Democrats in the news

Diogenes said:
You don't appear to understand what negotiation entails, do you?
Click to expand...
That's not what I asked. Johnson and trump don't "negotiate" in that sense of the word.

Search Assist

Most Republicans in Congress have historically opposed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with numerous attempts to repeal or amend it since its passage in 2010. The exact number can vary with each Congress, but generally, the majority of Republican lawmakers have voted against the ACA and its provisions. Wikipedia Ballotpedia

Republican Opposition to the Affordable Care Act​

Historical Context​

Since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted in 2010, Republican opposition has been significant. The law has faced numerous repeal attempts and legislative challenges.

Key Votes and Opposition​

  • Initial Passage: The ACA passed the House with 219 votes, including only one Republican. In the Senate, it passed 60-39, with all Democrats voting in favor and all but one Republican opposing it.
  • Repeal Attempts: Republicans have held multiple votes to repeal the ACA. For instance, in 2011, the House passed a repeal bill with 245 votes, all from Republicans and three Democrats. By 2017, the House had voted to repeal the ACA 67 times.

Current Opposition​

As of now, a significant majority of Republicans in Congress continue to oppose the ACA. This includes:

  • House of Representatives: Nearly all Republican members oppose the ACA.
  • Senate: A similar trend is observed, with most Republican senators against the ACA.

Summary of Republican Stance​

The Republican Party has consistently opposed the ACA, advocating for its repeal or significant amendments. This opposition remains a central issue in their healthcare policy discussions.
 
christiefan915 said:
That's not what I asked. Johnson and trump don't "negotiate" in that sense of the word.
Click to expand...

You don't know unless you try.

BTW, do you know what Schumer's Democrats are demanding as their price for ending their filibuster?

I'll understand if you have to ask Search Assist or Indivisible.org to find an answer that you won't be ashamed to post, of course.
 
Diogenes said:
Look it up. Feel free to use biased sources and fact-check sites (that nobody seems to fact-check).
Click to expand...
Already did. "Chuck Schumer wants to end the government shutdown by negotiating a deal that includes a permanent extension of enhanced Obamacare subsidies and other concessions from Republicans."
 
christiefan915 said:
Already did. "Chuck Schumer wants to end the government shutdown by negotiating a deal that includes a permanent extension of enhanced Obamacare subsidies and other concessions from Republicans."
Click to expand...


And that's not acceptable. So, tell Chuck to think again, after he caves on the filibuster.
 
Diogenes said:
And that's not acceptable. So, tell Chuck to think again, after he caves on the filibuster.
Click to expand...
Boo hoo. Maga logic: Permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, acceptable. Permanent subsidies for Obamacare, no way.

Why should trump and his grifter pals get even more money from the government than they already have?

"Yes, many of Trump's tax cuts, particularly those benefiting wealthy individuals and corporations, are designed to be permanent, while some provisions for middle-class families are set to expire. This has led to concerns that the tax benefits disproportionately favor the wealthy."
 
christiefan915 said:
Boo hoo.
Click to expand...

Then let the shutdown continue. It's not hurting me.

Democrats (the minority) don't get to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit by holding SNAP hostage, and POTUS is permanently laying off nonessential feds as we speak.

Perhaps Senator Thune will take Fetterman's advice and send Chuck away with nothing.

:devilish:
 
Diogenes said:
Then let the shutdown continue. It's not hurting me.

Democrats (the minority) don't get to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit by holding SNAP hostage, and POTUS is permanently laying off nonessential feds as we speak.

Perhaps Senator Thune will take Fetterman's advice and send Chuck away with nothing.

:devilish:
Click to expand...
I would argue that the shutdown is actually helping you.
 
christiefan915 said:
Boo hoo. Maga logic: Permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, acceptable. Permanent subsidies for Obamacare, no way.

Why should trump and his grifter pals get even more money from the government than they already have?

"Yes, many of Trump's tax cuts, particularly those benefiting wealthy individuals and corporations, are designed to be permanent, while some provisions for middle-class families are set to expire. This has led to concerns that the tax benefits disproportionately favor the wealthy."
Click to expand...
And permanent tax cuts for the middle class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top