We have a winning strategy for November. Every Republican running for Congress should relentlessly focus on one simple, 3-word message:
REPEAL THE BILL.
8 comments:
Cape Cod and the Islands Boy
said...
Being/voting against the bill is one thing, but how can anyone possibly run on "Take Away Health Care From 32 Million Americans!" That seems like political suicide, right?
I find it pretty ridiculous that liberals are all for equality but they pass bills that force the minority of the population to support a majority of the population to sit around and collect government checks. So one side works while the other does nothing?
How is that equality? Sooner or later those who work hard will see their neighbor who doesnt do anything, yet lives in the same house and gets the same benefits as they do, and realize that maybe they dont need to work anymore. This is the effect of a socialist policy such as those being passed by Barry. Sooner or later, I guess, Liberals will get their wish of social and economic equality and we will all be poor.
And to answer your question, it will not be political suicide because Congress just passed a bill that 70% of the country did not want.
I think running on repealing the bill is a very effective strategy if Republicans do a good job explaining why the bill is so bad for our country and what kind of health care reform they favor as an alternative. The message should be "repeal and then reform." Not to be nitpicky, but the 32 million number is way overstated. From what I've read, the number of American citizens who are without health insurance because they genuinely cannot afford it is around 10-12 million. Those people could be covered for a fraction of the cost of this bill.
Natedawg: I don't think a "repeal and reform" mantra will work. The GOP had 8 years under 43 to work on health care reform, and they didn't do a single thing. I think republicans can and should stir up enthusiasm if the bill is so unpopular, but the Liberal response to a direct threat of repeal will be "They want to take health care away from millions of americans!" I think that would be a bad move for the GOP.
Dat Dude: I think the general publics' problem with the GOP is that there is a lot of complaining, doom/gloom, prognosticating, but little action. I'm sure you can give me plenty of examples to the contrary, but I still think the public perception is a lot of talk, but little else.
The bill passed. A democratic president was elected along with a democratic senate and a democratic house. Maybe give this thing a chance before trying to tear it down.
Cape Cod: The problem is, you cannot just "give this thing a chance". It is a huge entitlement program that will do nothing to better the healthcare situation but only increase the dependency on government. Another reason we can't give it a chance is something that you will most likely agree with me on, and that is the fact that removal of an entitlement is nearly impossible because of what you said earlier: "Take Away Health Care From 32 Million Americans!"
It will take politicians with some real balls or legal action, such as the unconstitutionality of the bill's mandate, to repeal it. But if that fails, we are stuck with the same healthcare as the UK with little to no innovation, long waits, and rationing. A bill like this, and policies that Barry is putting through are not things we can just "try out". His ideas are the same ones that failed in Russia and every other socialist or communist country the world has ever had. Why repeat history and continue down a path that has failed before.
Once again, I partially agree with you, Cape Cod. If the GOP had done something about health care when they had control, we might not be in this mess with ObamaCare now. Bush did make a good faith effort to try to tackle the looming bankruptcy problem of Social Security early in his second term, but he got zero cooperation from Democrats and with only a tenuous congressional majority he was not able to accomplish anything.
You are right that the public elected a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress in 2008, but I don't think they expected anything like what they got. Obama campaigned as a president who would govern from the center and bring the country together by working in a bi-partisan fashion. Ever since he got into office, he and his congressional cronies have moved sharply to the left and refused bi-partisanship. This is not what voters want and that is why Obama's approval rating has gone from 70% to 45% in only a year's time. Independents voted for Obama, but now they are disillusioned. The 2008 election was not a mandate for universal health care and other dramatic increases in government spending, as Democrats will likely learn in November when voters reject their agenda. (At least, I hope!)
Dat Dude: I suppose your right, it's tough to take away the bill now. Let me again cite the Nate Silver article I posted on another comment, "history suggests that endeavors of this nature (Medicare, Social Security, Romneycare) generally become popular and are appreciated by the large majority of voters at some point after they become law."
Cape: Can i call you Cape? Although it may be appreciated it will still run up the deficit to unsustainable levels and vastly increase the reliance on government while decreasing individual freedoms. We cannot continue to just print money like we do now in order to maintain the financial failures of both medicare and social security.
And i will state again, history proves that socialized medicine decreases innovation, lowers quality, and rations care. Rigth now we are re-living the same mistakes made by the people in Europe and Russia.
8 comments:
Being/voting against the bill is one thing, but how can anyone possibly run on "Take Away Health Care From 32 Million Americans!" That seems like political suicide, right?
I find it pretty ridiculous that liberals are all for equality but they pass bills that force the minority of the population to support a majority of the population to sit around and collect government checks. So one side works while the other does nothing?
How is that equality? Sooner or later those who work hard will see their neighbor who doesnt do anything, yet lives in the same house and gets the same benefits as they do, and realize that maybe they dont need to work anymore. This is the effect of a socialist policy such as those being passed by Barry. Sooner or later, I guess, Liberals will get their wish of social and economic equality and we will all be poor.
And to answer your question, it will not be political suicide because Congress just passed a bill that 70% of the country did not want.
I think running on repealing the bill is a very effective strategy if Republicans do a good job explaining why the bill is so bad for our country and what kind of health care reform they favor as an alternative. The message should be "repeal and then reform." Not to be nitpicky, but the 32 million number is way overstated. From what I've read, the number of American citizens who are without health insurance because they genuinely cannot afford it is around 10-12 million. Those people could be covered for a fraction of the cost of this bill.
Natedawg: I don't think a "repeal and reform" mantra will work. The GOP had 8 years under 43 to work on health care reform, and they didn't do a single thing. I think republicans can and should stir up enthusiasm if the bill is so unpopular, but the Liberal response to a direct threat of repeal will be "They want to take health care away from millions of americans!" I think that would be a bad move for the GOP.
Dat Dude: I think the general publics' problem with the GOP is that there is a lot of complaining, doom/gloom, prognosticating, but little action. I'm sure you can give me plenty of examples to the contrary, but I still think the public perception is a lot of talk, but little else.
The bill passed. A democratic president was elected along with a democratic senate and a democratic house. Maybe give this thing a chance before trying to tear it down.
Cape Cod: The problem is, you cannot just "give this thing a chance". It is a huge entitlement program that will do nothing to better the healthcare situation but only increase the dependency on government. Another reason we can't give it a chance is something that you will most likely agree with me on, and that is the fact that removal of an entitlement is nearly impossible because of what you said earlier: "Take Away Health Care From 32 Million Americans!"
It will take politicians with some real balls or legal action, such as the unconstitutionality of the bill's mandate, to repeal it. But if that fails, we are stuck with the same healthcare as the UK with little to no innovation, long waits, and rationing. A bill like this, and policies that Barry is putting through are not things we can just "try out". His ideas are the same ones that failed in Russia and every other socialist or communist country the world has ever had. Why repeat history and continue down a path that has failed before.
Once again, I partially agree with you, Cape Cod. If the GOP had done something about health care when they had control, we might not be in this mess with ObamaCare now. Bush did make a good faith effort to try to tackle the looming bankruptcy problem of Social Security early in his second term, but he got zero cooperation from Democrats and with only a tenuous congressional majority he was not able to accomplish anything.
You are right that the public elected a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress in 2008, but I don't think they expected anything like what they got. Obama campaigned as a president who would govern from the center and bring the country together by working in a bi-partisan fashion. Ever since he got into office, he and his congressional cronies have moved sharply to the left and refused bi-partisanship. This is not what voters want and that is why Obama's approval rating has gone from 70% to 45% in only a year's time. Independents voted for Obama, but now they are disillusioned. The 2008 election was not a mandate for universal health care and other dramatic increases in government spending, as Democrats will likely learn in November when voters reject their agenda. (At least, I hope!)
Dat Dude: I suppose your right, it's tough to take away the bill now. Let me again cite the Nate Silver article I posted on another comment, "history suggests that endeavors of this nature (Medicare, Social Security, Romneycare) generally become popular and are appreciated by the large majority of voters at some point after they become law."
Cape: Can i call you Cape? Although it may be appreciated it will still run up the deficit to unsustainable levels and vastly increase the reliance on government while decreasing individual freedoms. We cannot continue to just print money like we do now in order to maintain the financial failures of both medicare and social security.
And i will state again, history proves that socialized medicine decreases innovation, lowers quality, and rations care. Rigth now we are re-living the same mistakes made by the people in Europe and Russia.
Post a Comment