Harry and Nancy and Barry, oh my!

Amid the cacophony of voices being raised about the health care reform agendas of the Obama administration and the democrats in congress is a growing murmur that Republicans need to present their own alternative plan for health care reform. The conventional thought appears to be that just saying 'no' is not a sufficient response, and that Republicans need to do 'something'. The timing behind deciding to do 'something' now seems a little strange for a Party that was in the majority for eight years. One might reasonably contend that, during the eight years in which Republicans in congress were very intent on rocking no boats so they could keep their jobs, there might have been better opportunities to get things done.

Republicans do not hold a majority in the House or the Senate. They do not hold the Presidency. Their ability to influence legislation is pretty limited, and any health care reform agenda that they try to advance will only advance as part of a compromise. The real influence on health care reform will come from those that the Republicans have to compromise with; the Reid, Pelosi, Obama triumvirate.

When the kids want to burn down the house so the family can can get a new one, the parents just have to say 'no'. It's not always easy being the parents of 'no', but sometimes that's what is needed. We don't look for a compromise that just lets the kids burn the house down more slowly, even if we agree that the house might need a little sprucing up. There is nothing wrong with being the Party of 'no', or the Party of 'get your lousy hands off my health care'.

There are a number of things that people tend to identify as problems with health care in America. Some will point at issues with getting insurance coverage when there is a preexisting condition. Some will point out the high cost of health insurance. These are not problems with 'health care'. This is a problem with preexisting condition coverage and a problem with insurance costs. Each of these problems is quite solvable through private sector solutions. Lumping all health related issues into one big pot and trying to build the case that we need the government to control all aspects of health care is silly to the point of being ludicrous. We would never tolerate such an illogical approach to other problems.

Whether you think the foodstamp program is good or bad it provides a handy metaphor for what is going on today with 'health care' reform. Arguments can be made about whether feeding the hungry can be done better by private charity or the government, but the fact is that we do have a foodstamp program that has been put in place specifically to address the needs of feeding those that might not be able to afford their own food. Other approaches that the government might have taken could include a 'public option' government run grocery chain in direct competition with other grocery stores, or they might have just taken over the grocery industry and taxed the rich to make free groceries available to everyone. People would recognize this lunacy for what it is if the debate were about anything but health care.

Make sure your representatives know that doing nothing is an acceptable alternative to compromising with the socialized medicine cabal in Washington. It's ok to be the "Party of no".