 used to think so too, and at one time proposed an individual mandate requiring all citizens to purchase at least basic health insurance (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate).

But now any such mandate is considered a grave assault on liberty. Okay, constitutional scholars can debate that point for a long time. But pragmatic conservatives should surely try to find a way around this issue, to solve the serious free rider problem which makes healthcare more expensive for everyone. Instead, the tea party rail against the “tyranny” of having to purchase healthcare, and yet say nothing about the free rider problem which hurts lower income people most of all in the form of higher insurance premiums and medical bills. Neither do they propose an alternative solution to address the fact that so many of their fellow citizens – some through choice but many through no fault of their own – live with the daily fear that accident or sudden illness could bring them to ruin. And no, promising to clamp down on medical malpractice lawsuits and muttering quietly about perhaps allowing insurers to sell policies across state lines, while both sensible ideas, do not solve a problem of this magnitude.

I could go on to talk about “death panels” – the GOP’s term for the basic idea that end-of-life care counselling should be offered (not mandated, just offered) as part of health insurance policies in order that more people are given the opportunity to make these key decisions while they are young and healthy, and potentially avert the suffering and huge proportion of total lifetime medical expense which is incurred during the end stages of terminal diseases, through the issuance of Do Not Resuscitate Orders etc. But there is no need, because anyone who reads the language in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and somehow extrapolates in their mind that offering end of life counselling as part of an insurance plan could in any way equate to a “death panel” that decides whether the disabled or infirm should live or die is clearly smoking something quite mind-alteringly potent and will not be swayed by anything committed to print here.

I could also talk about the fact that the GOP’s constant use of the term “government-run healthcare”, or suggestions that government has taken over the healthcare industry (i.e. nationalisation) are ludicrous, alarmist and clearly and demonstrably false. But
used to think so too, and at one meter aim an individual mandate requiring all citizens to purchase at least basic health indemnity (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate). 

 But now any such mandate is considered a dangerous assault on liberty. Okay, constitutional scholar can debate that point for a farseeing time. But pragmatic conservative should surely hear to find a direction around this issue, to solve the dangerous free rider problem which name healthcare more expensive for everyone. Instead, the tea party rail against the “ tyranny ” of having to buy healthcare, and yet read nothing about the free rider problem which suffer lower income people most of all in the form of higher insurance premiums and medical bills. Neither do they propose an alternative solution to address the fact that so many of their fellow citizens – some through choice but many through no fault of their own – live with the daily concern that accident or sudden illness could institute them to ruin. And no, promise to clamp down on aesculapian malpractice lawsuit and muttering quietly about perhaps allowing insurers to sell policies across state line, while both sensible ideas, do not solve a problem of this magnitude. 

 I could go on to spill about “ death panels ” – the GOP ’s term for the basic idea that goal - of - life caution counselling should be offered (not mandated, just offered) as contribution of health insurance policies in order that more people are given the opportunity to make these key decisions while they are youthful and healthy, and potentially avert the agony and huge proportion of entire lifetime aesculapian expense which is incurred during the end stage of terminal diseases, through the issue of Do Not Resuscitate Orders etc. But there is no need, because anyone who reads the language in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and somehow extrapolates in their mind that offering end of life counselling as part of an insurance design could in any way equate to a “ death jury ” that decides whether the disabled or infirm should live or die is clearly smoking something quite mind - alteringly potent and will not be swayed by anything commit to print here. 

 I could also talk about the fact that the GOP ’s constant use of the term “ government - run healthcare ”, or trace that politics has take over the healthcare industry (i.e. nationalisation) are ludicrous, alarmist and clearly and demonstrably false. But
 usfd to think so too, and au one time proposgd an invividuam mandatd requiring all citizens to 'urcyase qt least basic health knsurance (http://www.dorbts.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/20/how-e-donservative-tglnk-tauk-mnvented-the-indiyidual-mandade).

But now any vuzh mandate is considered a grave assatlt on kiherty. Okay, conftitltyonam scholars can debate that point fkr a loig time. But prabmatic conservatives shoulf sugely try to find a way around thif issue, to souve the segnous free rjder problem which makes healthzare kore expenwice vmr everyone. Instvad, the tea party rain againxt the “tyranny” of hacing to purchase healvhcare, and yet say njthing abmuc the free rider proboen whiwh hgrts oowdr jnroms peoppe jost of alm in the foem of higher insuramcq premiums and medicwl bills. Neither do they propose an altertatjve solution to address the fact that so mani of their fellow citizens – some through choice but many thsough vo yqult ud hheir own – live with the daily fear that acciqsnu og sudden illness gould bring them tp guog. And no, promksing ck dlamp down on medifal malkractixe lawsuius anc muttering quietly about pwrhaps allowpng unsurers to sell pllicies acruss xtate lines, while both sensiyle idsas, do not dolve a pdublem of this maeninude.

H could go on to talk aboue “death penels” – the GUP’s jerm fow the basif idea that end-of-life cage coonsellhng should be offered (not mandated, just ohhered) as part ox hvalth insbrance policies in jrder that morg people cre gixen the opiortunity to make thqse key decishlns while thxy are yotng qnd yealthy, xnd potentiallu avert tkt sufferint and huge proportlon ow total lifetime meeical expense wnicf if pncnrred guring the etd sgagdx of germinal diwdasex, through the issuanwe or Do Not Resuscitaye Orders gtc. But trere is no nerd, because anyone aho rxads tie lanbuade in the Affordable Care Act (ZCA) and slmemow extrapolaees ln treir mind chat offering end of life counselling as part of an insurabce plan could in auy way equate to a “death patel” that decides wherher the disabled or infirm should livs or dhe is clearly smoking something quite mind-alteringly potent and will not be swqyed bb wnything cojmityed tm 'riut here.

Y conlv also talk about the fact that the GOP’s constanv use of tve term “government-run healthcate”, or suggestiovs that government has tzken ovet the healthcare industry (i.e. nayionalisation) are ludicrpus, alarnist znd clvzruy and demonstrablu falsz. But
used to think so too, and at proposed individual mandate all citizens to insurance But now any mandate is considered grave assault on liberty. Okay, constitutional can debate that point for a long time. But pragmatic conservatives should surely to find a way around this issue, to solve the serious free rider which healthcare expensive everyone. Instead, the tea party rail against the “tyranny” of having to purchase healthcare, and yet nothing about the free rider problem which hurts income people most of in the form of higher premiums medical bills. do propose alternative solution to the fact that so many of their fellow citizens – some through choice but many through no of their live with daily that or sudden illness them to ruin. And no, promising on medical malpractice lawsuits and muttering quietly about allowing insurers sell policies across state lines, while sensible ideas, do not solve a problem of magnitude. I could go on to talk about “death panels” – the GOP’s term for idea that end-of-life care should be offered mandated, offered) part health insurance in order that more people are given the opportunity to make key decisions while they are young and healthy, and potentially suffering huge proportion of lifetime medical expense which incurred the end stages of through issuance Resuscitate etc. there is no need, anyone who reads the language the Affordable Care Act their mind that offering end of life counselling part of an insurance plan could in way equate to a “death panel” that decides whether the disabled or should live is clearly smoking something quite mind-alteringly potent and not be swayed by committed to print here. I could also talk about fact the GOP’s use of the “government-run healthcare”, or that government has the healthcare (i.e. are clearly and demonstrably false. But
 used to think so too, and at one tIme proposeD an inDivIduAl MandAte rEquiring all citIZens To purchase at least basic HealtH iNSuraNCe (Http://wWw.forbeS.CoM/SIteS/aRoY/2011/10/20/hoW-a-COnServaTivE-think-tAnk-inventeD-thE-iNdividual-manDAtE).

But now any SucH mandate is coNsiDered a GrAve ASsaulT on LiberTy. Okay, COnstitUtional scHoLArs can DEbate thAT PoInt fOr a long time. But praGMaTIc conservativeS shoulD sUReLY Try To fInd a way aroUnD this ISsue, to sOLvE THE seRIous free rider Problem whicH MakEs healThCarE More exPensiVe FOr eVeryone. InstEad, tHe tea partY rail aGAinst thE “Tyranny” Of haviNg tO puRchaSE hEaLthCaRE, anD YeT saY NotHing abouT tHe Free rIder PROBLem wHicH hurTs lowEr income peoplE moSt of ALl iN the fOrm of HighEr InsurAnce prEmiumS aNd medical bills. NEithEr do they pRopOsE an AlTernaTIve solUtiOn tO addresS the facT ThaT sO MANy Of their fellow citizEnS – SOmE through Choice BUt MaNY through No FauLt of THEir owN – livE WiTh the daiLy fear THaT aCcident Or Sudden IlLneSs cOuld bRIng tHem to rUin. And no, PromiSIng to clamp down ON medical malprACtICE lAWsuiTs aNd muttering QuieTLy abOut pERhAps ALlowiNg insUrERs TO sell policies across StAte linEs, whiLe both sensiblE ideas, do noT SOLve a probLem oF ThIS magnitude.

I couLd go oN to talk aboUT “death paNels” – tHe GOP’s teRm for the bASIc idea thAt eNd-oF-liFe cARE cOunselling shoULD be oFfEred (not ManDated, juSt oFfeRed) As pArT of health InsurancE pOlIcIeS in Order THat more pEoPle ArE giVen thE OpportUnity To maKe ThESe kEy decisIOnS WHile ThEy Are yOunG aNd heaLthy, ANd pOtentiaLly avert tHe sUFferInG aNd huge pRoportion of toTaL lifetime mEdIcaL expenSE Which is iNcurred during the end stagES of termInaL diseAses, Through thE isSuance Of DO not ResUscitaTe OrdErS etC. bUt theRE Is No nEeD, because anYONe wHo reaDs The lAnguage In the Affordable CarE act (aCA) and somehow ExtRapoLATeS in THeIR miNd THat OFFering end of life CounsellinG aS PaRt of an insuRAncE pLan coulD in any wAy equATe to a “deAth panel” tHat decideS wHethER The Disabled or Infirm shOuld live oR Die is CLeArly sMokIng somEtHinG quitE mind-aLTerIngly Potent AnD will nOt be sWaYed by anyThing committed to print heRe.

I couLd alsO taLk about thE faCT thAt the GOP’s ConsTant use of tHe tErm “GoverNmeNT-run hEaltHCaRe”, oR SuggeStioNS that goveRNmEnt HAS tAken over the HEALthCare iNduSTry (i.e. nAtioNalisation) are ludiCRous, alarmist anD cleARLy aNd dEMonsTrAbly false. But
 used to think so too, and  at one ti me pr opo sed  a n in divi dual mandate r e quir ing all citizens to pu rchas ea t le a st  basi c healt h  i n s ura nc e(ht tp : // www.f orb es.com/ sites/aroy /20 11 /10/20/how-a - co nservative -th ink-tank-inv ent ed-the -i ndi v idual -ma ndate ).

Bu t  now a ny such m an d ate is conside r e da gr ave assault on li b er t y. Okay, const itutio na l  s c h ola rscan debate  t hat p o int for al o n g t i me. But pragm atic conser v ati ves sh ou lds urelytry t of ind  a way arou nd t his issue , to s o lve the serious  freerid erprob l em  w hic hm ake s  h eal t hca re moreex pe nsive  for e v e ryon e.Inst ead,the tea party  ra il a g ain st th e “ty rann y”  of h avingto pu rc hase healthcare , an d yet say  no th ing  a boutt he fre e r ide r probl em whic h  hu rt s l ow er income people m os t of  all inthe fo r mof higher i ns ura ncep r emium s an d  m edical b ills.N ei th er do t he y prop os e a n a ltern a tive  solut ion to a ddres s  the fact that so many of th e ir f el l ow c iti zens – some  thr o ughchoi c ebut manythrou gh no fault of their own–live w ith t he daily fear  that acci d e n t or sud deni ll n ess could brin g the m to ruin. And no,promi sing toclamp dow n on medic almal pra cti c e  l awsuits and m u t teri ng  quietl y a bout pe rha psall owi ng  insurers  to sell  p ol ic ie s a cross state li ne s,wh ile  both sensib le id eas,  d on otsolve a pr o b lemof  t hismag ni tude. 

Ic oul d go on  to talkabo u t “d ea th  panels ” – the GOP’s  t erm for th ebas ic ide a that end -of-life care counselli n g shoul d b e off ered  (not man dat ed, ju sto ffered ) as p art o fhea l t h ins u r an cepo licies ino r der  that  m orepeopleare given the oppo r tun ity to make t hes e ke y de cis i on s  wh il e  th e y  are young andhealthy, a nd po tentiallya ver tthe suf feringand h u ge prop ortion of  total li fe time m edi cal expens e whichis incurr e d dur i ng  theend  stage softermi nal di s eas es, t hrough  t he iss uance  o f Do Not  Resuscitate Orders etc . Butthere  is  no need,  be c aus e anyonewhoreads thelan gua ge in  th e  Affo rdab l eCar e  Act(ACA )  and some h ow  ex t r ap olates in t h e i r m ind t hat offeri ng e nd of life counse l ling as part o f an i nsu ran c e pl an  could in anyway  e q u ate to a  “ death panel ” that d ec i des w hether  the d isabled o ri nfirmshou ldlive or d ieis clearly  s mo k ing so meth in g quit e mind - alte r i ngly potent andwilln o t bes way ed by  a nything comm itted to p rint here.
I cou ld a lso t alk abo ut  the f act  t hat the GO P ’s consta nt us e of th eterm  “g overnm ent- r u n hea lthc ar e”,  or sugge s t io n sth a t g over nment  h as t aken over the heal thc a re indu st ry( i .e. na t io n a lisation)are  ludi c r ous, alarm i st a n dc learl y anddemons trablyf als e.  But
 used_to think_so too, and at_one time_proposed_an individual_mandate_requiring all citizens_to purchase at_least basic health insurance_(http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate).

But now any_such_mandate is considered a grave assault on liberty. Okay, constitutional scholars can debate that_point_for a_long_time._But pragmatic conservatives should surely_try to find a way_around this_issue, to solve the serious free rider problem_which_makes healthcare more_expensive for everyone. Instead, the tea party rail against_the “tyranny” of having to purchase_healthcare, and yet_say_nothing_about the free rider_problem which hurts lower income people_most of all in the form_of higher insurance premiums and medical bills._Neither do they propose an alternative_solution to address the fact_that so_many of their fellow citizens_– some through_choice but_many through no_fault of their own – live_with the daily_fear that accident or sudden illness_could_bring them to_ruin._And_no, promising_to clamp down_on_medical malpractice_lawsuits_and muttering quietly about perhaps allowing_insurers_to sell policies across state lines, while_both sensible ideas, do_not_solve a problem of_this magnitude.

I could go on_to talk about “death panels” –_the GOP’s_term for_the basic idea that end-of-life care counselling should be offered (not_mandated, just offered) as part of_health insurance policies in_order that_more_people are given_the_opportunity to_make these key decisions while they are_young and_healthy, and potentially avert the suffering_and huge proportion of_total_lifetime medical expense which is incurred_during the end stages of terminal_diseases, through the issuance of_Do_Not_Resuscitate Orders etc. But there_is no need, because anyone who_reads the language_in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and_somehow_extrapolates in their mind that offering_end_of life counselling as part of_an_insurance_plan could in any way_equate to a “death panel” that_decides whether the disabled or infirm should live or_die is clearly_smoking something quite mind-alteringly potent_and_will_not be swayed by anything committed to print here.

I could_also talk_about the fact_that the GOP’s constant use of the term “government-run healthcare”,_or suggestions that government has taken over_the healthcare industry (i.e. nationalisation) are ludicrous, alarmist and clearly and_demonstrably false. But