PDA

View Full Version : Liberty Candidates: Listen to erowe1--REPEAL, DON'T REPLACE




teacherone
09-25-2010, 06:08 AM
This is a big opportunity for Ron Paul.

He should start leading a movement for "Repeal, NOT Replace." He can set himself apart from the pseudo-conservatives who dominate the party, win over some of those tea partiers who have been leary of him, and put other 2012 candidates in the position of having to say which side they're on, the repeal and replace side, or the repeal not replace side.

This should be his new major project on the scale of audit the Fed.

If you are reading this Rand, Justin, Angle, Gunny et al.... this is some great advice.

phill4paul
09-25-2010, 06:31 AM
Agreed. By choosing to replace it they are simply showing that they just want the power of crafting it.
The people that are against it are AGAINST it.
Force them to make a choice.

Sola_Fide
09-25-2010, 07:55 AM
+1

newyearsrevolution08
09-25-2010, 08:05 AM
i still can't believe they said that b.s. replace..... great

GunnyFreedom
09-25-2010, 08:44 AM
Sad truth be told, most Americans (even the conservative electorate) want SOMETHING done. When the debate gets down to health care, I try and explain that the reason health care was so messed up in the first place (cost, quality, etc) was because the government was ALREADY involved building artificial monopolies on a state-by-state basis that increased costs and reduced quality and timeliness of care.

The "replace" part of what I was talking about was a restoration of free market principles by getting the government even further out of the business of health care than they were a decade ago. Unless we want to lose 60-some percent of the voters, we have to demonstrate that we have something other than "no plan at all" to fix healthcare, or we'll lose them, I promise you.

My struggle thus far has been how to articulate a massive change like the restoration of a free market in medicine as "an alternative plan" for the soundbite society we have today...

But "repeal not replace" without providing some kind of alternative to reigning in the issues we already had in healthcare in 2008 is not a winning strategy, in my experience amongst the electorate. Sure, while the GOPers plan has been socialism-lite, and my plan was corporatism-removal, it's still an alternative plan, and without proposing an alternative plan of some kind, you will turn people off, and they will look for greener pastures wherein to cast their vote.

I know it's distressing, but that has been my experience in the field, for what it's worth.


ETA -- how about we work on setting up a plan to remove corporatism from healthcare altogether and restore a true free-market, and then distill it down to electorate-sized soundbites?

erowe1
09-25-2010, 08:58 AM
Sad truth be told, most Americans (even the conservative electorate) want SOMETHING done. When the debate gets down to health care, I try and explain that the reason health care was so messed up in the first place (cost, quality, etc) was because the government was ALREADY involved building artificial monopolies on a state-by-state basis that increased costs and reduced quality and timeliness of care.

The "replace" part of what I was talking about was a restoration of free market principles by getting the government even further out of the business of health care than they were a decade ago. Unless we want to lose 60-some percent of the voters, we have to demonstrate that we have something other than "no plan at all" to fix healthcare, or we'll lose them, I promise you.

My struggle thus far has been how to articulate a massive change like the restoration of a free market in medicine as "an alternative plan" for the soundbite society we have today...

But "repeal not replace" without providing some kind of alternative to reigning in the issues we already had in healthcare in 2008 is not a winning strategy, in my experience amongst the electorate. Sure, while the GOPers plan has been socialism-lite, and my plan was corporatism-removal, it's still an alternative plan, and without proposing an alternative plan of some kind, you will turn people off, and they will look for greener pastures wherein to cast their vote.

I know it's distressing, but that has been my experience in the field, for what it's worth.


ETA -- how about we work on setting up a plan to remove corporatism from healthcare altogether and restore a true free-market, and then distill it down to electorate-sized soundbites?

I agree that we don't want to go back to pre-Obamacare and stay there forever. But the moves we want to make after that point are even more repeals of other laws that have been around for a long time. So maybe, when the long term strategy is looked at, it could be "repeal, not replace, and then repeal some more."

But in the short term, as in this 2010 election, I think repeal not replace is a winning strategy. Obamacare is unpopular. People wish it had never been passed. Given the choice between keeping it and scrapping it all, going back to square one, the majority of voters would choose the latter. There's no need to bundle that repeal with other things.

Also, I think the strategy should be one that pushes something we know Obama will veto. They shouldn't go for some bipartisan compromise that they can get passed and get his signature on. They should go for the whole thing, and make him veto the repeal in 2011, and then pass another one in 2012 and make him veto that one too, so that voters will know that if they want Obamacare repealed, then they need to repeal Obama.

Stary Hickory
09-25-2010, 09:13 AM
The problem with so called conservatives is that they let progressives shape the debate. The Democrats/Progressives are always demanding to know what conservatives will do (IE positive government intervention).

This is the real problem, Health Care was NOT a crisis, even as messed up, thanks to the government, as it is. It was not a Crisis. The GOP let the Dems shape the debate and make it a focus point. The "conservative" wing must reiterate that health care costs are going up because of government intervention and silly regulations.

One idea I have been floating around is give states the ability(they already have this under the constituion) to make areas, like cities, that are health care free zones. That means they are free from all regulation and bureaucratic bloat. In these areas it would be a free market system with all the risks and rewards of the market there.

Invariably these areas will become a source of very cheap and high quality health care. Of course without regulation it will be up to the people to decide and evaluate who treats them. But simply tell people that these areas are a use at your own risk. The point being that after 5-10 years it will be obvious what makes health care both affordable and of high quality - freedom..and freedom of choice without government coercion.

paulitics
09-25-2010, 09:54 AM
Even Sarah Palin is singing the repeal and replace anthem. I'm telling you this stinks to high heaven.

By saying replace, you are simply cementing the idea that government's involvement in healthcare is constitutional, when its anything but. The republicans using this propaganda are only making the dems case stronger, and that is the intent of the higher ups.

teacherone
09-25-2010, 10:02 AM
I don't know Gunny... erowe just gave us a sound-bite- clear concise and eye-catching-- "Repeal, Don't Replace".

Obamacare is so controversial and disliked I can't see how any liberty campaign would be harmed utilizing such a slogan.

When asked you could elaborate that "Repeal" doesn't only refer to Obamacare but to all the entire regulatory labyrinth that chokes up health care and to all the corporate handouts that limit competition and drive up cost.

I see it as a way to stand out above the corporate republicans playing politics once again, a way to make a true liberty candidate shine brighter than the rest.





Sad truth be told, most Americans (even the conservative electorate) want SOMETHING done. When the debate gets down to health care, I try and explain that the reason health care was so messed up in the first place (cost, quality, etc) was because the government was ALREADY involved building artificial monopolies on a state-by-state basis that increased costs and reduced quality and timeliness of care.

The "replace" part of what I was talking about was a restoration of free market principles by getting the government even further out of the business of health care than they were a decade ago. Unless we want to lose 60-some percent of the voters, we have to demonstrate that we have something other than "no plan at all" to fix healthcare, or we'll lose them, I promise you.

My struggle thus far has been how to articulate a massive change like the restoration of a free market in medicine as "an alternative plan" for the soundbite society we have today...

But "repeal not replace" without providing some kind of alternative to reigning in the issues we already had in healthcare in 2008 is not a winning strategy, in my experience amongst the electorate. Sure, while the GOPers plan has been socialism-lite, and my plan was corporatism-removal, it's still an alternative plan, and without proposing an alternative plan of some kind, you will turn people off, and they will look for greener pastures wherein to cast their vote.

I know it's distressing, but that has been my experience in the field, for what it's worth.


ETA -- how about we work on setting up a plan to remove corporatism from healthcare altogether and restore a true free-market, and then distill it down to electorate-sized soundbites?

Eryxis
09-25-2010, 11:17 AM
How about "Repeal, repeal and keep repealing."

newyearsrevolution08
09-25-2010, 11:20 AM
why stop at the health care

lets REMOVE most of congress and most elected officials

SPRING CLEANING

a little late BUT I don't think it is ever to late to get started, sooner the better.

JamesButabi
09-25-2010, 11:25 AM
"Repeal and prosper!"