this is the difference that i see between dems and repubs when it comes to healthcare:

the beginning of the president’s plan includes this quote:

“the President has now put forth a proposal that incorporates the work the House and the Senate have done and adds additional ideas from Republican members of Congress. The President has long said he is open to any good ideas for reforming our health care system, and he looks forward to discussing ideas for further improvements from Republicans and Democrats at an open, bipartisan meeting on Thursday. “

the beginning of the republicans plan (sort of) includes this quote:

“Americans want a step-by-step, common-sense approach to health care reform, not Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s costly, 1,990-page government takeover of our nation’s health care system.”

when you first read through both plans/summaries you’re not really thinking about much until you get to the proposals or at least that’s how it is for me.  today, when i received the links side by side on my twitter account, i opened both to have a look side by side.

after looking again, i noticed the statements that i included in bold italics above.  the difference between the two is the tone or rhetoric.  the president touts the fact that he’s gone back to the drawing board, included those ideas from democrats that he feels are worthwhile and included those ideas that he thought where worthwhile from republicans (what few they’ve put forth).  when you read the republicans’ statement they, once again, have to make it an attack and use negativity.

rather than put forth debate on the merits of the two plans, the republicans have to resort to these tactics and it again shows them as the party of no and negativity.  why, in the first sentence of your plan, must you attack?  the democrats’ statement is in the first paragraph and repeated in similar form later in the proposal.  not once is there an outright attack with nasty rhetoric such as the republican plan does in the first sentence of the first paragraph!

when you get to the table at the bottom of the republican plan it again uses nasty rhetoric to prove its point.  it’s not necessary.  if you have a good plan, lay it out and let people decide.  you don’t have to use the nasty language unless there isn’t much to stand on in the first place.

it’s clear that republicans are not interested in working with democrats.  they are like my kids were at the age of 2…they want what THEY want when THEY want it and nothing else will do.  i didn’t indulge them very often and i don’t think the republicans should be indulged either.

i’m being very generous in calling the republicans’ document that was released, a plan.  the president’s document is mainly just statements as well where as the senate’s and house’s versions are actual bills.  it’s easy to say ‘let’s sell insurance across state lines’ but it’s hard to spell out how that will work; how it would prevent insurance companies from picking the cheapest, least beneficial policies in lieu of what was required by their own home state.

so i guess the point of all of this was that the democrats, as they have since inauguration, have used less inflamatory rhetoric than republicans.  that’s not to say that dems haven’t used it but when you’re speaking to the public about a policy that you plan to enact, this sort of thing isn’t necessary.