A bigger problem is that cynical pols like Romney (and Michelle Bachmann on this issue) end up feeding into this self - defeating narrative because it seems easier than making a real
argument about health care or taxes or what have you.
Not exact matches
To make gains among these voters, Republicans needed to make detailed (but pithy)
arguments about what was wrong with Obamacare and the benefits of Republican
health care policy X (read National Affairs to get an idea of some of the things they could have said), and do so in plain language.
In the narrower legal context, this Hayekian - Rawlsian debate usually manifests itself in
arguments about whether the law should protect «negative rights,» that is, protect persons from government encroachment on their inalienable rights — like private property and free exercise of religion, or whether the law should foster «positive rights,» that is, promote the rights of people to receive tangible things like free
health care or housing under the auspices of equal treatment under the law.
I put stock in the
argument about unhealthy behaviours, such as smoking, causing
health care costs to increase which is a bill that we all have to foot.
Much the same as in the
argument about smoking, tanning can lead to skin diseases which will lead to rise in
health -
care costs, so there is that.