At least you're admitting your stance of it always being a debate purely amongst Dems was wrong. It's a start.

LOL so there were bipartisan discussions some going a long way back, some around the time ACA was put together. So they never resulted in any bipartisan agreements.

We were and are talking about a specific piece of legislation the ACA. When making sure that legislation had enough votes the negotiations were between the liberal Dems and the Blue Dog Dems. the Dems decided what they wanted in the bill.

What were some things that Republicans could have gotten in the ACA but didn't?

Major credit to Republican Ohio governor John Kasich for telling his own party to **** off in getting Medicaid expansion passed.

Dude has been a great governor and is the model for how the GOP can make a comeback, so of course the state GOP is suing to deny poor people health insurance instead of following his example.

Are you trying to be stupid on purpose? The negotiations were for the ACA and when they decided on using the mandate the GOP leadership decided they could use that to bash the law and the president and made sure no one supported it any further. Are you really going to then go back and work with a group that just told you they won't give you a single vote and will try to kill the whole thing no matter what?

Good call. Well, the article is from February but I somehow missed it the first time around: IBM's Watson is better at diagnosing cancer than human doctors

The more interesting part, that I hadn't considered at all, is the impact such an AI could have on economic decisions, and what that could mean for a screwed up market like healthcare.

It really makes you think about the global impact that AI will be having in the near future.

Close. Ultimately negotiations were between liberal Dems, Blue Dog Dems and 2 Independants - in the Senate. Lieberman (independent from CT) who generally caucused with Dems, refused to go along with the public option or you would probably be seeing lower rates offered in states like Virginia that have very few providers on the exchanges.

But the context for the bigger picture was that Obama did not want to ram this legislation down anybody's throats. He chose a Republican originated plan, implemented by a Republican Governor in a blue state. He was hoping for support from some Republicans. Because of the need for a mandate to allow for coverage for pre-existing conditions and subsidies for poorer Americans, a decision had to be made as to how to fund it. Obama as he had indicated many times before wanted to both raise revenues and cut spending together. Republicans refused to be part of any revenue increases.

And in the end decided to try to torpedo every Obama initiative including the ACA.

Yeah, I had heard some rumors of it, which is why I used that example. Many people, especially older people are wary of computers and if it just costs them the same to go see a real human doctor adoption of these types of advances may take awhile. Of course I am sure the human doctors will try to lobby against Watson prescribed medicines too. It was just one example that seemed like a place where the market could deliver cost savings better than government if allowed to work.

I don't see why Watson wouldn't exist under single payer. Surely the government is interested in cost saving measures, right?

When the republican leader in the senate openly says during this time, '‘my number one priority is making sure president Obama’s a one-term president." What the hell is he suppose to do? They weren't interested in compromising with him, clinton worked with republicans on some bipartisan policy and look what that accomplished, Clinton is largely revered to this day. You think they want obama getting credit for bipartisan healthcare reform, bipartisan immigration reform, even if it is center right policy?

It's amazing how the right conveniently forgets this line when they accuse Obama of not being willing to negotiate.

WA site working like a charm.

I dunno why red states wanted to hand this thing over to Big Government

No. He said it after the ACA was passed. It could be argued that Obama poisoned the well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...83bf_blog.html

4 problems with reporting and subsequently understanding the ACA.

http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/newsg...able-care-act/

It was after the Dems enacted a lot of very liberal policies. He also qualified it that if Obama would compromise or negotiate like Clinton we would work with him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...83bf_blog.html

Found a subsidy calculator.

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-c...hild-tobacco=0

The poor better hope they can get on Medicaid.

The dems enacted the republicans' own damn idea with the ACA. If those policies are antagonistically liberal it's only because republicans have moved so far to the right.

You got what you wanted Mitch. Other than the ACA nothing is named in this entire article as a concrete example of an Obama's liberal policies that you mentioned. And Republicans got everything they wanted in the ACA – even though they'll never admit it.

Obama implemented about 10 times less liberal policies than his followers were expecting. Nothing short of him becoming a full-blown conservative Republican would've satisfied the Republicans in Congress. And even that I'm sure they would've found a way to throw a fit about.

Address the national debt! Extend unfunded tax cuts forever!

REPUBLICANS

I agree

Obama wanted an act. He was not in favor of mandates but believed that once government was in health care you would never get them out. But this was as far left as all the Dems were willing to go and even then it forced a lot of the Blue Dogs to fall on their sword at the next election.

But lets not pretend that the all or majority Republicans support all or any of Romney care or Romney care = The gang of 6 bill = ACA. You can take the idea of individual mandates and make it more liberal or more conservative. Just becuase you favor one does not as some mean that you should be in favor of the other.

It was not just the revenue icreases in the gang of 6 discussions that Republicans refused to be part of it also was the employer mandate (which Romney vetoed as governor), the amount of those receiving subsidies (Baucus was discussing 300%) and who was required to go onto the exchanges (everyone not covered by employer or just those who receive subsidies). The Dems also in the end did not support the gang of 6 either and pushed it farther to the left.

So the dems are blamed for winning and leading? Cute, very cute.

Really, the only responsive offer to republican critics on this should be win enough elections, constructively help forward, or STFU.

No, but if you pass a act don't pretend it is the othersides legislation. Own it.

Lololol. I guess taking up the name the other guys gave it, Obamacare, as your own doesn't count as owning it.

That's something real easy not to pretend if you are not pretending that in the first place.

How much firmer does Obama and the dems need to stand that ground to demonstrate ownership?

Talking more to those on the board who keep insisting that it is a very conservative idea.

Lol my post doesn't imply that at all.

For what purpose? The history of the idea is a known known.

What is the very conservative idea for the uninsured and those who cannot afford care?