The Republican party is the chief cause of govt. inaction for crucial issues.

However, I should mention that we're not here to argue Reagan, we're talking about the current Republican party, as I have stated. I should note that Obamacare's effects are neither devastating nor wildly unpopular, in fact they are very helpful. Looking at recent polls, it would appear that Obamacare has a 37-40% approval rating. Let's dig a little deeper. When asking those who disliked the ACA why they did, 80% said they didn't want the gov. in health care, 76% said they feared for the costs, and 58% didn't like having insurance for everyone. That's one flaw with my opponent's argument- he says that people can't get health insurance. That's a lie- anyone can get health insurance. [1] Looking at your sources, they contradict all other credible sources. Your tax argument is completely inaccurate. 85% of people with health insurance will be almost unaffected by the tax hikes, which apply almost solely to people making $200K income, and very large businesses, no one else. These are necessary so that coverage can be given to people with pre-existing conditions, the elderly, and the poor, so they can also afford a doctor visit. As a whole, the accessibility, quality, and costs of health insurance are all improved. In fact, tax CREDITS are given to the low-middle income classes. Your tax argument is invalid. [2] [3] Therefore, I reaffirm my argument that the Republican time-wasting on Obamacare has been both unreasonable and untrue. As for its popularity, that's another issue. While over half the population may not be enamored with the ACA, most people view all of its individual components highly. As a non-partisan poll shows (link is below if anyone wants to see), the majority of the components that the Affordable Care Act contains are highly approved of by the American public, however, the least popular components are the ones that are the most well known? Why? The GOP exaggerates those only, and makes false cases and ridiculous arguments to try to prove their point. [1] As for your large tax increase story, keep in mind that it's a lot better than it would be without it. Did the ACA reduce taxes. .. no. But it reduces the rampant medical expense increase of the millennium, it reduces our huge Medicare deficits, and most people have been happy with their new plans. To conclude this Obamacare argument, my opponent's argument has been proved false. The Republican argument against Obamacare is unfounded, inaccurate and absurd. To call Obama a radical is like calling Bush a liberal. It's absurd. A study by political scientists have placed Obama as the most moderate leader of the last few decades, more so than Truman, Clinton, and LBJ. The Republican party is engaging in baseless mud-slinging when they call him a radical, because he's not. He's not radically liberal, in fact he seems concerned with trying to cure the strife and increasing political divide within Congress. He doesn't get much support- the political divide has been growing over the past decades, as the two parties diverge further away. The Republicans, in their attempt to get support from the truly radical Tea Party,are leaning far righter than the Democrats are leaning left. Their stubborn partisanship and inability to accept Democratic proposals is what is helping to stagnate Congress. [4] Your comments on Greece and Spain are also wrong. The governments there stepped back and let the situation work itself out, with disastrous results. I'd also like to mention that you need to answer my arguments about immigration, government intervention, and economic policy. I don't want to limit this debate to Obama-care. For the reasons above, I have reaffirmed my initial statements about Republican partisanship and backlog being unfounded and inaccurate, and stagnating Congress. Sources: 1. . http://obamacarefacts.com... 2. . http://jeffduncan.house.gov... 3. . http://obamacarefacts.com... 4. . http://www.businessinsider.com...