That happened under ACA, didn’t it?
See point 5: "Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure."
https://web.archive.org/web/20161110004206/https://www.donal...
I'm not a politician. I don't work for nor run any part of the legislative branch. I'm not a Republican, I've never even voted for them. I have zero interest in speculating about what one or another party might do in the future. But I do care about facts. Now do your worst with this.
1. That point 5 seems to me to be something that in a rational universe, could get enough votes from both sides of the aisle to pass. Of course we live in a universe where neither party wants to give the other party anything they could call "a win". An the Republicans will explicitly not allow anything to come to a vote unless it has the support of the majority of republicans. They could write a bill and bring it to a vote if they wanted to.
2. It appears the real hold up is that they don't want to do anything that would make health care better unless they can first repeal the ACA. You can think about that however you like, I certainly have my opinion.
And that's exactly the problem with politics. They don't vote for improvements, if that makes the more radical changes they want less necessary and thus appear less necessary. Especially under the shitty US election system allowing only two parties. The one who looses in the end is the citizen who just wants better healthcare.
[0] this yt channel is where I get my US healthcare news from: https://youtu.be/tMsSF2vDf6k
ps: Its funny the republicans only managed to pass repeal back when they knew obama would veto it.
I did not intend to suggest I am interested in otherwise discussing your personal interests in the political deceits and failures of either American party.
Reference: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpomete...
> The House GOP bill that has emerged as the leading option to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act includes no added price transparency provision.
So the bill that McCain helped defeat didn't contain improved transparency according to your own source. And the GOP hasn't introduced significant legislation since to address the problem, therefore Democrats supporting (or not supporting) it is all hypotheticals based on no actual legislation.
You quibble about how they failed to repeal ACA and follow up with new regulation. Factually, Trump and the Rs failed with their 3-step plan, right after step 1 -- hence we remain stuck with the lack of price transparency under the Democrats' Obamacare.
So, blaming Republicans is not factual.
This is a bizarre summary of the failed repeal of the ACA with a bill that wouldn't have even included the proposal they supposedly wanted.
Reference: the article you linked to
The article I linked points out that this price transparency could not be achieved in the very first legislative step -- by the nature of that first bill, related exclusively to tax and revenue since it originated in the House.
Politics is an art of compromises, to achieve what is doable with sufficient majorities, as well as taking into account popular support in view of the next round of elections.
In this case, the only change that could pass was to remove the tax-shaped penalty so that people are allowed to ignore Obamacare plans. Next would have been a basic repeal of Obamacare (blocked by Senate Democrats and McCain). Finally would have been new and very different regulation, including price transparency (which could not even be attempted since step two was blocked, the consensus was that new regulations should only be passed after repealing Obamacare, and Republicans failed to build a majority around that approach).
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34446325/ns/politics-health_care_r...
[1] Scroll down to point #5 in https://web.archive.org/web/20161110004206/https://www.donal...
Where is the link to the GOP's actions rather than their empty promises?
I replied to someone who falsely claimed that "Republicans who are supposedly for markets don't push for price transparency".
We all know that Democrats are the party entirely responsible for Obamacare and its lack of price transparency.
[Added for emphasis] Democrats created Obamacare without the full price transparency several people here seem to care about. Yet, you all choose to denounce Republicans -- who demonstrated in their attempt that they don't have a sufficient majority to repeal Obamacare, let alone introduce better healthcare regulation once it has been repealed.
> Actually Trump and the Republicans ran on a platform of price transparency, but Senate Democrats can block and have effectively blocked
The Democrats cannot block a piece of legislation that doesn't exist. You yourself set up the criteria and you've failed to meet it.
> I replied to someone who falsely claimed that "Republicans who are supposedly for markets don't push for price transparency".
Quite correctly. You cannot link to the Republican legislation that supposedly tackles this issue while they continue to control all three branches (inc. both houses of congress) because there is no legislation. They're tried nothing and accomplished even less.
Obama would have happily signed a pro-price transparently bill
Plus the poster I was responding to specifically made claims about the Republican's policies and what they claimed the Republicans had tried. If the Republicans don't bring up legislation the Democrats cannot be blamed for not voting for it (or Obama for not signing it).
During the 111th Congress, from the appointment of Al Franken until the death of Ted Kennedy, as well as during the term of his appointed successor Paul G. Kirk, the Democratic party held 58 seats in the Senate and caucused together with 2 more senators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress "gave the Senate Democratic caucus sixty votes, enough to defeat a filibuster in a party-line vote."
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.h... "providing Democrats with something they had long hoped for: 60 votes, and thus at least the symbolic ability to overcome filibusters."