3 ms·

Down-voting won't erase the fact that this was the Republican platform in 2016: "Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors an

Down-voting won't erase the fact that this was the Republican platform in 2016: "Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals." [1] [1] Scroll down to point #5 in https://web.archive.org/web/20161110004206/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform https://web.archive.org/web/20161110004206/https://www.donal...

Someone1234 8y ago
The Republicans control all three branches (inc. both houses of congress) of the federal government. If they wanted to bring forward legislation that addressed this issue they've had at least two years to do so (arguably more since Obama would have happily signed a pro-price transparently bill, it is an issue he spoke on). Where is the link to the GOP's actions rather than their empty promises?
- ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
  Bah, I'm not interested in your goalposts. I replied to someone who falsely claimed that "Republicans who are supposedly for markets don't push for price transparency". We all know that Democrats are the party entirely responsible for Obamacare and its lack of price transparency. [Added for emphasis] Democrats created Obamacare without the full price transparency several people here seem to care about. Yet, you all choose to denounce Republicans -- who demonstrated in their attempt that they don't have a sufficient majority to repeal Obamacare, let alone introduce better healthcare regulation once it has been repealed.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    They're your own goalposts: > Actually Trump and the Republicans ran on a platform of price transparency, but Senate Democrats can block and have effectively blocked The Democrats cannot block a piece of legislation that doesn't exist. You yourself set up the criteria and you've failed to meet it. > I replied to someone who falsely claimed that "Republicans who are supposedly for markets don't push for price transparency". Quite correctly. You cannot link to the Republican legislation that supposedly tackles this issue while they continue to control all three branches (inc. both houses of congress) because there is no legislation. They're tried nothing and accomplished even less.
- masonic 8y ago
  Obama would have happily signed a pro-price transparently bill Really? Then why didn't his Democrat colleagues in full, filibuster-proof control of the House and Senate send him one?
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    Obama never had a congress that was filibuster-proof. The 110th, 111th, 112th, or 113th congress weren't. The 110th was the most favorable but wasn't filibuster proof, least of all under the filibuster rules of the time. Plus the poster I was responding to specifically made claims about the Republican's policies and what they claimed the Republicans had tried. If the Republicans don't bring up legislation the Democrats cannot be blamed for not voting for it (or Obama for not signing it).
    - somecontext 8y ago
      The 110th Congress was during the presidency of George W. Bush. During the 111th Congress, from the appointment of Al Franken until the death of Ted Kennedy, as well as during the term of his appointed successor Paul G. Kirk, the Democratic party held 58 seats in the Senate and caucused together with 2 more senators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress "gave the Senate Democratic caucus sixty votes, enough to defeat a filibuster in a party-line vote." https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.h... "providing Democrats with something they had long hoped for: 60 votes, and thus at least the symbolic ability to overcome filibusters."

Someone1234 8y ago

The Republicans control all three branches (inc. both houses of congress) of the federal government. If they wanted to bring forward legislation that addressed this issue they've had at least two years to do so (arguably more since Obama would have happily signed a pro-price transparently bill, it is an issue he spoke on). Where is the link to the GOP's actions rather than their empty promises?

ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
Bah, I'm not interested in your goalposts. I replied to someone who falsely claimed that "Republicans who are supposedly for markets don't push for price transparency". We all know that Democrats are the party entirely responsible for Obamacare and its lack of price transparency. [Added for emphasis] Democrats created Obamacare without the full price transparency several people here seem to care about. Yet, you all choose to denounce Republicans -- who demonstrated in their attempt that they don't have a sufficient majority to repeal Obamacare, let alone introduce better healthcare regulation once it has been repealed.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  They're your own goalposts: > Actually Trump and the Republicans ran on a platform of price transparency, but Senate Democrats can block and have effectively blocked The Democrats cannot block a piece of legislation that doesn't exist. You yourself set up the criteria and you've failed to meet it. > I replied to someone who falsely claimed that "Republicans who are supposedly for markets don't push for price transparency". Quite correctly. You cannot link to the Republican legislation that supposedly tackles this issue while they continue to control all three branches (inc. both houses of congress) because there is no legislation. They're tried nothing and accomplished even less.
masonic 8y ago
Obama would have happily signed a pro-price transparently bill Really? Then why didn't his Democrat colleagues in full, filibuster-proof control of the House and Senate send him one?
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Obama never had a congress that was filibuster-proof. The 110th, 111th, 112th, or 113th congress weren't. The 110th was the most favorable but wasn't filibuster proof, least of all under the filibuster rules of the time. Plus the poster I was responding to specifically made claims about the Republican's policies and what they claimed the Republicans had tried. If the Republicans don't bring up legislation the Democrats cannot be blamed for not voting for it (or Obama for not signing it).
  - somecontext 8y ago
    The 110th Congress was during the presidency of George W. Bush. During the 111th Congress, from the appointment of Al Franken until the death of Ted Kennedy, as well as during the term of his appointed successor Paul G. Kirk, the Democratic party held 58 seats in the Senate and caucused together with 2 more senators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress "gave the Senate Democratic caucus sixty votes, enough to defeat a filibuster in a party-line vote." https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.h... "providing Democrats with something they had long hoped for: 60 votes, and thus at least the symbolic ability to overcome filibusters."