Ahhh, civility. Thank you too.

You know I've been sharply critical of some of your statements in the past, usually because I felt they were not specific, or "sweeping generalizations". The comment here "most of what he, if not all, of what he promised were just made up and he never tried to do them." is a whopper example.

Under the (incessantly and unreasonably reviled) rhetoric of "Hope and Change", Obama was very clear in seeking to finally realize a a comprehensive national health care plan, equality in the military, leaving Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan, going hell-bent after terrorists, stimulating the economy, saving (yes - 'bailing out') the auto companies, ending the Bush tax cuts, regulating financial institutions, protecting consumers, extending payroll tax cuts, adding new taxes for wealthy individuals, and moving toward a comprehensive new immigration policy. In short, I find that agenda to be damn ambitious, and impressive. Every one of those goals required super effort to blunt the power of opponents.

With exception of the ACA, please tell me that ANY of the above are unimportant, and/or WHY any of the eventual outcomes in those areas is misguided or negative.

Now, about the ACA. You've asked repeatedly for someone, ANYONE, to debate you on this topic. I've resisted because of the more negative climate which has existed before today. So here are a few opening thoughts:

A comprehensive national plan for delivering health care has been the 'holy grail' for many for almost a century. It has proved almost impossible to enact in any form because of the stranglehold of the coordinated health insurance lobby and their other self-interest buddies. Every poll ever taken said the vast majority of Americans believed it was a high priority, and agreed with the idea that it could and should be realized as part of the fundamental mission of our great country. Debate all day the reasons why people agree with these two points, but certainly the facts about how many people are uninsured, how poor some care stats are in relation to other developed nations, and how costs continue to rise astronomically, have swayed the opinions of many. Obama went all in. Don't think he "didn't try". He arm-twisted and cajoled, insisted and finally compromised to assuage the doctors, lawyers, insurance companies, etc., and arrive at something decent. In the end, that's what he got. He got the overall structure, with the gem cornerstones we don't have to try to get piecemeal in the future. The only big one he had to sacrifice was tort reform. (BTW- the disinterest in pursuing that is a Romney negative point.)

While on the subject of making an effort, I do wish you would stop claiming the President "lied" about his campaign promises and his later efforts to get legislation passed. The sport of "percentages of campaign promises kept" is pure media nonsense. So even though Obama is credited with having "kept" an unusually high percentage of those "promises", PLEASE, can we at least give nodding recognition of the serious limitations to Presidential power. Theirs is not to do, but try to influence others to do.

The reality about a 1000-page bill affecting everyone is that it's effects cannot be initially measured or predicted. We both know this and that there will have to be changes to make things work better in the future. The big difference between us is that you don't trust Obama. Therefore you reject ACA. I don't feel that distrust, so I don't have to immediately dislike the idea and basics of ACA. After looking hard at it, I am willing to support it as a desperately needed foundation.

I understand why they do it, especially after the Court decision, but it's still inappropriate for the Republicans to shamelessly surround every reference to the ACA with scare tactics and downright false information. The truth is that they DO NOT KNOW whether specific negative outcomes will occur, and that they will not be offset by positive outcomes.

I welcome your identifying one or more specific negative outcomes which will inevitably occur through the ACA, and for which you cannot see or accept a positive outcome to offset the problem area(s). I have an advantage here, because if you can find an unquestionable problem, then we will also see a clear legislative solution. If there are positives from the law, such as no denial of coverage, those simply stand as a benefit. Another unchallenged benefit is that the ACA insurance mandate will bring millions more into the health care system and the US Treasury than is currently in the system, mostly from those who use the system but have not been contributing.

So, I argue the ACA from the fact that it overcomes the decades of inertia, sets us on a new course with far greater chance of efficiently addressing healthcare. If you do cite negatives, I am confident I can list positives which overshadow them. In the end you might even change your mind that repealing ACA is a good idea.