So when the GOP replaces the ACA with their own version will it "be the best ever">

[Minimalist]

[Tiberius]

Here's the thing, I'm in no way supportive of our incoming President, but if he actually follows through on his promises I'll acknowledge it. If however he reneges on them I will call him on it.

Currently he has promised "insurance for all". I expect to see that. If not, everyone should shout and complain about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

SNL nailed this one.  Obamacare is a disaster, and republicans have a plan to replace it, it's called the "Affordable Care Act".

[Autumnlicious]

If however he reneges on them I will call him on it.

Currently he has promised "insurance for all". I expect to see that.

Does anyone else wonder why we keep on lowering the bar of our expectations for the President Elect before he takes office?

Everything above presupposes he keeps his promises (at least for this one time).

It also ignores that the ACA/Obamacare is "insurance for everyone" through supporting the "everyone who cannot pay" via subsidies.

So if the function is:

T(ACA) -> ACA

Then it's not really honest to accept that "insurance for everyone" is a change for the better considering it will converge on the same kind of status quo that we have right now.

So ultimately we're looking at an interruption in vital services for a subset of the population for the same old thing (if we take the phrase "Insurance for everyone" at face value). That is a negative.

[Minimalist]

[Tiberius]

If however he reneges on them I will call him on it.

Currently he has promised "insurance for all". I expect to see that.

Does anyone else wonder why we keep on lowering the bar of our expectations for the President Elect before he takes office?

Everything above presupposes he keeps his promises (at least for this one time).

It also ignores that the ACA/Obamacare is "insurance for everyone" through supporting the "everyone who cannot pay" via subsidies.

So if the function is:

T(ACA) -> ACA

Then it's not really honest to accept that "insurance for everyone" is a change for the better considering it will converge on the same kind of status quo that we have right now.

So ultimately we're looking at an interruption in vital services for a subset of the population for the same old thing (if we take the phrase "Insurance for everyone" at face value). That is a negative.

I'm not presupposing anything; I just don't see the point in assuming that everything potentially good he says is a lie. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We won't know until legislation is passed.

Also, the ACA is clearly not insurance for all as there are numerous stories of people who fall in the gap where they earn too much to get subsidies, but not enough to afford the premiums. Whether or not that's Obama's fault or not is irrelevant; the fact is that there are people in America who cannot afford the insurance premiums. That's a problem that needs to be fixed. If Trump's plan works, I'll gladly admit it.

If there's just a single person who can't get health insurance with his plan, I'll gladly call him on it.

[Crunchy]

[Crunchy]

The interesting question to me is how did the USA become so immune to pragmatism?

I blame jesus.  

I think you may be onto something. 
The USA has been an outlier when it comes to religiosity compared to other first world nations. Is it strange that a people so willing to accept myth in one part of their lives also accept myth when it comes to economics? A few years back I was reading about some conservative wack job who was convinced that Adam Smiths "invisible hand of the market" was actually gods hand.
 
Market fundamentalists invoke faith all the time so yah, I guess Jesus is to blame in a way.

[The Grand Nudger]

The free market will answer all of our healthcare prayers...it's just that sometimes, the answer is no.  

[Minimalist]