[kelnos]

That's... not arguing against anything I said?

Maybe I wasn't clear. Let me try again. Many of the policies behind the ACA had long been championed by Republicans, or even originated in conservative circles. For example:

1. The individual mandate was something the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) originally came up with back in the 80s, and was presented as an alternative to Clinton's healthcare plans in the 90s.

2. The state-based exchange system was something already present in some red states like Utah, and the concept is very similar to Republican proposals (again) back in the 90s. (This shouldn't be surprising: conservatives tend to prefer that states administer programs like these. Not a criticism; just noting a tendency.)

3. Much of the ACA's framework is similar to Republican Governor Mitt Romney's healthcare reform in Massachusetts from 2006.

Sure, there are parts of the ACA that Republicans genuinely didn't support (e.g. Medicaid expansion, high-income-earner tax increases, requiring insurers to cover contraception). But big, fundamental parts of it were similar to or exactly like conservative healthcare reform plans that had been proposed over the past couple decades.

The only reason I can see to explain why Republicans so vehemently fought and voted against the ACA (and have subsequently repeatedly tried -- and failed -- to repeal it) is because they didn't want Democrats to get credit for enacting it, and once it became "blue policy", it was automatically capital-B Bad to them.

It's also telling that Republicans have failed so miserably at repealing it (though they have done it damage). That's because they have no alternative... because the ACA is more or less what they wanted in the first place.

[arcticbull]

Yep, it's basically a federal version of Romneycare. [1]

[1] https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2...

Actually come to think of it a very similar pole reversal happened in Canada with the "Trudeau/Liberal Carbon Tax" -- a program originally proposed by the British Columbia Conservative Party, first implemented in Alberta by a Conservative Party and proposed federally by Stephen Harper of the Federal Conservatives.

[kelnos]

Yup, that's a huge reason why I think all of this is just petty bullshit from the GOP. Granted, even though Romney is a Republican, that doesn't mean that every other Republican has to agree with him.

While Romney has said a lot of mixed stuff over the years about the ACA, starting with pledging to repeal it during his 2012 presidential campaign, his more recent rhetoric has softened by orders of magnitude, voting against some of the repeal efforts, voting in favor of some modifications, expressing the need for a replacement plan before repealing it, and acknowledging that repealing it would cause millions of people to lose coverage. I don't agree with his position overall, but I think he's been a fairly "reasonable Republican" about it, including his belief that this sort of legislation belongs at the state level and not the federal level.

But there are plenty of Republicans in the House and Senate (more in the House, I suppose) that just seem rabidly, irrationally anti-ACA. Even while chanting "repeal and replace", they seem to forget the "replace" part of it.

Republican voters seem irrational as well: while opposition to it has softened since the Obama years, it's still pretty high (~70% or so), but you get weird effects. Like if you refer to it as "the ACA" instead of "Obamacare", Republicans don't hate it as much. Or if you don't mention "Obamacare"/"ACA" at all, and instead take a bunch of parts of the law and ask if they support them individually (like "do you support requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions?"), you see less opposition, and even see a majority of Republican voters supporting some of its provisions.