GOP solutions needed
In my letter “A conservative shift” (July 14 and TribLIVE.com), I argued there would be a conservative shift among college graduates. It isn't far-fetched. But for young professionals to jump aboard with the GOP, the message needs to change from “repeal everything” to “solutions.”
The GOP-controlled U.S. House of Representatives has passed many bills to repeal ObamaCare: all symbolic, none going anywhere. GOP politicians, such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, are campaigning against this health care act. That's fine.
What hasn't been provided are plausible alternatives. I'm not an ObamaCare fan, and actually, the majority of Americans aren't fans, either. Our country champions jobs and growth; ObamaCare hurts both. But most Americans, conservatives included, also hate to see someone without needed care.
This is why Republicans need to be more pragmatic and explain how, in general terms, an alternative solution triumphs. Young Americans don't need a list of ugly statistics. Instead, we'd rather learn plausible ways of tackling health care at state or local levels. The federal government could form genuine partnerships with states instead of shoving rules at them.
Using election rhetoric, it's important for the GOP to care about the “100 percent.” I'm one of many who wants to repeal ObamaCare. But what's the alternative?
The writer graduated in April from the University of Pittsburgh.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Gross in 45th
- Watson in 33rd
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Embrace domestic energy production
- Justice incomplete
- Positive promise