| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Saying No to No
Fred Barnes' upcoming article in the Weekly Standard endorses a Republican stance as the "party of No," calling on congressional Republicans to put opposition to President Obama's agenda ahead of finding new ideas to rebuild the party around after the curb-stomping it took at the polls in 2008.
This could work on what are essentially regional issues, like the bailout of former rustbelt titans GM and Chrysler. Obstructionism becomes more problematic on national issues such as healthcare reform.
A Congressional Budget Office study shows that the U.S. has 45 million uninsured citizens. As more and more citizens are laid off and lose employer-provided health care, and as more and more business are unable to afford their employee health plans as a result of the economic crunch, this problem will just get worse over time. The CBO study estimates that 9 million more Americans will be without coverage a decade from now.
A blanket rejection of any health-care reform plan, without proposing a viable alternative, is political suicide. Uninsured Americans from Washington state to Florida will see the Democrats proposing some kind of solution, no matter how expensive or unworkable it really is. Rahm Emanuel and the DNC/DCC war machine will easily be able to portray Republicans as standing between them and the continued good health of their families. The attack ads practically write themselves.
This isn't an endorsement of socialized medicine, or an endorsement of Republicans blindly going along with whatever plan Obama et. al. end up proposing. But Republicans need to have a coherent, realistic alternative plan that helps the uninsured, or else they will hand Democrats the 2010 midterms on a silver platter.
- The Last Rockefeller Republican's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
Absolutely agree. The Party
Absolutely agree. The Party of No concept need to die. It's a "going nowhere" proposition.
You have to STAND FOR SOMETHING.
I agree.
Behind every sucessful liberal policy is a failed conservative one.
ex animo
davidfarrar
The issue with health care reform...
... is basically that the 45 million Americans without insurance still have it available. It's an issue of cost. If you draw the salary of a movie star and price is no object, then certainly health care is available for whoever comes a-calling.
Those without health insurance have not yet paid adequately to receive it. And they would prefer it if someone else were to pay in their stead.
From someone that does have health insurance, I'm wondering-- How much more out of my pay each week to pay for those that wouldn't (for whatever reason) pay for themselves? Another $50? Another $120 a week, maybe?
A lot of people cannot
A lot of people cannot afford to pay for healthcare. Especially as we send our middle class jobs overseas and then they have to find jobs that pay minimum wages and of course have no company health insurance. I have a company health insurance. People without healthcare is using my insurance as the hospitals charge my insurance more to pay for those that have no insurance. So basically, what you have is, the ones that have insurance through their company, the company is paying for someone who is not employed by them. There is no doubt in my mind that we have a failed healthcare system.
Personally...
I believe I would be beter off paying out of pocket.
My insurance is priced too high ($596.30/wk) and it really ticks me off to have to pay more out of pocket for an office visit.
I would rather see health insurance illegalized rather than mandated.
The best way to increase health insurance ...
... is to make it cheaper. Maybe we can start by repealing laws that mandate more coverage than people are willing to pay for themselves.
Rationing
Why is rationing by price better than rationing by need?
What's wrong with someone else footing the bill?
What's wrong with me kicking you out of your house because I say I need it more because I have more stuff than you do?
What's wrong with someone stealing your car whenever they obviously are in need of transportation?
Well,...
What's wrong with people doing for themselves?
What's wrong with people in need find a means to fulfill that need without depriving another?
What is wrong with you for even suggesting such a thing?