Obamacare Changed the Democratic Party

Partially true.

Obamacare WAS based on Romney care. But there are some notable differences, such as the rules on pre-existing conditions, benefits caps, and who pays for preventative care. Plus the number of people who got kicked off their insurance or kicked out by their doctor due to Obamacare not just addressing the uninsured, but changing ALL insurance.

Additionally, there are differences between state implementation and National implementation. The biggest being the 10th Amendment, which provides this authority to states and not federal government.

Next, Massachusetts only had about 8% uninsured, compared to about 15% nationally. So the problem was different. The cost to the state of implementing Romney care was much different than Obamacare. Romneycare cost Massachusetts (and their taxpayers)..... $0. Obamacare cost trillions.

Finally, even when it was Romney care, there were a good number or Republicans (usually the more conservative ones) who thought it was a bad idea because of the mandates.

So, no, Obama did not say "Okay, we'll adopt your plan." He said "We'll take your plan; tack on a bunch of other stuff to make the plan less responsive and more expensive; tack on other stuff for EVERYONE, not just the people your plan addressed; and then blame you for the result."

I know that doesn't fit your narrative or fit in a soundbite. But the truth rarely does.

SFC Casey O'Mally - Nice try, but you're nit-picking details to craft a "clean hands" narrative for the GOP. The bottom line is that the GOP plan, created in the Heritage Foundation, was an expansion of the existing insurance-based system. It was presented as a conservative alternative to the socialized medicine and single-payer approaches that more liberal Democrats were pushing. The Heritage Plan included a tax increase, an individual mandate, insurance exchanges, and subsidies. Most importantly, the Heritage Foundation plan WAS a national plan because it included reforms to the US tax code, Medicare reforms, federal changes to Medicaid, and the creation of a new federal long-term care program. That is indeed a national reform requiring federal legislation to enact.

LTC Kevin B. There remain significant differences between the Heritage Plan and Obamacare, as well.

Once again, Obamacare STARTED there, then broke some stuff, making it worse.

The move from tax credits for insurance to tax penalties for not being insured, for instance. The move from risk pools for high-risk people to forcing insurance companies to take them, as well. The move from taxing employee-provided health insurance as income, too.

Yes, the Heritage Plan was a national level reform. It was not a good plan. And the Obama administration took it and made it even worse. Then blamed Republicans for it.

The overwhelming majority of Republicans who supported the Heritage Plan, BTW, ONLY supported it as an alternative to single-payer insurance. The entire purpose of the Heritage Plan was a "just in case national health care becomes inevitable" emergency parachute.

From one of the authors of the Heritage Plan:
"Many ideas have been put forward to address this problem. Increasingly, pressure is building for some kind of national health insurance system in America. I believe that eventually the U.S. will have a "national health system," in the sense of a system that assures-each citizen of access to affordable health care. At issue is the kind of national system we should have. Unfortunately, many of the seemingly attractive proposals being offered have such serious side effects that they woul d be a step backward. Government-Funded Systems Consider the government-funded national health systems such as those found in Britain and Sweden."

https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/assuring-affordable-health-care-all-americans

SFC Casey O'Mally - Thanks for the verification that they were for it before they were against it.