Sen. John Ensign:
This narrative should sound familiar, for some variation of it is being used on an almost daily basis in Washington. Democrats are attempting to solve a pressing problem while Republicans stand on the sidelines, placing partisanship above all else.
While I have no doubt that many Republicans eagerly look at the health care debate as a means of giving a black eye to the Obama Administration, we also need to remember that there are massive philosophical differences at play here. The legislation being advanced by Baucus, as watered down as it may be, is still based on the idea that more government rules and regulations are the answer to what plague's American health care.
If one rejects the very premise of Baucus's argument, and favors an approach based on markets and deregulation, then what on earth is there to talk about? Baucus may have taken the crap sandwich and thrown half of it away, but that doesn't mean that what remains on the table is any more appetizing.
"I appreciate the work the chairman has done, but we have fundamental differences in philosophy."The quote comes from this Dana Milbank piece, which portrays Sen. Max Baucus as a man toiling in earnest fashion for the benefit of the American people. No rabid partisan, Baucus is attempting to find common ground with Republicans on health care to little effect. Despite his offers of compromise, Baucus finds himself rebuffed by his counterparts across the aisle, their collective deaf ear referred to by Milbank as a "preexisting condition." He is, as Milbank says, "one of the last serious men in town."
This narrative should sound familiar, for some variation of it is being used on an almost daily basis in Washington. Democrats are attempting to solve a pressing problem while Republicans stand on the sidelines, placing partisanship above all else.
While I have no doubt that many Republicans eagerly look at the health care debate as a means of giving a black eye to the Obama Administration, we also need to remember that there are massive philosophical differences at play here. The legislation being advanced by Baucus, as watered down as it may be, is still based on the idea that more government rules and regulations are the answer to what plague's American health care.
If one rejects the very premise of Baucus's argument, and favors an approach based on markets and deregulation, then what on earth is there to talk about? Baucus may have taken the crap sandwich and thrown half of it away, but that doesn't mean that what remains on the table is any more appetizing.
No comments:
Post a Comment