An Iowa Voter Forced Ted Cruz To Confront The Human Toll Of Repealing Obamacare

Again, you are throwing out straw men arguments and you are shifting the ground. Those are both two debating fallacies.

I never said that Gruber designed the PPACA. I said that the PPACA is based directly on the Heritage Plan. Gruber verified that. You are throwing out a straw man argument simply so that you can provide your preferred counterpoints. "You think the PPACA is a great thing." = another straw man that is your wording, and is not based on anything I said. Again, you are creating a narrative to feed your counterpoint. Try to stay on topic, and try to focus on what I say, and not what you want me to have said.

Now you are shifting the ground to debate the merits and flaws of the PPACA. That has nothing to do with my point that the GOP has their fingerprints all over this health reform policy, whether or not you want to admit it. Informed voters know that is indeed the case, and we won't let GOP politicians off the hook, simply because they chose not to vote for it after they designed it and once they won the policy debate.

I didn't say you made the claim that Gruber designed the act. He claimed to be one of the architects. Indeed, the media named him a "key architect". He didn't correct anyone until the videos came out while testifying before Congress. He did a poor job of falling on his sword.

You make the claim that this law is a Republican thing, yet there's not one Republican name attached to the Bill or the vote passing it in Congress. You can push that meme every day, but facts are stubborn things. Democrats are responsible for this. No Republican amendments were considered before the votes in the Senate or house. Sure, Republican ideas were incorporated into the law from prior attempts. So what? That happens all the time in Washington.

You want to defend this law because Republicans wanted it as a wedge against Obama and not wanting him to have some sort of legacy. Go right ahead. You want the very thing Reagan warned against in 1964? Please, you can have it. However, I choose not to. It's a bad law. As is Romney-care. As is my disgraced former governors Oregon Health plan. Socialized medicine is so great. People are dying in England because of it. People in Canada come to the US for treatment. Yea, socialized medicine!

So now you're shifting again. You just can't stay on topic, and you meander all over the place. Trying to talk with you is like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall. Rather than simply acknowledging that the GOP developed the major ideas that were incorporated into the law, you a) choose to go off on a tangent by attacking the person that verified the law does indeed contain Republican ideas and b) continue to push the false notion that Republicans had nothing to do with the law, despite the facts that they invented it and that the law does include at least one Republican amendment (that was submitted by Chuck Grassley).

Now you're throwing up yet another straw man argument (that I want socialized medicine), while also trotting out the tired, old right-wing memes about Canada and England. That's a typical fact-free argument based on a) nothing that I actually said and b) the fact that the US health system consistently ranks behind both Canada and the UK when it comes to rankings and health outcomes. If you'd like, I can provide you with about a dozen links to studies showing that you're wrong about the relative standing of our health systems. Also, I can provide you with many links showing you that medical tourism also works both ways...many people do leave the US to achieve the same (or better) health outcomes in other countries at significantly lower costs.

I believe I acknowledged that republican ideas were incorporated several postings ago. I also believe that you roundfiled Baucus and his quote about his staff member's white paper being a big part of the law. Didn't fit your meme possibly?
You're concerned I attacked your source for Republican ideas being incorporated into Obamacare? I must apologize and quick. Your source is on record as saying the American people are stupid, and that they had to game the system to pass the law and all you're worried about is I attacked the man? (Apparently it's okay as long as one political party is given the blame for Ocare. And it's not the party that voted for it) Oh, and then he kowtowed before Congress saying he was glib. Was he lying during his triumphal presentations. My gut says no. He was being totally truthful that they gamed the system and that he feels Americans are stupid. After all, he has letters after his name!

A "single payer" and a "government run healthcare system" are two completely different things. A single payer means that the government pays for all healthcare delivered by the private sector. A government-run healthcare system means that the government is providing the healthcare directly. Democrats are calling for the former, but not the latter. And, many Democrats are only calling for a "public option", which is basically allowing people to opt into Medicare, should they prefer that insurance option. That's much less invasive than making "Medicare for all" the only option for everyone.

ok can you name me any governmental program that doesn't cost allot more than it should or even one that runs remotely efficiently ?
what we had before was far from perfect. what we have now is a mess and what we will latter well honestly who knows.

"can you name me any governmental program that doesn't cost allot more than it should"...that's a charged and subjective question. No matter what program I'd list, you'd say it costs too much or is inefficient. It's far too easy to simply complain about wanting lower costs and/or better efficiencies. Saying that all government programs are too costly and inefficient is an assumption, not an axiom.

"what we have now is a mess"....really? How so? The insurance market has been tweaked for some (but not all) people. Otherwise, the industry has been left relatively intact. I still see the same doctors. They still practice medicine the same way. And, they still practice in the same facilities. The only big differences for me is that a) my costs went up a little and b) some Americans now have health insurance (when previously they didn't). Those issues don't bother me at all.

He's the one and only candidate who would actually motivate me to become politically active, both financially (by donating against him) and through volunteering in a campaign (to work against him). Every other candidate? I'd just follow the campaigns and then vote come November.