Republicans Against Co-Ops Too?

By  | 

Not that this is any surprise, but the speed in which they’re signaling they won’t accept any reform package is startling.

Just check out what Senator Jon Kyl is saying today…

President Barack Obama has vowed to veto any bill that would increase the deficit over the long term, but Kyl said that a revenue-neutral bill probably won’t get much GOP support either.

“I have no doubt that they can make it revenue neutral to find enough ways to tax the American people, but that doesn’t mean the Republicans will support it,” Kyl said.

On the nonprofit insurance cooperatives that Sen. Kent Conrad and other centrist Democrats are proposing as an alternative to a public plan, Kyl said it was a “Trojan horse.”

“It’s a step towards government-run health care in this country,” Kyl said.

Yes, folks everything is a Trojan horse. Any additional competition that puts pressure on private insurance to reform their policies so they don’t condemn thousands to unmanageable health care costs every year is a bad thing because it’s not a FOR PROFIT enterprise. It’s this same old, tired “government is always wrong, capitalism is always right” meme that people just blindly accept because it’s easy to blame the government.

However, is it odd to anybody else that Repubilcans will rubber stamp nearly every single increase for defense spending without knowing whether or not we’re going to get something out of it, but when we talk about needed reforms that could actually help normal Americans lead better lives, well, a big fat NO to that.

Also, GOP “leader” John Boehner weighed in as well…

[He] likened the administration to a school yard bully intent on stealing lunch money, and accused the nation’s drug makers of “cutting a deal with the bully.”

In a letter to Billy Tauzin, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Boehner said the industry had agreed to a deal with the White House “in hopes of securing favorable treatment and future profits.”

PhRMA agreed to pick up no more than $80 billion in costs for health care overhaul over the next decade, under a deal with the White House. It also will spend as much as $150 million in the next few months on television ads to promote health care legislation.

Ken Johnson, senior vice president at PhRMA, said in response to Boehner’s letter: “We have been working diligently for more than a year to advance bipartisan health care reform. We’re proud of those efforts, and they are completely consistent with our core principals.”

I’ll let that nonsense speak for itself. Ugh.

Here’s the thing…Obama is going to have to pick a plan and soon. My guess is it’ll be the co-ops because some Senate Republicans would actually vote for it. So it would be the same situation as the stimulus. Basically, Republicans weren’t going to accept any legislation except they wrote (which is unrealistic when you’re in the minority), so craft legislation with the support of the Republicans you need and move on. To me, that’s as realistically bipartisan you can get when the other side refuses to meet you 60% of the way on the issue.

What do you think?

  • DK

    I think you’re right- the Republicans are against any reform. Plus, I think they smell blood in the water since this whole issue is really making Obama look weak politically.

    With some Democrats threatening to oppose reform that doesn’t include a public option, and with Republicans unlikely to support much of anything at this point, I think Obama should go ahead and push for the public option. It’s what he really wants anyway.

    There’s no clear road to a compomise victory here. I think liberal Democrats will be in full revolt if Obama backs a plan that doesn’t have a public option. Blue dogs might be in revolt by a plan that does- let them join the Republicans if they are unhappy. Republicans want to see the whole thing sink and for Obama to look as bad as possible while the ship goes down.

    I think Obama badly needs to show he has the balls to try to get what he wants on a major issue from his campaign. If the votes aren’t there, I think he will at least earn some kudos from increasingly frustrated Democrats who think Obama is too spineless to fight for what he really believes in.

    (P.S.: I’m not necessarily in favor of health care reform. I’m neutral on it. I just feel that Obama is losing credibility with his handling of this issue and needs to push for what he believes in).

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    Democratic President.

    80+ vote Democratic plurality in the House of Representatives.

    60-40 Fillibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate.

    What do I think?

    I think it is laughably absurd to be blaming Republicans for the Democratic party failure on this initiative. To DK’s point – one Democrats view.

  • gerryf

    Obama clearly has not learned is lesson and I am beginning to wonder if he ever will.

    He is playing the game like a typical Democrat….moderate what you really want to present something as not radical and to try and appeal to the right–and then the right behaves like a three-year-old at a grocery store…you know what I mean: it’s that kid who just goes limp and the mother drags him all over the store by one hand, eventually tires, and then buys the brat a candy bar.

    The way I see it, there are two options: throw the brat in the cart and take him along for the ride screaming all the way through check out; or leave the kid in the frozen good aisle.

    One thing you cannot do is let the little brats….er, GOP, get its away.

    C’mon Obama, time to grow a pair.

  • http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com Jimmy the Dhimmi

    If a single dime of tax payer money goes to subsidize the costs of the cooperatives, then it should be opposed.

  • gerryf

    Just as I am opposed to using a single dime of taxpayer money for roads to Jimmy the Dhimmi’s house, schools for his children, fire departments for his home, police departments that might prevent or solve crimes perpetrated against him, water or server lines that might service him, unemployment that might assist him should he get laid off, air traffic controllers who ensure the planes carrying good for him to buy land safely, an army that protects Jimmy the Dhimmi from foreign attack, national security agencies that might warn of an impending attack that might effect Jimmy, courts that might prosecute criminals who perpetrate crimes against him…..

    In fact, Jimmy should in no way benefit from living in this country where we combine our resources for the benefit of everyone,

    And get the heck off my sidewalk!

  • http://www.donklephant.com Justin Gardner

    So wait a second Mike…

    You’ve accused Obama of just paying lip service to bipartisanship, and now I can’t point to Republican obstructionism to show that you can’t have bipartisanship if the other side isn’t willing to play ball?

    Must be nice living in your world.

  • G

    You are damn straight the GOP will not take co-ops. What did you think? Let us take a look at these so called non-profit co-ops. First off they are non-profit because they will be taking govt subsidies and they will be required to take people with preexisting conditions. Supposedly after 5 years the govt funding goes away but if these co-ops are forced to take people with preexsiting problems then they cannot afford it and go bankrupt, that is if the govt does not bail them out first. As it stands now co-ops is just another word for the govt option albeit with a better packaged and branded name.

  • http://detroitskeptic.com/blogs Nick Benjamin

    I think it is laughably absurd to be blaming Republicans for the Democratic party failure on this initiative. To DK’s point – one Democrats view.

    To an extent you’re right. However a big part of Obama’s trouble is that no Republicans are willing to deal.

    Which means that all Senate Dems have effective veto power. That greatly complicates negotiations because one guy can hold up the entire thing indefinitely.

    Just think how different it would be in Snowe and Grassley were committed to any version of the plan. Then nobody would be debating whether health reform was dead. We probably won’t ever know precisely why those two haven’t signed on for years. It could be they have genuine objections to the plan (but if so why are they still negotiating with Baucus?), or it could be purely a political play.

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    “Obama paying lip service to bipartisanship” is an accurate representation of my opinion. It is an opinion that I feel I can support and have supported by citing Obama’s words and actions. But it is an opinion nevertheless. Your mileage may vary.

    Citing Republican “obstructionism” as a reason for the congressional problems with this bill, given the Democratic Party stranglehold on the government, is factually preposterous.

    The GOP is a sideshow. If the president has problems passing the bill, it is not because of the Republicans.

    This is an incontrovertible fact: Democratic Party obstructionism is the only thing that can stop or slow this bill in whatever form it takes.

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    Ah. I get it. What you are saying is that Republicans can help President Obama overcome Democratic Party Obstructionism. Ok. I buy that. They could. And that is probably what will happen.

  • http://www.donklephant.com Justin Gardner


    The bipartisanship is what’s at issue here because if Obama is trying to come up with something that’s more palatable to both sides, but is finding absolutely zero support from Republicans, than how can he ever be bipartisan?

    Also, you know very well that the Republicans are doing more than obstructing…they’re declaring all out war on health reform and using some really vile scare tactics to boot. I mean, death panels? Pulling the plug on grandma? WTF?

    And of course Obama could pass a health care bill without them. I’m not disagreeing with you on that and that’s actually an important part of why I’m not understanding where you’re coming from. Because your entire political ideology is about divided government being the best moderator of public policy, right? So here you have Obama acting as if the government is divided enough to warrant at least trying to work with both sides to come to some type of compromise. And yet you claim “lip service.” How does that line up?

  • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJMerits

    Let’s talk about fair shall we. See this post: http://tinyurl.com/lnkr9v and follow the links to other post referenced in the main body of this post.

    In a nutshell:

    During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

    Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The Demint motion to instruct passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

    As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

    However, with a united Republican front in the Senate, Democrats would be hard pressed to jam a bill as comprehensive and detested as ObamaCare down Americans’ throats. Current polls indicate that more people oppose ObamaCare than support it. Moreover, Senate Republicans stand on very strong procedural grounds for resisting a bum’s rush on government-run healthcare through the Reconciliation process. It would take an act of extraordinary arrogance and recklessness for the Democratic Leadership to use Reconciliation this way.

    So Democrats don’t have to play by rules they voted on unanimously in one case and by a wide margin in the second? I would love to see Chuck Schumer attempt reconciliation. Florida, Utah, and ten other states are already in the process of or considering amending their constitutions to assert states rights via the 10th amendment and also attack ObamaCare on many other legal fronts, and I don’t doubt the number will grow. In 2012, watch for Republican’s to pull the nuclear option and legislate ObamaCare, still tied up in courts, out of existence. That is why Senator McCain had the gang of 14 when Republican’s threatened the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominations. He understood the Pandora’s box this would open with the complete loss of minority rights in the Senate – probably forever. It would be the stupidest move ever attempted by a majority party. I say this – if you don’t have sixty votes for it, especially given the public’s intense dislike for this bill, then it should not pass – period. Shove it down our throats and you will rue the day it happened. Remember, the other party will be in power in both chambers and the White House again one day. Go ahead, kill the filibuster. I dare ya. It will be a slaughter in 2012 and your precious healthcare will be DOA and it will be our turn to shove our agenda down your throats. Public Options do not work. The evidence is clear. I was born in Canada, believe me, the system sucks if you have heart disease or cancer. There is rationing and even Canada is now finally admitting publicly the system is – I quote – imploding. And it will drive private insurers out of business. I mean, use your head. Non-profit, backed by the government which can print as much money as it pleases even as it drives our dollar to new lows. Which bank are you going to pick – the FDIC backed bank or the bank with no assurance of covering your lost funds. Private companies cannot compete with the government. If you believe they can – then you are beyond redemption.

    What Senator would risk their political career on legislation that may pass only to be repealed later?

  • dan cucich

    Coops wont lower costs.
    There must be a public option if we want to lower costs for insurance-the companies won’t do it voluntarily.
    They didn’t lower premiums after tort reform was passed. They just thanked the craven legislators for the extra profits.

    The policies sold today only pay 70% of your bill, have all kinds of exclusions, co-pays and if that’s not bad enough, they also have generous $3,000 deductibles before they pay a dime! Can you say greed??

    I’ll just continue going to the ER evrytime I have chest pains at $3,000 per visit, and pay them $50.00 a month as that’s all I can afford to spend on health care-Total! I make 35 k per year and have a family. there are millions more families like mine.

    Let the affluent republicans with their 100K per year incomes pick up the balance of the tab-since they don’t like the public option, and are worried that those poor insurance companies won’t make enough profit with government competition. boo hoo!.

    I hope the GOP loses even more seats in 2010, and never regains the Whitehouse. They say there’s no crisis; so let them feel some of the pain!!

    Dan Cucich,

  • http://detroitskeptic.com/blogs Nick Benjamin

    Moreover, Senate Republicans stand on very strong procedural grounds for resisting a bum’s rush on government-run healthcare through the Reconciliation process. It would take an act of extraordinary arrogance and recklessness for the Democratic Leadership to use Reconciliation this way.

    “Strong procedural grounds”? Only if they can convince a Democrat to help them filibuster. It’s possible that will happen, but it’s not likely. AFAIK zero Dems have expressed any reservations about anything but the public option.

    Keep in mind the Dems can do a lot with reconciliation perfectly legally. Dropping the MediCare age to 55, and increased funding for S-CHIP are inevitable if ObamaCare actually dies. Heck why not do HR 676, universal MediCare?

    That would be an unambiguous victory, would reduce the deficit, and if the GOP tried to take it away in 2012 they’d be screwing every voters.

    I doubt we’ll actually get Universal MediCare that way, but the thought exercise shows that if ObamaCare fails Dems have powerful political motives to expand MediCare aggressively. They’ve got the means as well.

  • rpfree


    I often agree with you but feel you may be missing an important point, misplacing responsibility, or maybe you are just frustrated by the political realities of the day. The Democrats have majorities that Republicans have never had in my entire lifetime, and I’m in my 50’s and I am going to give a perspective that speaks to reality as I see it. I have voted for 9 Presidents, 6 Democrats and 5 Republicans. I voted for Obama and know I am once again a pulse of the times. The origins of what we are suffering from now is in truth not just about health care, but blow back from some big mistakes and seeds sown by Obama coming out of the election, in many ways his mistakes are similar mistakes Clinton made.

    First, I feel Obama and Democrats have clearly misread the mandate he and they were given and are governing much further to the left than they campaigned. Remember it was Obama and centrist Democrats in Districts usually carried by Republicans who campaigned as a centrist/bi-partisan, the Democrats margins of victory by and large came from winning Republican seats, in fact the House is even more pro-life now than before, these are the type of Democrats that won, they gave the margin of victory. The Democrats are in complete power and by virtue of this bear the greatest burden.

    My mother in law is a yellow dog Democrat and felt that Obama had a mandate that didn’t require him to reach out, especially after Bush, a little bit in the spirit of payback. I disagreed and said I voted for Obama because he promised to be different and not act even remotely like Bush. She is now mostly satisfied and I am not, she is blaming Republicans and I am more blaming Obama and Democrats.

    Obama and Democrats chose to exercise a perceived electoral mandate over bipartisanship, I believe this was more of a risk then I believe they realized. They followed the instincts of people like my Mother in law who felt he would have compromised too much. His partisanship became pretty much a “climb on board, or get out of the way” type of bipartisanship, Republicans chose to get out of the way, that was their right. Obama used the some of the same type of urgency tactics Bush had used and congress rammed the stimulus bill through cynically adding huge amendments in the dead of the night. Next was Cap and Trade, only a true Democrat partisan believes that was handled properly. After this, Health Care legislation was treated like another do or die emergency and had the Democrats gotten their way it too would have passed in the dead of the night lacking a proper review. Pointing fingers at Republicans at this point is fruitless and makes the Democrats look weak… the Democrats have the votes.

    Why should Obama care now? Because his poll numbers are down and his mandate is bleeding all over the place… this is why he cares. The previous legislation set the tone, so again blaming a weakened Republican Party is silly… they weren’t needed before, nor were they even offered a legitimate seat at the table before. The Republicans owe them NOTHING, especially since these issues (Health care and more deficit spending) are things their constituents would prefer them to not do now, if anything they want Washington to take a timeout until it is once again under control. They certainly don’t want to give cover for Blue Dog’s (you know the game, get moderate Republicans to vote for Health Care while Blue Dogs vote against it for political cover).

    Justin, the truth is Democrats don’t need Republican votes, they are looking for Republican political cover. Republicans are in no obligation to provide that cover. I voted straight ticket Democrat last election and don’t want Republican’s them to give them this cover, if it is so important for now then let Blue Dogs be the sacrificial lambs on this or let us take a breath and revisit this later (my desire). Who is Barak Obama going to listen to, centrist like me or leftist like Mother in law?

    Justin, maybe the above sounds harsh, but it is also a perspective I held in 1994. I am one who leans more towards Democrats, especially on the Congressional level but I went Republican back in 1994 and I will do it again in 2010. Fair or not I blame Obama because he had a mandate to make the difference and he chose the ideology of the left over appealing to the middle. Like Clinton he ran as a Centrist and like Clinton he has not behaved like one. Bill Clinton not only decided to work with Republicans but passed multiple legislations where Republican majorities signed on while a majority of Democrats did not. I predict Obama will have to do the same, or risk becoming like another Democrat I voted for, Jimmy Carter, and don’t say it can’t happen. We are still a center right nation and Obama must find a way to get closer to that model or I predict the Democrats will be completely out of power by 2012, it is up to them.

  • Higgins

    The Dems hold a filibuster proof 60-40 ‘super’ majority in the Senate, a 256-178 seat advantage in the House, have their guy as President, and virtually control all the levers of power in Washington. Yet it’s those darn ol’ Republicans that are the problem?

    It’s fun watching liberals self-destruct.

  • http://rightsideproject.blogspot.com The Daily Pander

    Are readers complaining that insurance is simultaneously too costly and doesn’t cover enough? Insurance exists to cover catastrophically expensive, rare events. Insurance is not pre-paid healthcare. If everyone pays a few hundred bucks a month and then everyone incurs expenses in excess of a few hundred bucks a month, then the insurance scheme, public or private will fail. Comparisons to police/fire are poor ones b/c the number of people who make a claim on the services of the FD/PD are tiny in comparison to the broader population. EVERYONE eventually makes a health insurance claim.

    Think health insurance profits are the problem? The three biggest publicly held health insurers collectively had around $9B in post-tax profits. That’s about $80/policy holder.

  • Angelia

    Hell yes, were against coop. Have you ever heard of collective farming that is one of the tenants of communism. Health care is good as it is right now. Of course portability and the ability to buy health care in another state at a lower rate are good option. Also a tax credit for those who work isn’t a bad idea.

    what was possibly good about barac’s plan with a little tweaking of course was the death panels Why?

    1. Do not pick on WWII seniors they are intelligent and bright and contributed far more to society than any acorn worker. They need the best health care.

    2. Military members need the best health care.

    3. People with normal or above IQs need the best healthcare.

    4. Business owners need the best health care.

    Okay here is the list of those who need barac’s blue pill:

    1. Acorn workers
    2. Subsistent welfare recipients.
    3. Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Walters, etc.
    4. code pink
    5. al gore and his global warming flat earth unevolusionists.
    6. gang bangers
    7. UAW workers
    8. social workers
    9. north korea, venezuela, and cuban leaders.

    So barac blue pill plan wasn’t all bad.

    2. A

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    I was going to reply to your comment directly, but have decided I cannot improve on rpfree.

    What he said.

    I particularly liked these bits:

    “Obama and Democrats chose to exercise a perceived electoral mandate over bipartisanship, I believe this was more of a risk then I believe they realized… His partisanship became pretty much a “climb on board, or get out of the way” type of bipartisanship, Republicans chose to get out of the way, that was their right.. .Justin, the truth is Democrats don’t need Republican votes, they are looking for Republican political cover. Republicans are in no obligation to provide that cover.” – rpfree

  • Brian McNamara

    Here’s the thing about “bipartisanship.” Let’s say that Republicans were in these large political majorities that the Democrats currently enjoy. Let’s say that they decided that the way to fix what’s wrong with this country’s ills would be to craft a constitutional amendment banning abortion and gay marriage. Their logic is to them impeccable, and to you idiotic. Are you going to find a way to make the amendment better, so that it only bans some abortions and some gay marriages? If you’re a liberal the answer is HELL NO. I don’t blame you. You don’t work with the President just because he’s popular or because he’s got large Congressional majorities behind him. There has to be some confluence of principles. Without that, you simply cannot cooperate in any meaningful way.

    Conservatives believe that adding to the deficit would be incredibly bad. They believe that the free market (not the government) is the best place to determine who gets access to health care resources and who doesn’t. Unless we’re going to create unlimited resources, there will always be winners and losers in health care. If not, the deficit spending mentioned above will be even more ridiculous, and the country will undergo financial collapse really quickly.

    It’s not that the Republican party refuses to work with the President, it’s just that so far the agenda has been set too far to the left for any self-respecting Republican to enter the discussion thinking he could get a satisfactory result.

    So, the dems won, and the republicans lost, and the republicans should just bow down and let the will of the dems be done? Why? Each republican still in congress is there because HE OR SHE WON THEIR ELECTION. They also have a mandate, and you can believe that most of their constituents are very happy to see them oppose the bills that are currently out there.

    Look at what’s been happening, and realize that the process has been made more oppressive to the minority since the Democrats took control of the House and Senate. The working groups that shape legislation have been literally locking republicans out, and various procedures whereby the miniority party can slow legislation down or offer amendments have been restricted or eliminated. The Democrats put the Republicans off to the side, said just sit there and take it, and now they wonder why the Republicans won’t come out and give them some cover? Not a tough question to answer, is it?

  • http://creditcardadvanceloans.com Chris R

    However, is it odd to anybody else that Republicans will rubber stamp nearly every single increase for defense spending without knowing whether or not we’re going to get something out of it, but when we talk about needed reforms that could actually help normal Americans lead better lives, well, a big fat NO to that.

    Excellent quote. Shouldn’t we have the same right to our health as we do with our safety?

  • Chris

    No, individually we are all not rich enough to line the pockets of the government like the industrial-military complex can.

  • http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/ John Burke

    The only issue now is the same issue that existed in June and July: how sweeping a plan can attract 60 votes in the Senate? While we don’t yet know the exact answer, it’s 100% clear that no plan with a “public option” can do so — not because of Kyl, Grassley or nearly all other Republicans but because of the 6 or 8 or 10 moderate Dems who may or may not vote for this or that, plus the two or three Republicans whose votes may be gettable for a bill they can live with.

    So nothing has changed — except that Obama has now made crystal clear that he can live without a public option. He had no choice, because no such bill could get 60 Senate votes anyway, and with the public opinion tide turning rapidly against reform more and Obama also losing ground in the polls, if Obama did not make this shift soon, he’d wind up looking like a non-player, never mind a non-leader.

    The NYT story that suddenly appeared about Obama now aiming for a Democrats only bill is just a tactical response to the left’s negative reaction to the crystal-clear pull-back on public option. It effectively turned the left blogosphere and commentariat from howling at the White House to enjoying again their favorite past-time of bashing Republicans, while crossing their fingers and hoping that the Dems will, in fact, ram through a sweeping bill, if not via reconciliation, then by magic.

    It will have to be magical because there won’t be any reconciliation. That process can only produce a bill that looks like Swiss cheese whose impact no one would be able to predict. More importantly, if Obama could persuade Reid and others to go for reconciliation, they probably would lose a dozen Democratic Senators, not six or so, because there are a bunch of moderates and semi-moderates on this issue who would support a health care bill but are not about to blow up the Senate to accomplish it (and these are guys who really cannot be leaned on, unlike the hapless Blue Dogs in the House).

    So the action remains where it always was — in those quasi-secretive “negotiations” presided over by Baucus. Mostly, Baucus is negotiating with himself and such Dems as Conrad, Lincoln and Nelson, but while he’s at it, he’s talking to Snowe and Collins, because they may be more likley than some of the Dems to support something that will get him to 60.

    All else at this point is atmospherics. Liberals should worry about those atmospherics, though, because so far, they’ve been running against reform. A few more weeks like the last six and getting to 60 with any bill may prove really hard.

  • nima

    Clearly, the Republicans are looking for a way to lure their usual corporate client back from the Democrats. It doesn’t look like they have found the hook yet. Meanwhile, they just swim after the blood in the water hoping to get lucky. Releasing the flying monkeys at the town halls was a good plan. Gets loads of press. If just one of those idiots opens fire, though, the GOP will have a mess on their hands; they’ll try to fob that off on the Dems, too, and have no doubt already prepared for such a scenario.

    Lord, this is going to be a long month.

  • nima

    2. Military members need the best health care.

    Oh, thank you, my dear. Thank you. You do know that the military medical system, and the VA medical system after it, are both government-run systems, don’t you? Not just government-funded, like Medicare, which is what the WWII generation uses. Military health care is actually run by the government!

    Would you kill those systems and grant soldiers and veterans a stipend to find their own private insurance?