[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don't have a sufficient majority to repeal Obamacare, let alone introduce better healthcare regulation once it has been repealed.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."