One of the amazing spectacles of the last four years is seeing the GOP run fleeing in terror from policies they have previously championed, because President Obama has embraced them. Health care reform is a particular example--Obamacare is essentially the same thing as Romneycare with a few tweaks, and is far from the sort of reforms Democrats have championed in the past. And yet now Republicans denounce the Affordable Care Act as though it were written by Lenin himself--including the guy whose plan it's based on, one Willard Romney. The healthcare industry is not a traditional GOP constituency (unlike defense or Big Oil), and there are many places where GOP and the healthcare industry come into conflict.
Many have dismissed this spectacle as just politics--the opposition party opposing whatever the party in power wants to do, regardless of whether it agrees on principle. (Especially with a black guy in the White House). Others have noted that the GOP has been taken over by a faction highly distrustful of government, and ideological opposition to government-run anything is stronger than in prior years (especially in those years where Republicans hold the White House). But still, what gives? Until recently, the GOP has agreed with Democrats that reforming health care is an important thing to do, they have merely disagreed on how.
But here's another thought.
One of the signature tactics of the right wing over the past four decades, is the "starve the beast" philosophy: Try to force government to shrink (at least those parts the GOP doesn't like, such as aid to the poor and urban infrastructure) by denying it tax revenue.
But what if a key part of starving the beast is not just denying it sustenance, but in forcing it to spend the money it does have on things that DON'T benefit the public, further undermining public confidence?
One of the big reasons local governments, in particular, are having a funding crisis--having to choose between cutting services and raising revenue to maintain services--is because of healthcare. The cost of healthcare is a giant tax on the economy--one that public-sector employers pay just as much (if not more so) than do private sector ones. In many government agencies, service cuts are being made as more and more tax money goes to pay for the increasing cost of benefits.
Who benefits?
* The taxpayers don't, certainly--they get lower levels of services, higher taxes, or both.
* Public employees don't--while the cost of their total compensation goes up when this happens, neither the take-home pay nor the value of the healthcare they receive is increasing. Increased healthcare insurance premiums don't help the beneficiary in the slightest. In many cases, public employees are being asked to take pay cuts or benefit reductions, just like the private sector is experiencing.
* Anti-government ideologists benefit tremendously: They get to accuse the government of wasteful spending--taxes go up and services go down, and much of the public doesn't know where the money really goes, or gets distracted by tales of some boondoggle.
* The medical-industrial complex benefits as well; they have their meathooks into pretty much all sectors of the economy.
Could it be, then, that part of the reason for GOP intransigence on health care, including a lack of desire to propose serious solutions of their own (beyond ideological positions such as "more deregulation"), is that they view this state of affairs as a GOOD thing?
One minor note: This thread is not intended as a place to debate the merits of Obamacare vs things like single-payer or a public option. Plenty of places to discuss that.