No, no, we couldn’t possibly ban all of this cash via constitutional amendment and publicly finance elections, so that our politicians and would-be politicians could focus on their jobs and doing what’s best for all Americans, not just their donors.. What are you, some sort of Communist?

Welcome to our modern democracy, Daniel. I assume you recently woke up from a coma or were recently defrosted after having been frozen for several decades. Why, yes, it is disgusting that our politicians of every stripe have to sell themselves to the wealthy, corporations, and special interests groups in order to have any sort of chance of winning or holding office. And yes, I suppose the entire system does look like those same rich folks, corporations, and special interests are buying our government one politician at a time and subverting our Republic all so they can have their interests met at the expense of the nation.

Given what happened on his watch, he should be humble. Penitent even. He has had the good graces to stay out of the limelight, so credit where it is due.

Oh no, they can and frequently are. I'm not a fan of the ACA. I don't think it does enough to contain health care costs and I don't particularly like the idea of everyone being forced into buying a product from an insurance company. But I do like the fact that it provides more coverage to people who otherwise would be denied or could not afford it. And I have yet to hear the GOP offer another suggestion as to how we could provide coverage for those groups.

Considering the majority of the ACA hasn't actually started being enforced yet, this theory still has yet to meet reality.

Yes, it was an idea. But it was a distinctly Republican idea that favored a free market solution to providing near-universal coverage for all Americans. 20 years ago this was an acceptable business friendly Republican solution to a problem. Now it's socialism and government overreach.

It would be useful again to mention that the Heritage Foundation thought it was constitutional back in '93 when they came up with the idea for the individual mandate.

[It SHOULD be banned in all circumstances (even the "life of the mother" crack is enough to colapse the dam, that provision was in many laws that existed pre Roe v Wade] I disagree. The long standing morality of self-defense is unquestioned. Taking a human life is permissible, albeit regrettable, if that person threatens your life. This does not change simply because that person exists in the womb.

My first question would be why aren't you pushing a constitutional amendment to ban abortion altogether except in cases when the woman's life is threatened? The act is the killing of a human being. It is wrong. So why dance around the edges of the issue? Let's make the case that it should be banned in almost all circumstances.

[But parties change.] Funny. That's the same reason why I'm no longer voting Republican. They used to know that there was a difference between the health of the nation and the health of big business. Now the two ideas are horribly conjoined. Sounds like Mr. Davis has embraced that idea as well, so he should find a welcome home in the GOP filled with like minds.