General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal [View all]mike_c
(36,281 posts)Lemieux splits hairs until they're unrecognizable, but they're still hairs. After agreeing with most of Moore's criticisms and suggestions for improvement, he disputes the ACA's Heritage Foundation lineage by pointing to the differences between the conservative proposal and the ACA while papering over as insignificant the fundamental similarity that defines the ACA and makes it different from most other industrial democracies' approach to universal access to health care-- the individual mandate to BUY COMMERCIAL HEALTH INSURANCE and insure the profitability of the insurance industry. Yes, perhaps they are "only really alike" in that respect. That is because neither was designed to put patient care first, rather both were designed to maintain corporate profits first-- the ACA includes some mitigating requirements, like the proportion of premiums that must serve patient needs, and elimination of preexisting conditions clauses-- but it is fundamentally similar to the Heritage Foundation's intent to produce a plan that buttressed the status quo in the land of inaccessible health care and to Romneycare, which was presumably thought to improve its bipartisan chances of passage (a serious mistake in my view, since undermining or repealing it has been a partisan republican rallying cry from the very beginning).