Posted on 11/03/2009 9:03:46 AM PST by thefoundersrock
Representative Boehner,
In regards to the Republican Party's intention to offer an alternative health care bill, I can only respectfully say, "What in the world are you thinking!?" I am simply flabbergasted that in response to the shift to conservative principles occurring in this country and the rejection of huge government spending programs, your response is to offer... a huge government spending program!? Not only does this violate every principle of conservatism, but it also takes away the chief weapon our party will be able to employ in 2010, which is the Democrat Party’s propensity to spend this country into bankruptcy. I cannot for the life of me understand why Republican leaders would think this was a sensible strategy. In regards to the health care "crisis" (which is bogus to begin with, if I may remind you that 85% of Americans are perfectly happy with the health care they have now) our solutions as conservatives - if the Republican Party is still conservative - should be found in free market principles. I have four specific solutions: 1. Disallow rejection for pre-existing conditions. This has been done in Washington State and has not put any companies out of business, as the risk is then spread between all. This is a reasonable exercise of government regulation, and a cost that can be absorbed by the free market. 2. Open the markets to allow more competition between companies. The cost will inevitably go down. More Americans than you give credit for will understand this principle. 3. Create incentive for employers to provide insurance by giving a tax credit, rather than a deduction for employer provided benefits, and provide incentive to doctors and hospitals to provide free or reduced cost care to those who need it. 4. Tort reform. These 4 solutions would reduce the cost of care and increase access while costing the government little or nothing, and most importantly stay true to the Constitution and the principles the founders laid out. I beg of you sir, for all of our sakes, the Republican Party must be restored to it's proper conservative base. If the party doesn't heed the warnings it is loudly receiving right now, true constitutional conservatives will have no choice but to look elsewhere for representatives. New York 23 ought to be a loud and clear message to the Republican Party. Conservatives are your base. No matter how many times you capitulate, the left will forever continue to attack and undermine you, and offering a me-too plan to spend a trillion taxpayer dollars will not endear you to them, but will simply be used as a weapon against you. I urge you and all the leaders of the Republican Party to think long and hard about their platform and their direction before you are all "New York 23'd"
With all respect and sincerity,
The Republicans remind me more and more of that team that always played, and lost to, the Harlem Globetrotters.
Just out of curiosity, where did you get the idea that the Republican plan would cost $1 Trillion? I haven’t heard any such number.
Er, a question. Maybe I haven;t kept up, but what plan are you talking about?
Last I heard, Boehner was on the air advocating basically the exact same thing you’re advocating....
Wall Street Journal this morning: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125711811707721639.html
“Its estimated gross cost is $1.055 trillion over 10 years.”
Which is just marginally lower than the Democratic plan.
Check the “Member since” date. Doesn’t smell right.
Michelle Bachman; A Call To Storm The Capitol On November 5th, 2009 :
She asked whomever can make it to drive to Wash., DC and meet with her on the west steps of the Capitol to protest on Thursday, 11/5, at 12 Noon. (Remember OUR ”house call” visit to the local offices of our rep and senators’ offices downtown at 11:00AM on that same date!)
You don’t know how much I wish I could be there!
The Democratic legislation, if passed, is estimated to expand coverage to more than 30 million Americans now without insurance. Its estimated gross cost is $1.055 trillion over 10 years.
The "$1.055 trillion over 10 years" figure is clearly referring to the DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATION! We don't need stupid EFFIN vanity posts from vanity posters who don't read the stupid EFFIN articles and jump to stupid EFFIN conclusions and make the rest of us look bad!
And God forbid that you actually sent this letter to John Boehner - who will read it and say "WTF is this stupid person talking about?"
/RANT OFF
I got a whiff of that too.
I’m not even gonna give you a “nice try” on this one, troll. Take your “founders rock” and shove it on your way out.
It’s unconstitutional!
You can thank Illinois own Mark Scuzzakirk.
Mark has the audacity needed to repeal the laws of economics.
Life is full of all kinds of people. I was making a comment of my own, not endorsing another person’s post.
I’m sorry I remind you fo something unpleasant. I have very negative connotations regarding you also. So let’s just call it a day.
Heh. "Scuzzakirk". I like that. Let's use it. It will constantly remind the pro-RINO crowd of what happened to Mark's twin in NY. Spintreebob always comes up with the best nicknames for RINOs ( Judy Barr "Too-pinka" was another great one). If the shoe fits, wear it.
Sad news today though, Dr. Eric Wallace announced he decided NOT to file for the U.S. Senate race and is dropping out so the conservative vote won't be split. I still feel Eric would have been the strongest candidate in the race, but he's absolutely right that we need to reduce the field down to ONE conservative anti-Kirk candidate. Too bad the Hughes people weren't willing to do the same. There are a number of good conservative candidates still in the race, including Harvey City Councilman John Arrington (another black conservative) and retired southern Illinois judge Judge Don Lowery. Sadly though, after looking at the FEC numbers it appears that Pat Hughes is the only one with enough funds to mount any of type of viable statewide bid. I disagree with the Hughes people that having the most money automatically makes you the strongest candidate (they've been pushing this idea of running a "wealthy outsider" for the last six years and have yet to produce any "winners"... it sure didn't work for Oberweis), but I agree on the point you at least need a decent amount of funds to be a viable candidate.
I'm not a big fan of running political newcomers for statewide office, though certainly in a U.S. Senate race you have a better chance of getting a newbie elected (Bill Frist, Herb Kohl, Amy Klobuchar, Orrin Hatch, etc.) than you do for Governor or President. I met Pat Hughes at the Cook County GOP convention. He has done an excellent job of studying Mark Kirk's socialist record for the last nine years, and knows where his weak points are and how to go after him. Hughes has been less successful at selling himself to voters and has made some missteps as a first-time candidate. Let's hope we can improve his campaign skills and train our conservative candidates to withstand a barrage of attacks from the Kirk crowd, GOP Inc., and the lamestream media in the tank for Kirk.
And of course let's make sure everyone learns about Mark Kirk's actual "fiscal" record... voted with Taxpayers for Common Sense 33% of the time, voted with The Club for Growth 19% of the time (9 / 48 votes), and voted with Citizens for Tax Justice 17% of the time. Nothing "fiscally conservative" about being pro-bailout, pro-govermment takeover, tax-and-spend socialist appeaser.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.