Why would a political party, Republican or Democrat, get rid of a law that is working at some level and delay the action to some point in the future when they propose to have something better as a replacement? Mind you they don’t have agreement on the replacement and that is why they can’t pass the new law until some future time.
Sure, I’m talking about the Affordable Care Act, but we could be talking about any existing law and we could be talking about any political party – the choice of method might be slightly different, but the tools are basically the same. Throw away the thing that you don’t like so that you can’t use it as a safety net if your decision is a bad one. Now use the fact that you need a replacement as motivation to force agreement on a replacement that you can’t agree on while the thing that you don’t like still exists.
Think about that for a moment. Get rid of what works to create the need to invent something that we hope will work better even though we can’t agree on what that is before we throw away the thing that is working.
How did this sort of process come to be acceptable politics? The two biggest political special interest corporations are the RNC and the DNC and their existence is dependent on disagreement.
The Sausage Grinder is Broken, will you help to fix it?
Comment here or send an email: abrokensausagegrinder@comcast.net
Like us on Facebook: A Broken Sausage Grinder
Follow us on Twitter: Hank Thomas
Watch on YouTube: A Broken Sausage Grinder