Overall, they chose not to offer counter proposals or debate the issues.
?!?
Overall, they didn't even show concern for the underlying problems the legislation was intended to address
That's closer to being a valid criticism, but I did see arguments about how the plan wouldn't address some of the issues its supposed to address. And the main point is the downsides of the bill, if you focus on things the bill might do, your making the other sides arguments for them. There are practical and principled reasons to be against not just the specific ways to achieve what the new law is supposed to achieve, but also to be against achieving those points. At least if you consider the points to be greater regulation, greater cost insulation, lower profits for certain disliked industries, and universal coverage. I don't think I need to explain the downsides of the first three. As for the fourth.
---------
Announcing the Anti-Universal Coverage Club
Posted by Michael F. Cannon
Inspired by National Review’s recent editorial and Andrew Sullivan’s embrace of same (as well as by Greg Mankiw), I have decided it would be fun and educational to keep tally of those who reject the idea that federal or state governments should strive to provide every American with health insurance. Call it the Anti-Universal Coverage Club.
Here are the guiding principles of the Anti-Universal Coverage Club:
1. Health policy should focus on making health care of ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people.
2. To achieve “universal coverage” would require either having the government provide health insurance to everyone or forcing everyone to buy it. Government provision is undesirable, because government does a poor job of improving quality or efficiency. Forcing people to get insurance would lead to a worse health-care system for everyone, because it would necessitate so much more government intervention.
3. In a free country, people should have the right to refuse health insurance.
4. If governments must subsidize those who cannot afford medical care, they should be free to experiment with different types of subsidies (cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics & hospitals, uncompensated care payments, etc.) and tax exemptions, rather than be forced by a policy of “universal coverage” to subsidize people via “insurance.”
If you’d like to join the Anti-Universal Coverage Club, let me know by posting something to your own blog, or by emailing me here. Feel free to forward items from other like-minded individuals.
I predict that neither the American Medical Association, nor the Federation of American Hospitals, nor America’s Health Insurance Plans will join the Anti-Universal Coverage Club.
cato-at-liberty.org
------
Well than there is the fifth, the plight of people with severe chronic preexisting conditions. And yes the Republicans didn't for the most part spend a lot of time expressing sympathy for them, or offering alternate solutions, but there is not real solution in terms of health insurance. Anything you provide for them isn't really insurance. If the Republicans pointed that out and then offered assistance as charity, they would be accused of patronizing these people from one side, while also opening themselves up the the criticism that forced redistribution isn't charity from the other. Even if they avoided using the term, they would be supporting an expensive new entitlement, breaking a lot of the effectiveness of their arguments about government spending and expansion in general. If they just expressed sympathy without offering any proposed solution, it wouldn't have helped them any, and would probably have hurt them a bit, both on this issue, and about their general perception. Realistically this was the other sides strongest emotional argument. Going in to complex reasons why the emotional response might not be very positive wasn't ever likely to work well (and was to an extent tried), while going along with the emotion either pushes you to support your opponents, or undermines you continued opposition.
They just dug in to stop the legislation and its proponents by whatever means necessary.
Digging in was exactly the right thing to do.
And they didn't JUST dig in, they proposed alternatives and argued the issues.
Even had they won, it would have been an ugly win and that tarnish would remain unless they came back and offered a health care reform bill of their own.
I didn't think you had the "do something" bias. |
