Because it’s too many pages written in a way that few can untangle/understand.
They depend on truthful explanations of what any legislation means and will do.
The ACA is as centrist as possible, to get nearly everyone covered. There is literally no more centrist way to do it. Anything further would have involved direct government intervention. So, you’re just factually wrong about the ACA.
Speaking of lies, let’s not forget the Republican lies about death panels and other ridiculous stuff about the ACA.
I think that it isn’t that words fail. It’s the simple common sense that follows from when others are always looking for an excuse to blame anyone else.
Look, the ACA was not written well, not as encompassing as it should have been, had too many faults. Basically bad legislation with good intent but rushed through because it COULD.
The fact that either party could have written better since it’s inception doesn’t simply fall on the Republicans, for ANY reason you can drum up (and admittedly, likely to be trivially true)
Centrist by way of being a compromise, yes.
Centrist by way of helping the most people? Not really.
It was aimed at helping a small subset of people to the detriment of a whole lot of others.
This is definitely false. It helped millions get insurance, and even people who had insurance saw benefits – for example, I’m still covering my daughter in her 20s because of the ACA.
When one side makes a proposal, and the other side is interested only in destroying all proposals that side makes, compromise is NOT an option. The cat wants to kill the mouse, and you would blame both sides for not coming to a compromise? 
‘Trivially true…’
It’s right up there with, ‘Alternate facts’
Is remarkable phrasing. I’m pretty sure that’s exactly how the Republicans view all attempts to use fact based protocols, legislation, or arguments.
They def have all the BEST phrasing!
Yes, Millions… How many millions?
Ok, you guys can win the day. I can’t argue against all the excuses and attacks on “Republicans”
If you don’t see it, you will not ever.
Never was a fan of funhouse mirrors-Sorry.
It is funny that you mention mirrors. They show you, you 
Assumes a level of rationality that has not been in evidence among Republicans as a group for at least the past 20 years. The ACA that you find so flawed is similar in its broad outlines to what Republicans themselves once proposed, and I believe was put forward by the Heritage Foundation, yet when Obama proposed it, it suddenly became the work of the devil, to be opposed tooth and nail and denounced as “socialism”. Today Republicans want to replace it with Trump’s plan, known informally as “something terrific”, the details of which are contained in a secret binder that we will all get to see “in two weeks”, as of about four years ago. If this is your idea of rational judgment, go for it, but count me out.
About 20 million. And that doesn’t count people who could now afford insurance because of changes to preexisting condition laws.
Eta: cite
out of?
Did you look at the cite? There’s a graph right at the top that can answer your question with some basic math.
Actually can you back up this statement please,
You’re asking a lot of questions, even after they’re answered. So please, back up this statement that appears to be false at first glance.
Are you asking for cites or are you asking whether the “detriment” is your definition of detriment?
The people who had their rates go up
The people who had to find new doctors
Vs
20 Million now insured who were previously uninsured or under insured.
Your statement was that it helped “a small subset of people to the detriment of a whole lot of others.” Since you said a small subset were helped, I assume there were well over twenty million people who had their rates go up or had to find new doctors. So how many were affected?
I’d think that McConnell would breathe a sigh of relief if the Supreme Court preserves the ACA. The alternative is that the entire health care market gets thrown into chaos, and Biden and Pelosi quickly push forward a government-option health care plan and pound on the “do-nothing Senate” for not approving it. And it’s not like Senate Republicans will have their own alternative to offer – the problem that Republican’s have had since the ACA was passed is that they’re on board with the “repeal” but can’t agree on the “replace.”
I get what Kearsen is saying. The ACA has always had the primary messaging that it helps poor people, that it’s insurance to help poor people. When we’ve told people in our family that we “use Obamacare” to buy our insurance (we’re self employed), they’re shocked. They either 1. Make the incorrect assumption that we’re poor, 2. Express disbelief that we actually use it to buy our insurance (we’ve had relatives say we’re just claiming that to score a political point), or 3. Show genuine surprise that it’s useful for middle class families like ours.
Aside from from protecting preexisting conditions and allowing young adults to remain on their parents’ insurance longer, a large portion of the population still thinks the ACA really only offers insurance to poor people.
The problem the Democratic party faces is that, over the years, they have become known for focusing more on poverty alleviation and less on lifting the middle class.
I think there needs to be something that messages on drastically lowering premiums and deductibles, and less on covering the uninsured and underinsured. Most people have insurance, or don’t consider themselves “underinsured” (mainly because they don’t know any different).
Just my two nickels.