It’s absolutely this. It’s why you see the insane swing in support for attacking Syria.
It’s why inconsistency in policy doesn’t matter at all to these folks… and it’s why I have become increasingly detached from conservatism in the US in the recent past. There is seemingly no actual basis for any of their ideas any more. Literally any idea can be determined as good or bad, purely based upon who is presenting it. Obama wants to save orphans and puppies? Fuck those slacker kids and weak baby dogs. Trump wants to eat human babies? Sounds great!
None of it makes any sense. And they don’t even care. If you point out the overt hypocrisy, they just shriek and flail around.
Much of these people simply vote based on what will make liberals mad. They don’t care about the actual policy, just that their team is perceived to be “winning.”
What’s funny is that he’s talking about trying to do stuff to get the democrats to vote for his stuff…
They don’t need the Democrats to vote for their stuff. They have a majority in both houses. They could have passed the stuff with zero Democrat support.
The reason they couldn’t, is because they can’t even get all the republicans to go along with it, because it’s fucking terrible.
This point is so obvious, that no one seems to be willing to say it. It’s like everyone forgot that the reason the plan failed had nothing to do with Democrats.
That’s not technically the reason they need Democrats. The fact is the Republicans are a weak coalition and the Freedom Caucus extremists can’t be consistently assumed to vote with the R establishment, they are just spoilers on many issues. They vote against any spending of money, against any govt intervention or new programs, and they believe in only pure repeal. The fact it was a bad plan was not the reason they didn’t like it, they wanted it WORSE.
One of the Freedom Caucus’ big talking points on healthcare (as well as other areas, like education) is that they want the federal government out of the business (thus ACA repeal), but are fine with whatever states want to do individually. I’m interested in hearing what others think about how to address this argument.
I’ll start. If you believe that authorities will deal fairly with everyone in their domain (regardless of race/religion/sexual preference/social status/etc) then the idea of pushing control down to state/local levels makes a lot of sense. It minimizes overhead and bureaucratic waste, provides opportunity for diversity based on different local preferences, and follows the principals of limited government. On the other hand, if you believe authorities will play favorites, doling out benefits to certain groups and refusing to address the issues of others, then it makes much more sense to have a strong central leadership that can ensure equal treatment. I believe that the wider and more diverse the constituency that an authority must answer to, the better that authority will be at providing equal treatment. I’m not saying that the federal government is inherently any better than state or local authorities, but it is more likely to have the best interests of the most people in mind since more people have a say in its makeup. (If this sounds familiar it might be because I pulled it off my blog post about a recent town hall with Justin Amash that I attended.)
What other arguments are good when responding to the state-vs-federal responsibility for health care?
I think that is a reasonable position @ineffablebob, and why I am strongly in favor of a Federal solution. Historical and current evidence strongly shows that certain states would absolutely play games and favor some (white/ male) populations over others (black/ hispanic/ gay/ female). The efforts of states like North Carolina with HB1 and further prohibiting cities from creating their own protections, or numerous states post the decimation of the Voting Rights Act a few years back, show clearly some states can not be trusted.
Not to say they couldn’t be allowed certain controls, but that there need to be strong limits on what they can, and can not, do. Setting minimum coverage, for example, or making sure that coverage is provided for the working poor are the kind of things that absolutely need Federal interventions.
In an ideal world, I could see where certain basics needs are addressed at the Federal level but some leeway is also given at a state/regional level to address health issues that might be more prominent in one state than say in another.
But of course, such an ideal presupposes that states like North Carolina, Kentucky, Mississippi, Kansas, etc. have all, I dunno, fallen into the center of the earth.
The sad fact is that many of our states are run by crazy, horrible people, who must be strictly controlled by a powerful federal government, lest they do irreparable damage to their citizenry.
The obvious danger here is what happens when a crazy person like Trump takes hold of that empowered federal government, and to that extent, I’m nearly sympathetic to the fears of someone like @Timex, but end of the day, the states just can’t be trusted, and it’s not like someone like Brownback or McCrory is better (for the average citizen–I’m talking purely domestic affairs here) than Trump.
Sure would like it if that guy didn’t have his hand so near the nuclear football, though.
I really really want to argue with you, and I think that’s not true for a large number of Republicans. Sadly, it is completely true for a huge number. The one important point of differentiation is a large number of these people identify themselves less on what the believe and more by what they oppose. Liberals, political correctness, immigrants, any group they think gets special privileges (blacks, gays. etc.), the elites and Democrats.
Seems like a hate movement rather than a political party at this point. Same can be said for a lot of religion, which is sort of the opposite of what it ought to be.
So the GOP is pushing to try again to repeal the ACA.
Apparently the dickhead caucus has come to a compromise with Trump to make a new plan that allows states to opt out of requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Because this is a good idea, right?
Honestly don’t know what they are thinking here. Maybe they think that no one’s gonna notice they put that provision in there? Cause coverage for pre-existing conditions enjoys massive popularity, so removing it seems like a loser.
These people need to bootstrap themselves out of being sick all the time! We’re just enabling a whole generation of layabouts that are addicted to healthcare.
