Oh we of little wisdom...didn't see it coming

So, if we boil down your concerns to a bit simpler statement, would the following be unfair?

"The PPACA is basically another corporate welfare program."

Expansion of Medicaid, yes, in some states.

Have you looked into the history of the individual mandate?  This was recommended in 1989 by the Heritage Foundation as a response to calls for a single payer system.  It was championed in the 1993 Republican proposal for healthcare reform called the  "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act" and this legislation included an individual mandate as well as the state-based insurance exchanges.   Later on you have Romneycare in Mass., which was very successful.

As early as 1994 the individual mandate was clearly recognized as "a tax" because that is the only way government can mandate a payment.

The bills that became the PPACA were developed in both chambers of Congress.  There was a joint committee that worked on the Senate version that included Republicans.  The final bill of course, was glommed together like Frankenstein in reconciliation, and, admittedly by that point, Republicans had reversed their ideas about an individual mandate preventing healthcare reform from becoming "just another handout."

It was not the law I wanted to see.  We got a few things that were desperately needed ... eliminating the pre-existing condition BS, we do have around 9 million more folks insured than were before either under plans from the exchanges or from the Medicaid expansion.  

I dare hope the Republicans will find ways to make the law better, but I hope everyone will pardon me if I don't hold my breath.  LOL. :)

I guess it's been confusing between people saying he's a communist, to he's a socialist to some really confused people who seem to think he'd be a fascist. Ugh... Isms and Americans... Confusion is the only norm for it.

Now, I didn't expect Obama to actually be one of the largest Pro-big business and pro-corporation Presidents we've had since Reagan, but in this area at least? He would seem to be. In reality...He just seems to be whatever he needs to be to get an end result, and to heck with what damage or harm it does in the process.

He really is a chameleon.

I realized Obama was primarily a Corporatist after he supported this legislation wholeheartedly.  Look at what has been done for Wall Street in the last 6 years.  Look beyond the hype on both "sides" (either tyrant or savior) and look at what the man has actually done.  

In most vectors that matter, in deed while not in word, his terms are merely the continuation of G W Bush's.

I don't disagree with you at all about the PPACA being more fascist than anything else.  It certainly isn't socialist or communist as so many are fond of droning on and on about.

I hated the idea of the mandate and I still do, personally.

However, as my take on the matter seems strange to you, ninurta, I have so say yours is equally odd to me.  It's not a matter of "one guy" at the Heritage Foundation supporting the idea.  Are you familiar with the impact that the Heritage Foundation's work has on right-wing political thought in this country?  The issue of the individual mandate is one of the fundamental crises of our time.  But it was originated in a conservative think-tank, was promoted for the better part of two decades by Republican legislators in their plans (that are almost IDENTICAL to the PPACA), how you personally feel about Mitt Romney to the side for a moment, he was and has been an extremely influential figure and representative of Republican political ideology (he was, after all, their Presidential candidate and very well might be again.)

For me, from my perspective, it just seems to be a matter of the most overt and despicable political hypocrisy to suddenly turn on a fundamental idea (the individual mandate) that your party has supported and then pretend like it's a new concept that your opponents created.

But that's just me.  Good call on the fascist thing though! I hadn't thought about that, and that is EXACTLY the innate flaw in the PPACA.

I think it can be described by a variety of "-isms", but it does not reflect the inherent ideals that used to be embraced by America.

@gryphon66, I'm familiar with the after the fact claims of heritage Foundation influence, and I'm also aware that, despite my activity in the 80's, I never heard of them until after the turn of the century - that leads me to suspect the current claims of their elevated importance.

Furthermore, I'm familiar with THIS claim of their evil machinations specifically, which is why I pointed out that a single guy who happened to be a member of the Heritage Foundation wrote a paper. The paper languished, and after the fact, someone, somewhere, found it and wanted to blow it out of proportion to support the current implementation. It was, most certainly, not a rallying cry at the time, or any sort of "Heritage Foundation Official Policy Position" - had it been, the Heritage Foundation would have been front page news, and the conservative demon of the day. It would have destroyed entirely any alleged "policy making influence" they would have had at the time.

You are correct - Romney is representative of what the Republicans are NOW, just as he was representative of what the Democrats were when he WAS one. They are the same... he just changed the letter beside his name after the neocon takeover of the Republican Party. I do hope that the republicans nominate him to run again, as you suggest they might - it will be the final nail in their coffin, and perhaps their demise will leave room in American politics for a serious opposition party. If they didn't learn anything from his dismal showing last time, they OUGHT to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Liberals and progressives have been screaming that the sky is falling ever since the last election. It amazes me to see how they fail to perceive that election as the last gasp of a dying party. I would think they would be dancing in the streets instead of wailing doom - they keys have been handed them on a silver platter, and it saddens me that so far they are too worried over the sky falling to get busy hammering the last stake in.

From my point of view, if they're not going to go in for the kill now, while the victim is gasping it's last, then they are just as unfit to lead as the Republicans. Their refusal to do so is to me just another sign of the sameness of the two. They hesitate to boldly move forward against their "opposition" while the iron is hot because in reality THERE IS NO OPPOSITION, and destroying their opponents would only uncover that fact to everyone's eyes. it would ruin the illusion. We need an actual, balanced opposition in politics, as opposed to the fake, theatrical opposition we have in DC now. Get rid of the charade, and finish destroying the nation already! A phoenix only rises when there are ashes to rise from.

I don't know how old you are. I misspent my youth of the 80's fighting communists. Our gripe against them was that they insisted that everyone tow the central party's line, that they could force everyone to do stuff. We were willing to fight, kill, and die to ensure that wouldn't come to us, too. Is it really logical to think that a people of that mindset would initiate an idea all by themselves to do the same thing they were fighting (literally at times "blood and guts and gore and veins in my teeth I wanna KILL" fighting) AGAINST to themselves? Not just voluntarily, but as THEIR OWN IDEA?

No. the notion that the Individual Mandate is a "conservative creation" is not factual. it's not even logical. We were literally fighting to keep governmental dictates to a minimum, not to be overrun by them.

We could have just laid down for that.

I think part of the problem is the confusion that has been installed in so many minds that "conservative", "neocon", and "republican" are all equivalent terms. They are not. I know next to nothing of the "Heritage Foundation", having only recently even ever heard of them, but if you think that was their policy, that would show right there that they are not "conservatives" - but may be "neocons", in which case formation of policy for "republicans" would have taken front stage after the "neocons" completed the takeover of the Republican party in the mid-90's.

As an eye-opener, I encourage you to search out the origins of the term "neocon", find out who first used it, and why.

If you know any liberals or progressives, would you please speak to them and tell them to quit whining and get to work finishing off the Republicans? There is no time like right now, and they should not let the initiative they've been handed slip away. I'll help - and I'm a conservative.

Neither of us needs the Republicans, because when any two people hold the same opinion, one of them is entirely unnecessary. I pick the Republicans to go, because of their betrayal of their constituency. At least the Democrats listen to and are true to their people.

maybe I should do an educational thread on the origin and aims of "Neocons", to combat the confusion, with links and graphs and charts and everything!