Years      Pres  Senate     House     SC
    2013-2015   D    D(+8)      R(+33)    R(+1)
    2015-2017   D    R(+10)     R(+59)    -(+0)
    2017-2019   R    R(+4)      R(+47)    R(+1)
    2019-2021   R    R(+8)      D(+35)    R(+1)
    2021-2023   D    D(+0.5)    D(+9)     R(+3)
    2023-2025   D    D(+2)      R(+9)     R(+3)
    2025-2027   R    R(+8)      R(+4)     R(+3)

When exactly were the democrats supposed to "fix" the ACA without compromising?

Dems haven't had solid control of all three legislative bodies since it passed, and Republicans have vocally made it their priority to oppose the ACA in any way possible, and are unwilling to give an inch. Even the hair thin margin post-2020 was unusable for this due to the handful of DINOs that all needed to vote in lockstep.

Meanwhile, R's had unilateral control of the government for four straight years, and they voted to make everyone's lives worse, as you're complaining about. They said over and over they were going to repeal it, like you suggest, and then turned around and made it obvious that was a blatant lie. Because despite its flaws, even the gutted ACA is still wildly popular and a vast improvement over the previous status quo. (It turns out keeping workers healthy is critical for the economy)

This is not a symmetric problem. It really is one party making it worse.

> The Democrats did have full control when they first passed the ACA and they ended up getting in their own way.

They didn’t. They had to heavily compromise with an Independent.

> After the Finance Committee vote on October 15, negotiations turned to moderate Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid focused on satisfying centrists. The holdouts came down to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucused with Democrats, and conservative Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson. Lieberman's demand that the bill not include a public option[161][175] was met,[176]

> But I never said that the Democrats were supposed to fix it on their own. I said both parties are to blame.

This doesn’t make any sense, because 99% of Dems have tried to increase access to healthcare, and 99.9% of Repubs have tried to reduce access to healthcare. The sole exception being when McCain provided his vote to not repeal ACA.

> This doesn’t make any sense, because 99% of Dems have tried to increase access to healthcare, and 99.9% of Repubs have tried to reduce access to healthcare.

This is the problem. All conversations about policy lead to "it's the Republicans fault" or "it's the Democrats fault", never about the actual substance of the issue or any attempts to fix the underlying problems.

The fact that both parties think they're "winning the game" right now by shutting down the government is a joke.

I did point out the actual substance of the issue, Repubs don’t want to expand access to healthcare as it would require a wealth transfer, hence they have opposed all efforts.

The Dems (by and large) bring up bills to provide paid parental leave, increase minimum salaries for overtime exempt workers, fund education, increase access to healthcare, and here you are saying they don’t focus on the substance of the actual issues, whatever that means. Meanwhile, the only thing Repubs have done is cut taxes, and block all those efforts.

> The fact that both parties think they're "winning the game" right now by shutting down the government is a joke.

The fact that you would even bring up both parties when one has control of all 3 branches of government is a joke.

What am I reading?

@grok are more or pess people uninsured since the ACA was passed in the USA?

(The answer is obvious btw)