posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 12:00 AM
You make a good point about it being some kind of set-up.
But can you show us ?
You realize both Chambers of Congress were dominated by 100% Democrat committees in 2009 ?
Majority control isn't the be all end all of congress. Minorities have power, and it was intentionally designed so that they have power. In this
case that power comes from the label of bipartisan. Obama was shooting for a bipartisan label on the bill, because the guise of bipartisanship is the
a very common political defense. Basically, if you can claim the other party supported it too, then if anything bad happens you can deflect it onto
them. A lot of political pressure is exerted to get 1 or 2 members of the opposing party on otherwise single party bills in order to get that
At the time the Democrats were more or less enthralled with Obama, whatever he said they would vote for regardless of the contents of the bill (as
we've seen with Obamacare passing). The Republicans were staunchly opposed however. In order to try and get those votes members of the Republican
party essentially got to write the bill in exchange for their support. If you need details I'll look up the names, I can probably find them though
it's been awhile since I've actually looked into it with much detail. What those Republicans did however was write some very poor legislation, and
then their party came out against the bill. In the end it passed due to Democrat majorities, but it did so without that bipartisan label that was
This must have been the biggest con game the Democrats ever fell for.
Really, it shows that Obama and his advisers were terrible at playing party politics. They've since gotten better but I wouldn't call that a good
You must also know that every Left Wing Liberal organization also supported the PPACA.
And please, how is PPACA better than the 'old' system ?
Details are the better part of valor.
At the time I believe it was "support Obama or you're a racist". It's not hard to get support under that system.
As for how it's better, people that previously couldn't see doctors now can. Don't get me wrong, there's A LOT of bad stuff in the bill, and
it's less efficient than the old bill but now people that didn't have access to doctors do which raises the minimum standard of care everyone in the
nation gets, although it probably lowers the average. To me that's a net improvement, despite the corporate giveaways and massive bureaucracy.