No, I was precise enough. Your evidence is that Obama was forced to compromise with members of his own party to get the legislation passed. Nothing more. You might claim that Obama would have made concessions large enough to garner republican support but you've obviously offered no evidence to back that up.
This is nothing different than what you've already stated before. As I said, it's just that you won't accept it, not that the evidence doesn't exist. Obama made high-profile overtures to members of the GOP on this issue.
It's convenient to claim that Obama simply compromised with his own party (which apparently also includes independents), but it's not accurate. The root of the line in the sand was politics, not substance, as evidenced by flip-flopping of members of the GOP as soon as it became apparent that someone wanted them to put their votes where their mouths were.
The republican proposal was the more intelligent way to solve the problem, get the spending under control before you greatly expand the program.
Supported by nothing. GOP's proposal, to the extent that you can even call it such a thing, was nibbling at the edges of the problem. There is an avalanche of evidence as to how to tackle the HC issue, since every other developed country in the world does it better than we do. Tort reform is so far from being equal to the scale of the problem that it's hilarious.
That horse has left the barn, you've already admitted that moderate democrats were the ones that caused the compromises that you've brought up. Trying to label them as conservatives or claiming that they "supported the Republican orthodoxy" isn't going to get a lot of traction.
Traction with whom? My goal isn't to convince you -- these aren't PMs, and I've already pointed out that you don't accept evidence -- it's to lay out the facts for everyone else who might be reading. The ACA contains conservative ideas, it's a matter of fact.
Actually it's a mark of the inherent unrealistic nature of your position that I had to come up with such an example.
Actually, it's the first thing that I said. Political opportunism is not unrealistic. You can even point to the 2010 midterms as evidence that it worked as a strategy.
There's no way you'll convince anyone that the health care bill was close enough to a bipartisan idea that adding a few ideas that republicans might support would be enough to tip the scales to get them to support it.
Who is trying to do that? My position is that the Republicans wouldn't agree to *anything*. The difference here is that I recognize it as intransigence, and "others" see it as a lack of outreach on the part of the POTUS.
I have a hard time believing that Obama was stupid enough to think that adding something like the individual mandate would be sufficient to get republicans to ignore everything they disliked about the bill and support it. Clearly, if Obama knew that adding those provisions to the bill would not gain him a single vote then claiming that adding those provisions was some sort of bi-partisan compromise is silly.
The individual mandate and the insurance exchanges. Why do you keep ignoring the exchanges? The only time you've ever even acknowledged that they existed, was to wrongly suppose that the insurance companies had something to do with it.
I'll bet that Obama would have given them tort reform, too, but only for an actual vote. He'll throw the Democratic trial lawyers under the bus, but after the debacle of the ARRA, he's not doing it for free, since unlike the mandate and the exchanges, he probably doesn't actually believe in it.