Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
They are discussing how to reform Health Care.
But the problem is, the conservatives want the government out of Health Care. And the Democrats want government heavily involved in Health Care, basically running the whole thing. They make a few comments about "some" private functions still being "allowed", but the very idea of government having the power to decide what parts of Health Care will be "allowed", is anathema to conservatives.
With conservatives wanting government out, and leftists wanting government in, what compromise is possible?
If the conclusion is that government will only run part of it instead of all of it, is this really a compromise?
It's a lot like people who have all their money in a bank on one side, and bank robbers on the other side. The people want their money to stay in the bank, and the robbers want to take it out. A "compromise" might be that the robbers only get part of it and the people get to keep the rest in the bank.
This is clearly ridiculous. The very notion that a "compromise" is possible, means that the people (or, in the health care case, the conservatives) lose, period; and the robbers (or leftists) win.
The socialist Democrats are trying to debate the question of how much the government should take over health care. The conservative Republicans (there are some there, somewhere) are trying to debate whether the govt should take over any of it at all. If the Republicans even allow that the Democrats' question is "debatable", the Republicans automatically have lost.
What compromise is even possible?
What can this so-called "Summit" be, other than another Democrat smoke-and-mirrors diversion where majority Democrats try once again, to ram their government-uber-alles proposals down the throats of and American citizenry that has repeatedly insisted they don't want them?
But the problem is, the conservatives want the government out of Health Care. And the Democrats want government heavily involved in Health Care, basically running the whole thing. They make a few comments about "some" private functions still being "allowed", but the very idea of government having the power to decide what parts of Health Care will be "allowed", is anathema to conservatives.
With conservatives wanting government out, and leftists wanting government in, what compromise is possible?
If the conclusion is that government will only run part of it instead of all of it, is this really a compromise?
It's a lot like people who have all their money in a bank on one side, and bank robbers on the other side. The people want their money to stay in the bank, and the robbers want to take it out. A "compromise" might be that the robbers only get part of it and the people get to keep the rest in the bank.
This is clearly ridiculous. The very notion that a "compromise" is possible, means that the people (or, in the health care case, the conservatives) lose, period; and the robbers (or leftists) win.
The socialist Democrats are trying to debate the question of how much the government should take over health care. The conservative Republicans (there are some there, somewhere) are trying to debate whether the govt should take over any of it at all. If the Republicans even allow that the Democrats' question is "debatable", the Republicans automatically have lost.
What compromise is even possible?
What can this so-called "Summit" be, other than another Democrat smoke-and-mirrors diversion where majority Democrats try once again, to ram their government-uber-alles proposals down the throats of and American citizenry that has repeatedly insisted they don't want them?
![tumblr_mhp7ghh1es1s2jx30o1_1280[1].jpg](https://www.houseofpolitics.com/data/attachments/8/8359-aef946d50fddad438692bc791189a16d.jpg "tumblr_mhp7ghh1es1s2jx30o1_1280[1].jpg")
