Letter to the editor

Regarding the government shutdown

The Republican Party is rightfully concerned with the efficacy, fairness and practicability of the Affordable Care Act. Contrary to reports by popular news, the Republican Party does not own the shutdown. Such action takes two parts, two chambers of Congress. The Republican Party only controls one.

Sadly, the public will not hear the media report that after the shutdown occurred, a Democratic House representative urged her colleagues to not vote in favor of a Republican proposal to end the shutdown at that moment. Approximately 20 minutes later, Republicans made clear that they wished to keep the government open during negotiations, but Democrats did not respond. In fact, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated earlier that day that he would “not go to conference with a gun to [his] head!” Around 10 p.m. Republicans voted to end the shutdown. The Senate has yet to respond.

And, while many point to the Tea Party as a radical, extremist wing, we urge people to reconsider the image that has been carefully constructed from sound bites in the media. Not all Tea Party protestors on the streets are fully representative of the Republican Party. Yet, what the Tea Party and Congressional Republicans have in common is a well-founded concern about the direction of the largesse of our government.

This is not the first time the public hears about this complaint. In this case, it refers to the fact that Obamacare is indeed bad public policy. The Wall Street Journal has adequately chronicled a series of objective analyses of the overhaul. In it, we find that: It is more expensive for low-wage earners to enroll than to pay the penalty, as their costs are projected to double or triple; that small businesses cannot afford to hire, provide overtime or even keep a normal work week; very few insurance companies are able to participate in each state and there are insufficient economic incentives for the young to enroll to be able to offset the cost for older enrollees.

In what spanned a 1,000-page, unread document passed by reconciliation vote (a rule that made it possible to pass without any Republican votes), the President did not realize that the solution could have been made through much simpler means. True, market-based solutions could have been achieved by allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, ending pre-existing condition discrimination and increased use of health savings accounts. HSAs actually allow individuals to save money and borrow from it when needed for future medical expenses.

This law is not an American solution. It is neither a worldly solution, for it does not necessarily operate better than existing nationalized health care plans in other nations. It is a form of price fixation; it tells insurance companies that when insuring an increased number of people, they may only account for a limited number of variables. An entry-level economics course will tell us that does not make us better off. It increases premiums and unfairly ties the financial ability to hedge risks. It does not even incentivize preventive measures for a healthier, more fulfilling lifestyle to lower burden on the new system. It is only a bandage fix.

The truth of the matter is that no side is officially cheering for a government shutdown. If fringe protestors on either side do, it is their First Amendment right. It is time to recognize, however, that conscious efforts have been made to keep the government open. Conscious efforts have been made to communicate how Obamacare is bad policy. There are options to improve health care for Americans, and the free market can offer it. The question and opportunity lies in whether or not we are willing to place emotional appeals aside, look at economic and financial data and begin crafting solutions that incentivize healthier lifestyles and promote competition among insurance companies.


Giuseppe Robalino

Sophomore, business administration


7 replies
  1. Liberty Minded
    Liberty Minded says:

    One of the benefits of the “D” party’s tactics is that it has begun to instill the idea that the budget should become a point by point negotiation. In place of passing a single or small number of bills with funding of hundreds of programs (some of which are unsavory or bloated), the House has started passing single department or single program budget bills. This has the effect of allowing debate on something specific; something that all parties may agree is the correct level of funding.

    A nation (as well an individual) that is in debt, MUST prioritize. Hopefully the governing parties will fund the most critical government functions first and stop funding once the projected tax receipts are gone (instead of continuing to fund for more than a trillion dollars).

    Hopefully this PPACA and Debt Limit Debate will become the path to sustainability and the repayment of the $17+ trillion debt incurred by the federal government as well as the saving to pay the $100+ trillion in liabilities.

  2. USA
    USA says:

    Excellent editorial. Unfortunately, I’m afraid it won’t penetrate the skulls of its intended audience, since the left makes political judgments based on emotion, not logic. As long as the loudest voices (e.g. the media) continue to demonize conservatives, it will always be Democrat vs. Republican: good vs. evil, and the country will continue its turn to the left.

    • thekatman
      thekatman says:

      Agree with USA.
      The principles taught in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” are being followed by Obama, Reid, their minions and the MSM. It’s interesting that even Nazi Propagandist Joseph Goebbels’ philosophies are being followed, such as:

      “Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things than I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths.”

      I’m so verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves!

        • Here we go again
          Here we go again says:

          How easy it is to inappropriately invoke Godwin’s Law in order to distract from the debate without providing any evidence of your own. Let me break it down for you: USA made a comment about emotional messages, not factual ones, appealing to liberals. In agreement, thekatman noted that the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels relied on emotional messages, not factual ones, to appeal to his subjects. The connection between the two ideas makes the analogy appropriate, whether or not you agree with the original claim. A generally accepted corollary to Godwin’s Law is that falsely invoking it causes you to have lost the debate. Please try again once you’ve discovered how to present a logical argument.

          • William Buttrey
            William Buttrey says:

            “What luck for rulers that men do not think.” ― Adolf Hitler

            There’s a valid reason why these days “The Daily Show” is the most trusted news source for many people.

Comments are closed.