Is history repeating itself? Is the GOP following the Whigs?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here, let me Google that for you ...

The plan put forward by the second link wants to do away with employer tax incentives, but proposes nothing about giving that incentive to the individuals purchasing the plan. It just talks about taking that money and using it to give it to poor people. That plan isn't going anywhere. What part of "health care/insurance is unafordable for the majority of Americans" are Democrats unable to understand. First, it was "health care is too expensive? let us fix it by making it even more expensive". I'm not against some income support, but the idea that you are going to take away employer tax benefits and then just let consumers eat the cost increase does not lower the cost of care - yet this point fails to be apparent to so many policy people.

[Lemur]

What part of "health care/insurance is unafordable for the majority of Americans" are Democrats unable to understand.

Uh, AEI is generally seen as a rightwing/libertarian thinktank. Now, your rambling syntax being what it is, it's possible you had switched subjects and were no longer talking about AEI at that point ... but that's an impossible judgment to make objectively. I'm sure you can clarify.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Uh, AEI is generally seen as a rightwing/libertarian thinktank. Now, your rambling syntax being what it is, it's possible you had switched subjects and were no longer talking about AEI at that point ... but that's an impossible judgment to make objectively. I'm sure you can clarify.

http://www.aei.org/papers/health/hea...worlds-report/

I'm possibly overlooking it, but this website seems to suggest that employer based tax benefits for health plans should be ended and the money should instead go to paying low income individual's health premiums. It says nothing about individual HSA expansion, the ability to pay premiums out of an HSA or anything that will help the majority of Americans finance their own care.
I don't know who runs AEI, I don't care. If they have a bad policy, it shouldn't be used to characterize all policies which I might support.

Maybe I'm just glossing over the part where they suggest some beneficial reform that won't just benefit the extremely wealthy or the extremely poor

[a completely inoffensive name]

"And I call upon my fellow Backroom members, to head my call, the Republicans shall rise again."

Of course, with a two party system, it is only inevitable that eventually the people you identify with will somehow stumble back into office.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I was never overly enamored of the Tea Party, but I've begun to actively dislike them as I find out how more of their focus is on being more conservative on social issues than the GOP establishment (and thus less supporting of small government that wouldn't dictate on social issues), instead of actually focusing on fiscal conservatism and not caring so much about social conservatism.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I was never overly enamored of the Tea Party, but I've begun to actively dislike them as I find out how more of their focus is on being more conservative on social issues than the GOP establishment (and thus less supporting of small government that wouldn't dictate on social issues), instead of actually focusing on fiscal conservatism and not caring so much about social conservatism.

CR

Decent point. Dictating social mores should be, at best, reserved to the states. The Feds need to focus on national issues. Taxation and economics are a better focus to galvanize action. The cadre of social issues is more off-putting to the middling crowd.