It is true that the not-yet Tea Partiers hated TARP. But they were launched by Santelli’s rant in Feb. 09. The first big policy announcement from the Obama White House had just been made. And some HARP or HARP like program was announced where the tax payer was going to bail-out people with deeply under-water mortgages so they could stay in their homes. Santelli asked “How many of you want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage?” Check it out. That launched the Tea Party.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/19/santelli-remembers-famous-tea-party-rant-6-years-later/

A theory about political retribution that requires you to skip over the guy whose name is actually IN Obamacare may have a flaw or two.

Especially since Obama not only won in 2012, but would almost certainly have beaten Trump OR Clinton in 2016. Another four years to “play out”?

Very true of obamacare. AND, the plan they will receive for 2017 is probably not much better than the “lousy” plans they had before the ACA was implemented.

Doubt that an HSA plan is going to be a good replacement for the folks who couldn’t afford the subsidized premiums, particularly in the rust belt. I also imagine there are a lot of “pre-existing conditions” to be found among them.

Remains to be seen what trump and Congress settle on and how they address this aspect. Not clear from the campaign info. A little clearer on Ryan’s proposal.

Bob_CA Says:
November 11th, 2016 at 1:14 am …

Losing their office has not stopped the Democrats from defending Obamacare. We have all read lists of their losses since it passed. I don’t have the numbers in front of me but we know they have lost 12 senate seats, from 60 to 48, gone from 29 governorships to less than 20, lost many state legislatures and now the presidency.

See also this article:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/10/obamacare-supporters-vow-total-war-to-defend-the-law/”

Good observation. Obamacare was designed as a wealth and social power transfer tax. It was intended to bleed some so as to underwrite others. And, by bleeding the marginally surviving, or the frugally hopeful of that critical 6 to 8 thousand dollars per annum, to reduce them to economically to a dwindling and tractable population.

Socialism, that is to sat the assumption that we all “belong” (in the possessive sense) to humanity, and that what humanity wants is defined by what the manipulative vanguard says it wants – or deserves – has the status of a metaphysical/moral principle among the no limits, by any means necessary, left.

Someone in straightened or very modest economic circumstances, but in good health and prudent, may, with careful planning and saving manage to accumulate for some number of years and then leverage their way, and on their own, out of the situation.

Tax them another 6 to 8 thousand a year, and give them virtually nothing in return for the money, and in 4 years you have deprived them of any opportunity for savings toward capital accumulation: no new car, no small business start-up, no movement to a better environment. All are results which under progressivism, are desired ends.

One of the more shocking things in listening to disappointed Democrats talk, was just how fully developed, blatant, unapologetic, and morally entitled was their population replacement socialism “plan” (or anticipated trajectory) for America.

Listening to them, they sounded like spoiled children who were hoping that their hated parents would finally die and get out of the way so they could finally consume and sell off what remained of their substance.

And what shocked me also was that so many compassionate Republicans could not see it themselves.

I guess if no one is actively robbing or shooting at you at the moment, you just don’t see the problem.

There is no making nice with progressives and their clients. They don’t want freedom for themselves; they want you dead.

While I agree with you that these belong more in the “insult” category than in the “being ignored” category, I suspect that most of us who saw these as insults never voted for Obama.

I was born and raised in a rural area, and a third of my cousins live in rural areas. As such, I considered Obama’s “bitter clingers” remark an insult the moment I became aware of it. But had Obama never uttered that statement, I was still not going to vote for him.

The political reality for THEM, is that a large part of their constituency (the part trump won over, the part that did NOT vote for clinton) are NOT being served will by the policy.

They are FAR better off fighting for certain provisions to be part of the new plan vs fighting for obamacare itself.

With that background, makes NO sense whatsoever for McCain or Graham to make their stand on behalf of obamacare in their “reach across the aisle” just to “poke their thumb in the eye” of Republicans.

Despite that, I think that enough of the Republicans like Collins and Murkowski that I mentioned before and those like John McCain and Lindsey Graham that love to “reach across the aisle” to poke their thumb in the eye of their fellow Republicans will not support the nuclear option that it cannot be invoked.