What’s Your Plan?
GOP opposition to Democratic health care proposals, says a recent news account, exposes Republicans to the charge that they are "political obstructionists with no policy agenda of their own."
The charge is false -- the GOP has advanced several ideas, of varying degrees of merit, about how to improve the delivery of medical care. (For example, Republicans have suggested allowing buyers of health insurance to purchase policies across state lines, just as buyers can do with car and life insurance, in order to foster genuine competition in the health insurance marketplace.)
Even more dangerous than the charge's falsity, however, is its underlying premise: that opponents of a proposal about how to achieve X are obliged to come up with their own plan.
But if this were so, then Democrats who objected to Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative should have come up with what they thought was a better missile-defense plan. Democrats who objected to George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security should have produced their own plan for privatizing it. Of course, Democrats did neither of those things.
In addition to the dubious premise, the demand that opponents of a proposed policy produce an alternative proposal includes a nefarious presumption: that a government policy is needed and desirable, and the only question is what form it should take. That supposition often amounts to a one-way ratchet in favor of ever more government control.
But in many cases the lack of a policy agenda is precisely the correct policy agenda. If, for example, one believes in racial equality, then refusing to go along with racial segregation proposals and the failure to produce an alternative segregation policy is not a shortcoming, but a considerable virtue -- and to be called an obstructionist would amount to a badge of honor.
Reader Reactions
armchair did well in reasoning as to why Dems did not offer an alternative to the missle shield idea; and idea for a waste of $ system not needed; and the idea of Dems not offering alternative SocSec privatizing program; another system well-proven as not desired by Americans.
Perhaps if the GOP offered an attack plan for invasion of Canada, Dems opposed the plan, Editor would question why Dems did not offer up their own alternative plan for invading Canada?
Allow citizens to buy health insurance X state lines. My oh my. One of John Boehner’s list of 4 GOP action plans for reform. It takes support of the sellers to allow such competition. Charges for medical care in VA, along with insurance, is higher than in Iowa, but lower than in New Jersey, were care and insurance are higher. Yea! Let Virginians buy the Iowa BCBS (they control 71% of Iowa business) lower-cost plans than that of VA Anthem BCBS. We bit of an issue. Wellmark BCBS is owned by its policy holders and they control their company’s operation so that overhead is no more than 5% of premiums, normally less. You really think they will sell you a plan for $300/month than cost of similar plan in VA, where medical care charges are higher than in Iowa? We expect the owners (policy holders) would allow such? They’d have to charge more for themselves in order to afford their plans sold in VA, NJ, elsewhere. Ditto for the Family of Five large insurers, all of whom share the info technology entity; Ingenix, and we can bet that sharing includes price controls and similar Family-oriented activities, just like the old New York City Mafia families (5 of them).
Practically everybody agrees that health insurance and health costs are a tremendous problem in this country—that reform is needed.
The Dems’ reform plan will do nothing to hold down costs.
Reform is a broad word. Those who have different ideas on reform than your team should not be demonized.
-What do you want to eat?
-I don’t know.
-What about Thai food?
-No.
-Indian?
-No.
-Burgers and fries?
-No.
-Well, what do you want to eat?
-I think it’s dangerous that “opponents of a proposal about how to achieve X (dinner) are obliged to come up with their own plan.“
Picky eaters…
The lack of analytical smarts in this editorial is astounding—or maybe, to be more polite, I should say that the writer is simply reaching too far to defend his conservative point. Practically everybody agrees that health insurance and health costs are a tremendous problem in this country—that reform is needed. It is a large, pressing domestic issue. That was wasn’t/isn’t the case with privatizing social security. Yes, eventually, the social security fund needs to be boosted, but there are many ways to do that short of privatizing. Most polls show a majority of Americans support health-insurance reform. As I recall, privatizing SS had VERY LITTLE support—-it was basically a sop to business, like everything Bush tried to do—and indeed, it’s biggest opponent was AARP, the organization representing older Americans. As for the Strategic Defense Initiative, c’mon: Reagan’s grandiose missile-defense system was the very definition of “pie in the sky.“ To say that vastly impractical, vastly expensive idea lacked consensus would be an understatment—and time has proved it to be a bad idea.
As for Repubs and the charge of obstructionism, the fact is that the GOP is the party of the status quo and the individual its members do not care for the idea of the common good, and they never support any ideas that require money for the common good. So, yes, Repubs are obstructionists—for starters.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement