[marstegreg]

“House Democrats will fight to ensure that children with pre-existing conditions continue to get coverage; that young people can stay on their parents’ plans until age 26; that pregnant women and breast cancer survivors can no longer be thrown off the rolls; and that seniors do not pay higher drug prices.”

So what if the Republicans offered up a bill including these things but repealing everything else? Do you think she would go for it then?

[Calvin Locke]

...and that seniors do not pay higher drug prices.”

Oh, so that's why they changed their minds on the death panels - so
seniors wouldn't be burdened with the inevitable cost increases.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“that pregnant women and breast cancer survivors can no longer be thrown off the rolls; and that seniors do not pay higher drug prices.”

And, at the same time, push policies that prevent development and/or approval of new therapies, take away FDA approval for expensive breast cancer therapies like Avastin, and decimate medicare. She's such a witch.

[Sgt_Schultze]

It was exactly the requirements that insurance companies could no longer exclude folks with pre-existing conditions and that the lifetime payout caps would be removed that required the libdems to make buying insurance mandatory. By making insurance companies responsible for payments for every ailment in unlimited sums, it was a recipe for higher premiums and/or bankrupt insurance companies.

If Republicans do the same things, how could the eventual results be any different?