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.
I disagree. The reason I disagree is because you replaced "concern for the underlying problems the legislation was intended to address" with "what the new law is supposed to achieve" and then framed the latter as design, not requirement.
At least if you consider the points to be greater regulation, greater cost insulation, lower profits for certain disliked industries, and universal coverage.
The underlying problems were not lack of regulation, poor cost insulation, high profits in a disliked industry, or lack of universal coverage. The problems were out of control medical costs for both individuals and the country and the difficulty of getting medical treatment for uninsurables. The former are design elements selected by the proponents, not requirements. Of course the R's objected to them. I'm not faulting them for that. I'm faulting them for being so dismissive of people who really can't afford treatment for terrible problems. I'm faulting them for not being aggressive in packaging a cost-reduction approach. I'm faulting them for letting the solution be framed from the design fantasies of lefty ideologues rather than pulling the discussion back to the actual underlying requirements and then offering a counter design.
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.
Poor excuse. Governance is tough. Suck it in. Is the intellectual right so depleted that it couldn't have come up with some elegant response to that?
And they didn't JUST dig in, they proposed alternatives and argued the issues.
Not cohesively and forcefully and comprehensively. They played the game on the court of those who set up their design as requirements.
I didn't think you had the "do something" bias.
I don't think I do. I have a strong "be constructive" bias. And I don't thing "doing something" is a negative when it obviates such a big step in the wrong direction or turns something in the right direction. Surely you don't oppose all "doing something," like when doing something means reducing the federal presence.
Digging in was exactly the right thing to do.
Had it worked I might have looked at it more charitably... <g> |
