4 ms·

It's a fact that Trump and Republicans ran on a platform of free-market healthcare and full price transparency, unlike their opponents. The article I linked po

It's a fact that Trump and Republicans ran on a platform of free-market healthcare and full price transparency, unlike their opponents. The article I linked points out that this price transparency could not be achieved in the very first legislative step -- by the nature of that first bill, related exclusively to tax and revenue since it originated in the House. Politics is an art of compromises, to achieve what is doable with sufficient majorities, as well as taking into account popular support in view of the next round of elections. In this case, the only change that could pass was to remove the tax-shaped penalty so that people are allowed to ignore Obamacare plans. Next would have been a basic repeal of Obamacare (blocked by Senate Democrats and McCain). Finally would have been new and very different regulation, including price transparency (which could not even be attempted since step two was blocked, the consensus was that new regulations should only be passed after repealing Obamacare, and Republicans failed to build a majority around that approach).

Latteland 8y ago
But they didn't do that when they got power.
- ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
  You're right, the Democrats did not require full price transparency when they had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, plus the Presidency. Also, the Democrats later managed to block the repeal of Obamacare, which would have been a prelude to passing new regulations including full price transparency in healthcare, thus defeating the plans of the Republicans.
  - Latteland 8y ago
    You are completely wrong, the democrats didn't have an overwhelming majority in the senate. They had the minimum they needed to pass obamacare, 66. Remember that they wanted to have a single payer option and the damn democratic senator from nebraska didn't want that, and he thought if "he single-handedly stopped single payer" he'd be re-elected. So that one senator stopped single payer from being in the bill - he did vote for it after that. And that guy wasn't re-elected. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Anywhoo, you are completely and utterly incorrect about the dems have an overwhelming majority to do whatever they wanted. In the senate they had the bare minimum, and anyone who felt they wanted a change could get it. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34446325/ns/politics-health_care_reform/t/single-payer-health-care-plan-dies-senate/#.W81xrd_Yov8 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34446325/ns/politics-health_care_r...

Latteland 8y ago

But they didn't do that when they got power.

ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
You're right, the Democrats did not require full price transparency when they had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, plus the Presidency. Also, the Democrats later managed to block the repeal of Obamacare, which would have been a prelude to passing new regulations including full price transparency in healthcare, thus defeating the plans of the Republicans.
- Latteland 8y ago
  You are completely wrong, the democrats didn't have an overwhelming majority in the senate. They had the minimum they needed to pass obamacare, 66. Remember that they wanted to have a single payer option and the damn democratic senator from nebraska didn't want that, and he thought if "he single-handedly stopped single payer" he'd be re-elected. So that one senator stopped single payer from being in the bill - he did vote for it after that. And that guy wasn't re-elected. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Anywhoo, you are completely and utterly incorrect about the dems have an overwhelming majority to do whatever they wanted. In the senate they had the bare minimum, and anyone who felt they wanted a change could get it. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34446325/ns/politics-health_care_reform/t/single-payer-health-care-plan-dies-senate/#.W81xrd_Yov8 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34446325/ns/politics-health_care_r...