Health care question

The Swamp is a cute name for, I'm not sure what, but I like the visual it generates about Washington D.C. However, let's get to the point, first, Obamacare is nothing more than RomneyCare gone Federal. Second, at a minimum, the GOP has had from 2010-2017, adequate time to draft a healthcare bill that would deflate and repeal and replace the current ACA, one would think.
The House of Representatives failed in that effort.
The current failure does not suggest that no work has been done by some segment of the GOP to offer a package. What's missing in all the noise is the fundamental difference between the GOP's sides.
That important difference can be simply explained, were one to examine the details and exempt the political party nonsense that covers things.
If I may, here is the major difference: 1. Romney Care is a state program. 2. Obama Care is a Federal Government program, a law that requires all 50 states to comply.
The GOP is currently (and perhaps for the past 10 to 12 yrs) in the mess of trying to decide who leads the party: a. the State's Rights purists, or 2. the Federalists who would not have joined the fight in 1864 against Slavery Ownership Rights by individual states.
Like it or not, this is the fundamental question about healthcare; is healthcare a Federal Govt. supported/provided benefit of citizenry, or is it a service provided or not by each State's opinion in the legislative offices?
As I read your tripe (and yes, that is a throw-away fish), I see you too fail to come to grips with this point. So, let me ask you directly: Bill do you favor a federal or a state level of law in the matter of health care for all Americans? Both sides are legitimate Constitutionally, and both sides have value as well as flaws...there is no perfect solution for issues of such magnitude.
I mean no insult or injury when I ask the question; neither do I intend to open up a different debate. All I'm looking for here is an honest answer. Do you support: A. State's rights for providing healthcare support/insurance, or B. Federal govt. rights to provide healthcare to the citizens of the nation?
Before you ask: I favor, strongly, a single payer, federal system that trumps (no pun intended) all private insurance claims, just to keep you on target to answering my question.
In the federal sense, it is this question nationally that must be answered and it too should be decided whether the nation needs a Romney solution, aka State decided, or an Obama solution, a national solution from the federal government.
If you're interested, I too favor the replacement of Obamacare; I want a single-payer, Federal insurance program for all citizens in all 50 states. I'm confident that were President Lincoln alive in today's health insurance market he too, as an ardent member of the old GOP would take my side in this debate.
Where do you stand? And by the way, if your view is the other side of the debate...that's terrific. Now we have a substantive debate issue, without name-calling and ranting. What's required is for the house and the senate to also come to grips with the basic question and hammer out a solution that makes the majority happy. Isn't that what our government is all about? The majority decides? And, the majority should be the voters, not the insurance companies, the pharama giants, etc. It should be the registered citizen voters, not the dollars of others.
Alex Saliby
Leavenworth

Publisher’s response: Short answer – I want a free market solution with minimal involvement from the government. Competition and ingenuity will produce better results than a one size fits all government mandate whether that is mandated by the states or the federal is irrelevant.

User menu

NCW Media Newspapers