There is also the mantra that Republicans are the party of small government and fiscal responsibility. Nope, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is what they want to spend the money on. This is just a fact, easily verified by looking at the debt across decades of various administrations and congressional alignments.

A few years ago Ted Cruz and company very nearly shut down the government and defaulted on the national debt, insisting that raising it was irresponsible and laying it at the feet of President Obama. They insisted any increase in spending had to be offset by a cut somewhere else. Sounds like a really bold, principled stand. Then this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/01/11/republica...

Now that Republicans are fully in charge, they just authorized an escalating increase of the debt limit, running from $580B/year (2017) to $946B/year (2026), or a $10T increase over the next 10 years. There was no dissent, it was just quietly passed. I'm not saying it was wrong or irresponsible to do -- I'm just saying the politics are transparent, if they weren't already.

I see it as part of the DC bubble effect. What is considered "pro business" is defined by corporate lobbyists, what is "pro labor" by the unions with the largest bureaucracies, and so on.

> their policies tend to be friendly to existing big businesses, but may be deeply hostile to new or merely potential businesses.

There is a big distinction between "pro free enterprise" and "pro business". The former supports capitalism, the latter crony capitalism.

> Under Republican policies, these businesses would not exist

I think the GOP has yet to figure out what their health care policy even is. They really need to figure out how to be for something again.

These problems are all a result of the huge tax benefit given to employer-provided healthcare; if we got rid of that or extended it to apply to individual plans as well (and hopefully allowed people to purchase out-of-state insurance), it would reduce costs, and allow for more job freedom.

I would also personally rather have health insurance actually act as insurance, where you are granted the coverage at the time of diagnosis, rather than having the insurer gradually pay for treatment, but this is unlikely to come to pass.

"Pro Business" means, "Pro-me" which means, "Pro to the businesses that bribe^H^H^H^H^Hlobby me.

We have the same problem here in Germany.

The FDP (Free Democratic Party) claims to go for liberal rules so businesses can strive. Somehow this mostly includes rules for big corps, with the remark that they provide employment.

Funny thing is, the head of FDP is a guy who burned about 3,4M€ of investment money and federal credit.

There are always parties with nice ideas, but when you see who donates money to them, you understand why they can't realize them :\

Similarly, I wonder what awesome things could be done if we didn't spend such a high percentage of our GDP on health care.

The ACA increases the opportunities for young people and people with chronic illnesses. By distributing those costs, healthy individuals pay more in premiums, which limit their opportunities. If we are optimizating for overall economic productivity, far more people benefit from not having the ACA.