The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Tear That Lady Down, Boys!||Date: 10/31/2013 8:52 AM|
|Author: albaby1||Number: 1907895 of 1977207|
I might agree with you, except it was Republicans who insisted that the DMV only have two employees, that they open only on Sundays and Wednesdays for two hours, that no computers be allowed, that all forms be filled out in quadruplicate, individually, that applications be printed with invisible ink, that road tests occur only on sunny days and only all the way across the state, that no vans, SUVs, or station wagons be allowed, and that expensive private driving instructors be required for driver instruction.
Typically not. The DMV is usually handled at the state level, and is the butt of jokes even in sapphire-blue states. The sparse staffing and outdated equipment are non-partisan. The "DMV" style agency exists in both Democratic and Republican controlled parts of the country.
There is, of course, the competing vision of government that Democrats can (and should) point to - the "Seal Team 6" or "Mars Curiosity Rover" type of government. This is the vision that conservatives often ignore - that government also manages to accomplish extraordinarily difficult tasks that require enormous resources, expertise, and skill.
The problem with health.gov is that it reinforces the former vision over the latter.
Let's try to remember that what we have is closest to the Republican vision (the Heritage Institute and Mitt Romney) rather than the Democratic vision (single payer.) It seems disingenuous, to out it politely, to therefore accept the Republican criticism of the Rube Goldberg machine that is their own design, rather than the far simpler one which is already in existence at the VA, at Medicare, and in countries around the world.
We've disagreed on that point before - and regardless of whether you think the mandate is the Republican vision (which I still think is farcical, given the utter absence of any effort on the party to advance that idea anywhere they had power), certainly the idea that the federal government pay for all these folks to get their insurance (ie. the subsidies and the Medicaid expansion) that makes up the heart of the ACA is not. Nor is entirely accurate to label "single-payer" as the Democratic vision, for much the same reason - while there is a progressive segment of the caucus that longs for single payer, the bulk of the caucus is utterly unwilling to tell some 180 million Americans that they're going to have to switch from their current plans to a government plan.
In that respect, the ACA is far closer to the "Democratic vision" than any Republican vision. It represents what the Democratic caucus (as it existed in 2009) was willing to vote for, and what no Republicans were willing to support.
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|