sigh, here we go again. this happens so often, I'm surprised even you expect your posts to be taken seriously. I'm not ignoring facts, I was ignoring your completely incorrect statements. You're constantly either intentionally misrepresenting articles you post hoping no one will read them or you haven't read them yourself and are just making shit up hoping no one will read them. But, to put you in your place again, I'll indulge yet another one of your tantrums.
First, I haven't called anyone any names in this thread.
Second, Max Baucus is a Democrat, the bill was passed on a party line vote and signed into law by a Democrat President. The fact that Max Baucus engaged in corrupt crony corporatism, having his friends in the pharmaceutical industry write the bill or that Romney passed something similar in uber leftist Massachusetts, does not make it "essentially a right wing plan." Democrats have been in bed with corporations for decades, just like establishment Republicans. This bill is 100% leftist policy and it's utterly absurd to say otherwise.
Third, it's well documented and widely reported that the pharmaceutical industry, not the health insurance industry was by far the biggest lobbying influence in drafting the ACA. The piece you posted even says so:
The pharmaceutical giant that just hired Fowler actively supported the passage of Obamacare through its membership in the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby. Indeed, PhRMA was one of the most aggressive supporters - and most lavish beneficiaries - of the health care bill drafted by Fowler. Mother Jones' James Ridgeway proclaimed "Big Pharma" the "big winner" in the health care bill.
Baucus and Fowler both went on to lobby for big pharma, not health insurance companies. Again, from the piece you linked:
"Elizabeth Fowler is leaving the White House for a senior-level position leading 'global health policy' at Johnson & Johnson's government affairs and policy group...And now, Fowler will receive ample rewards from that same industry as she peddles her influence in government and exploits her experience with its inner workings to work on that industry's behalf, all of which has been made perfectly legal by the same insular, Versailles-like Washington culture that so lavishly benefits from all of this."
FYI, Johnson & Johnson IS NOT a health insurance provider. Now, you may believe all for-profit entities have the same concerns and motives, leading you to mistakenly think what's good for big pharma must be good for big insurance, therefore Spartanmack has been owned. But you're wrong and it would be tough to be more wrong. Anyone with any understanding how health care works in America, knows big pharma and big insurance are not the same. You can see this in who benefited most from the ACA - big pharma (again I refer you to the first quote above, taken directly from the article you posted), and which industry got most screwed - health insurance. The bet for big pharma is that their friends in government will take care of them when the government takes over healthcare and the insurance companies, providers and device manufacturers will be the ones that get screwed.
The ACA did, in fact make private insurance worse for us AND the insurance companies. That's why so many states saw so many insurance companies pull out of the exchanges and out of doing business entirely in several states in the first couple years of the law - and they haven't gone back. They didn't leave entire states in droves because the ACA was a huge boon to their profits.
So, you're wrong again and I didn't need an article from the Daily Wire or the Heritage Foundation - all I had to do was read the article you linked (I didn't really need to read it as I already knew big pharma wrote the ACA, but I did because I always find it funny how often I disprove your lies with your own links - it happens so often, I've lost count).
Now as usual you're either going to disappear and pretend this never happened, or engage in some name calling, hand waiving, moving the goal posts or try to argue that Baucus is basically a Republican and that big pharma is basically the same thing as big health insurers and then accuse me of doing exactly what you do so you can tell yourself you won the internets "again."
