pledge fealty or you're the enemy. Obama was just a convenient target.

caseysoftware 11y ago

> I would argue that the obstructionism during the first two years After the 2008 election and until the 2010 election, it was a Democrat House with a Democrat Senate with a Democrat President. It wasn't filibuster-proof (not like they do them anymore anyway) but the Democrats were in charge.

deciplex 11y ago
They actually did have a filibuster-proof majority for something like a few months, in between the fight over the Minnesota recount and Senator Kennedy's death. It's pretty much the only time during Obama's Presidency that Congress has been able to get shit done.
umanwizard 11y ago
> It wasn't filibuster-proof That's the exact problem, and it almost entirely invalidates your point.
- wwwdonohue 11y ago
  He had the cap on executive bonuses removed while Chuck Grassley was on the floor of the Senate calling for AIG employees to commit suicide before the American people. Pretty remarkable achievement for a President capable of accomplishing very little else save for a pharmaceutical-industry supported healthcare bill.
  - argonaut 11y ago
    Where did you find that he had the cap removed? All the sources I can find are that the cap went through.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

wwweston 11y ago

> The Democrat congress and President would have been able to hold the majority if they had not stirred up the hornet's nest of populism from the right through the healthcare act fiasco. Yeah. The Democrats stirred up populism from the Right by enacting a policy solution that closely followed health care policy solutions supported at one time by the Heritage Foundation and the 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate. That's how we got here. Plus nakedly uncompromising partisan power grabs like Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.

Agustus 11y ago
This analysis demonstrates how people just take sound bites, package them, and then spout it out in arguments. The Democrats party pushed forward on healthcare reform. The tide was moving that something had to be done and there was movement to look at this, however, there were many different policies being proposed; President Obama was lying when he said "No one" has suggested other options, I know for a fact that I sent him an e-mail containing alternatives to those he was going for. Romneycare was not liked within the Republican party, the concepts of what it took to enact, what it required to run, and what it asked of its populace were not well received. So, just because he was the one who tried it, does not mean that the entirety of the Republican party supported it. So, yes, the Democrats stirred the opposing party's populist sentiment through many policy decisions that affected them. The Republican party members argued that the healthcare reform proposed by the Democrat party was ridiculous, would raise rates, and affect those who were independent business owners. As we sit here, rates are higher, the reforms are not occurring, and independent business owners are downgrading employees left and right (good pun Agustus) from full-time to part-time. Finally, it's all politics. Joe Biden was in the same position on another supreme court nominee and did the same thing. It is all political. The media reports that he is a centrist, but based on my reviews of his opinions, he is left leaning with a few moments of conservatism; which is the optics President Obama wants to force a stand-off with the parties.
- wwweston 11y ago
  > President Obama was lying when he said "No one" has suggested other options, I know for a fact that I sent him an e-mail containing alternatives to those he was going for. If you're suggesting that Obama has at any point contended that there were no other policy alternatives besides what ended up in the PP/ACA, I don't know what to tell you. Feel free to cite the statement you're sure he was lying about, though, I'm sure it will pair well with your own statement about the problem of people taking sound bites and packaging them. Sadly, I do think it's likely Obama ignored your personal email containing our nation's policy solutions. > just because [Romney] was the one who tried it, does not mean that the entirety of the Republican party supported it. Sure, I don't expect the entirety of the Republican party to have supported it; the entirety of the Democratic party didn't. And among those that did there are many who'd be the first to tell you they think it could be improved (including Obama himself). Given past endorsement and even adoption from some Republican segments with conservative bona fides any reasonable person would have expected some support, if the Republican party were actually doing policy at all rather than pure theater. > The Republican party members argued that the healthcare reform proposed by the Democrat party was ridiculous, would raise rates, and affect those who were independent business owners. The Republican party also argued that it would create government death panels, provide free care for all illegal immigrants, micromanage doctors, bring on a totalitarian state, that it was too big/too complicated, would bankrupt/enrich private insurers, bankrupt the country, etc etc. Many arguments were made about the reform. Very few of those that took place in the public sphere were in any way about the actual policy. Most of yours aren't, either. Nor is it clear that your perception of what is actually happening is accurate: > As we sit here, rates are higher Increasing rates have been a fact of life in the insurance market for decades. All PP/ACA had to do in order to be an improvement was slow down the rate of increase: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/11/12/388800.htm http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/11/12/388... > the reforms are not occurring Since I'm personally acquainted with people who now have access to insurance and care, I think it's safe to call this false on that basis alone. Or we could talk about how the socialists at Forbes magazine reported that the cost curve was already starting to bend circa 2013: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-su... > independent business owners are downgrading employees left and right (good pun Agustus) from full-time to part-time. "Are Republicans right that employers are capping workers’ hours to avoid offering health insurance? The evidence suggests the answer is 'yes,' although the number of workers affected is fairly small." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-cutting-hours-in-response-to-obamacare/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-c... Again, there are people among the Democrats (Obama included) who'd be the first to admit that PP/ACA was the legislation they could get passed back in 2010 rather than ideal. There have been actual invitations to revisit the policy and see if we could improve on some of the known flaws, including this one. > Finally, it's all politics. Joe Biden was in the same position on another supreme court nominee and did the same thing. Describe, exactly, what you think "the same thing" is.