The conversation is still nascent on the right, but the following article has the broad strokes if you care to read it.
Conservative Health-Care Reform: A Reality Check
Turn down the histrionics buckaroo.Oh, God. You believe Mitt Romney's post-defeat temper tantrum about "gifts".
It makes perfect sense on the part of the administration to expand the class of people seeing the fruits of their labor.
Politically its gold and I don't blame them for playing the game.
Because that game is dangerous, the more you expand the receiving class (of entitlements) the more you burden the already creaky financing infrastructure we have in place in the US.
To explain why the game is dangerous I must use the term Ratchet Effect as explained by Robert Higgs in Crisis and Leviathan which in a much condensed version [From the wiki
That tendency to grow ever larger with every new emergency is what is beginning to reveal the creakyness within our infrastructure (both military and otherwise). Without any moderating influence, the tendency to grow gov't at every chance eventually overwhelms the tax paying public's ability to financially support it.The Ratchet Effect
Daniel McCarthy praised Higgs and summarized his ratchet effect theory in a review of Against Leviathan that appeared in The American Conservative. In the review, McCarthy remarked that,
What made Crisis and Leviathan a milestone was the rigor with which it elaborated upon the logic of James Madison's 1794 warning against "the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in government." Other political economists had studied the growth of state power during times of war, depression, and general upheaval before, but none had done so as thoughtfully and thoroughly as Higgs. He took special care in describing the "ratchet effect" — once a crisis has passed state power usually recedes again, but it rarely returns to its original levels; thus each emergency leaves the scope of government at least a little wider than before.
More to the point you are misunderstanding my argument. I don't blame people for suckling at the teat. The right has been tripping over its shoelaces where its public image is concerned (to greatly exaggerated media fanfare I might add), and as such there did not seem to be much of a choice.
However, ever since the Drone filibuster the conversation (at least in public eyes [its been changing among the think tank types for awhile]) has been changing.
Slowly but surely, a strain of thought is emerging that I predict will ultimately win out over the older blocs within the Republican party.
That strain of thought has been articulated by writers like Ben Domenech of The Transom and The Federalist.
This conversation is nascent as well, a good summation of it can be found here from RealClearPolitics The Libertarian Populist Agenda.
This all brings me back around to your original point, that my argument and Mitt's are the same.
They are not...
I don't blame the people for taking subsidies, they aren't the one's coming up with the policy.
It makes perfect sense given the incentives involved for (some on the left) to want to expand the recipient class as much as possible.
However, the problem is that this strategy assumes an ever increasing willingness of the voting public to be taxed. That is not the case.
Allow me to translate, "We pushed through the most liberal bill we could given the prevailing political winds at the time. Despite huge amounts of funding, several years, and some of the best minds the left can throw at it, this program isn't working. Because this isn't working, let me take a page out of the most extreme conservatives book and say to myself, "let's blame the problem on things not being extreme enough! If only the program was more partisan it would work better."In this is where you are precisely the opposite of correct. Because if the system were single payer and implemented some kind of price determining body, it would be vastly superior to ACA or what we had before, but I presume you'd consider that even more of a top down technocratic solution.
In your dreams pall. If you think you've seen opposition, just wait until you push single payer.
You'd have to explain what single payer is to the public for several months before we could get good polls, but once the knew what single payer meant, especially after the kind of big gov't scares we've had, NSA et. al., I think the polling would be pretty terrible.
With what political capital do you think you will be able to make single payer happen if the PPACA goes tits up???????
We aren't France bro. We weren't rebelling against a plutocratic aristocracy when we had our revolution, we were rebelling against a distant monarch who thought he could make American's pay through the nose for benefits that only accrued to those in the UK.
So quit trotting out the European Social Democracies, who for a host of reasons (not the least of which being that they don't have to subsidize the military needs of the rest of the free world) can afford to spend money in ways that the US can not financially sustain, not to mention the cultural differences arising from the beginnings of the country mentioned above.
Do you follow the news?If the left were brave and powerful enough to push whatever they wanted through, you'd have aforementioned single player and price controlling body. It's because of more conservative members of the Democratic party and strategically anxious members of the left wing that ACA is like it is. Now, those attempts to placate anyone outside of the Democratic party totally failed, and those attempts to make the Democrats face less backlash for the law totally failed, but that was the intention never the less. The law you see is not the law a monomaniacal left wing would have given you.
From USA today (but the story is all over just google) Democrats beginning to support Obamacare delays
You don't even have your entire senate majority on the same page with this bill.
Could you imagine single payer working with the voting public outside of some liberal enclaves?
I could not.
Way to double down on your extremism argument by the way.
Make that way to triple down on that extremism argument.I'm not so sure, but you might be right, and if does it won't do so as much as it should. But that's pretty much because of it being a moderate, wishy-washy bill.
That's what you get when you push a big bill like this through without bipartisan support.I'd get by that only if people understand that avoiding the problem in round 2 means the adjustments I suggested above.
...And that the Republican party has persisted in refusing to provide any requested funding to the ACA rollout thus are partly complicit in the troubles its currently facing.
Good luck on the SS Obamacare.
Hope she doesn't sink on you.