Replies

This is very unfortunate--totally counter-productive. Here is what I have suggested elsewhere today:

We have to bridge all unnecessary party conflicts--all that is, that do not reflect a real difference in American objectives.

In this spirit, let me suggest a compromise on Health Care, which could satisfy both the strict Constitutionalist & strict Jeffersonian, on our side, while reassuring the "moderates," who fear the result of an abrupt abandonment of the present Federal involvement in Civilian Health Care. This approach, understood, is intended to be acceptable in principal by almost all Republicans, as well as some Democrats in districts where everyone is not a Leftist "whack job."

We start with a brief recital of medical history, to postulate the ideas--the long term objectives--first, what the framers of our Constitution intended, when they left health care legislation to the States; and secondly to the honorable intentions of the class of physicians, who assumed the responsibility of the Hippocratic oath.

{Why this is important as a unity gesture, is not just that it would appeal to the hard core right--of which I am one. It actually leads to a public debate as to an ideal that argues for a Republican approach. It leads to an ability to demonstrate why Obama care has simply worsened the already grossly inflated medical costs that LBJ's 1965 intrusions have directly contributed to. The fact is that it is lunacy to allow the Federal Government, via various mandates, to meddle in something as immediate as the relation between a physician and patient, and expect the two certain results that anyone able to picture the dynamic interaction of factors, would expect: to wit, soaring costs & declining efficiency of service. Properly employed, this discussion will help public attitudes.)

Next, there needs to be what at first blush will appear as a factual recital in the opposite direction, relating only the factors now present in American Health Care, which actually have to be taken into account, as we endeavor to pursue a reasonable strategy, acceptable to all fair minded people of all persuasions, to back the bureaucrats in Washington out of American medicine. Here is the essential legal analogy:

We have in the law a doctrine that provides an exception to ordinary contract law, which allows the creation of a binding obligation, where one party--even without legal consideration for the promise--induces another party to commit to something, or part with something of value; where the party inducing the commitment is deemed to be estopped from denying the benefit promised. Under such an understanding, it would be unfair to immediately cancel the benefit promised to those who voluntarily signed up for Obamacare, under the promises made at the time.

Note, I am not suggesting a permanent continuation of any Federal entitlement; only that we recognize the concept that people who committed their future medical needs under the fallacious--but for many over-powering--inducements, have a legitimate situation--from a lay perspective--that needs to be addressed in a satisfactory manner.

We have to acknowledge these concerns--both sets of concerns--the reality of what worked without the Federal Government for 2200 years, and what works in human concerns generally, and the mess that the Socialist manipulators have created by their misuse of Federal power, for functions never delegated to those Socialist manipulators.

Just starting with a brief discussion of both factors, will elevate the level of public trust that we are not bulls in the proverbial china shop.

Now before someone accuses me of compromising principle, this is how Medicare & Medicaid are handled in the appropriate Chapter of the Conservative Debate Handbook:

Panacea or Death Potion.