“I disagree. Taking the side of the taxpayers against the ‘greedy insurance companies’ is always a political win.”
That is just attempting to shift one lie to another lie. Like Rush says, we need to educate the voter. Interestingly, this is an educational race so far. Cruz and Trump both keep educating people.
Also, the ‘G’ OP is hungry for large-sized donations. They won’t villify insurance companies [nor are they willing to shake them down mobster-style the way the DNC does].
“Republicans just need to make the case that Democrats want to take taxpayer’s hard earned money and use it to bail out insurers.”
It’s more compelling to show Granny and Junior getting their plugs pulled. Death panels trump wasteful spending. And the DNC could nitpick the paperclip budget or some frivolous expense, such as the bottled water they buy for Capitol Hill. In other words ‘lost in the weeds’ — that’s what happens with budget debates unless you have a pure agenda and are willing to cut all frivolous expenses.
It was dangerous to let Zero-Care last so long. The strategists of that dangerous plan are mostly gone from congress now, BTW. They thought it was a campaign voter-getter and didn’t want to end the ‘fun’.
But we can still win the debate, just not by being the Scrooge. We must be pro-free-market. Pro competition. Pro successful healthcare already proven to be the best systems on earth in different nations.
“... everyone understands the term “bailout†and they don’t like it... “
That is why every healthcare bailout should sound distasteful and needs a nation-wide call-to-sanity along with it.
Bingo! Politicians via the allocation of taxpayer dollars should not be in the business of picking winners and losers via bailouts. Companies need to fail or prosper on their own two feet.
An approach like that doesn't vilify insurance companies. It just makes the point that when government meddles in the free market, everyone loses.