After all, the basic idea of the ACA started out as a Heritage Foundation idea.

That's been a debatable topic for years.

Yes, some have promoted the argument that AHCA has roots in the Heritage Foundation and in "RomneyCare", and therefore Republicans are inconsistent in supporting the latter but not the former.

But this argument is seriously flawed. Here are three (of several) reasons.

First, the idea of the Heritage Foundation was more to reduce instances of people getting health care for free when they were able to pay. The "mandate" in Massachusetts gave tax credits for those who participated, but did not openly penalize those simply for not participating. Those who didn't participate were not eligible for the tax credits. Mitt Romney stated clearly back then, "You will be free to choose but your choices will have consequences". It was a way to get people insured and at the same time, force those who didn't carry insurance to pay when they received medical services. Many healthy men in their 20's with no pre-existing conditions often make a choice not to purchase health insurance. That is the risk they choose to take. But the AHCA mandate penalizes the person for making a choice.

So in essence, Mitt Romney was saying, "If you don't sign up, no free ride if you need medical services". Barack Obama is saying, "If you don't sign up, we'll penalize you". The former is trying to implement some level of accountability - the latter is implementing a fascist revenue-collecting shell-game.

Second, let's assume for a minute that the specifics of AHCA and RomneyCare were the same. They aren't, but let's assume they are. It's a fallacy to assume they were the same because of similar philosophical underpinnings. You know that I am an admirer of Ayn Rand. One of the many things Rand stressed was the identification of premises, because they are so critical. The premises of Romney/Heritage and the premises of Barack Obama are as different as night and day. The former was a blend of some fiscal accountability (and certainly some social/practical utilitarianism), whereas it's becoming increasingly clear that the strongest proponents of the AHCA want to move this ultimately in the direction of a single payer system - which would absolutely bankrupt American.

(Slight digression: I have said this before and I'll say it again - under normal circumstances I do not care one bit who crosses the border into this country, so long as they behave themselves and obey our laws. But given the mess we have today, I don't support immigration reform and I think we need to more aggressively secure our borders until we get this mess straightened out. )

Third...the Massachusetts plan had bipartisan support. AHCA didn't receive a single Republican vote and was jammed through with tactics that make the current Tea Party actions understandable (not defensible, but understandable). Barack Obama brought much of the current opposition on himself with the way he and his supporters rammed AHCA down the throats of this country.

There is far more than that, to describe the differences between the 2, but that summarizes the major points.

The individual mandate, the cornerstone of AHCA, is blatantly unconstitutional. One of the saddest days in U.S. history was Justice Roberts saving AHCA by deeming the mandate a "tax". By constitutional law, taxes must originate in the House of Representatives. AHCA originated in the Senate. The ACHA as is, never received a proper up-and-down vote in Congress. There have been questionable decisions from the Supreme Court, but that one takes the cake. Just like even "pro-choice" justices on the Supreme Court later regretted their decision on Roe v Wade, I predict Roberts and others will regret just how badly they erred.

Barack Obama is on seriously bad ground when he states on the one hand that health care is a "right", but then penalizes those who elect not to insure themselves. Explain to me (not you personally, just asking out loud) how something can have a "right", yet be penalized economically for electing not to exercise that right. It's hard to imagine a more untenable position. You know the AHCA is very problematic when labor unions and moderate democrats are concerned. Even Debbie Wasserman Schultz had a moment of lucidity when she reached out to her party to fix some of the serious issues with AHCA.

p.s. Bill F, I saw your post yesterday to Victor, along the lines of "our party messed up here". I appreciate (really, I do) your honesty. I'm sure we won't agree on every item, but that kind of honesty is important. And believe me, I don't like what the Tea Party is doing. My hope is that the House writes up a bill that pushes the individual mandate back a year, so that we can get some kind of committee together to truly look at where the specific problems are. Sadly, I'm not sure the Senate will agree. So it might be a bit too late for that. We'll see.