Fodder from fields outside the village being taken to cattle tethered in barns in Tocuaro, Mexico.
The point was raised in an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer by Paul Starr, a Princeton Univeristy professor, and it is valid one, that the GOP is opposing changes to health care as a means of political fodder to attempt to hold or win seats in elections.
That isn't really the issue that needs to be addressed in elections. The health of Americans and their longevity as related to their need for health care should not be at the heart of any re-election bid. Unless, they are supporting this much needed initiative.
What does this clearly say about Republicans?
They'll fight over anything without regard to live or death?
That is rational?
That is sane?
In who's book?
Posted on Fri, Nov. 20, 2009
Health-care historian: GOP opposing ideas it long espoused (click title to entry - thank you)
By Stacey Burling
Inquirer Staff Writer
...This time, it's different. There has been considerable grumbling from the medical establishment, but the approach Democrats are taking "doesn't really threaten any of those groups," said Paul Starr, a Princeton University professor who won a Pulitzer Prize for his book on the history of health care: The Social Transformation of American Medicine. He later was involved in the creation of the Clinton health plan.
Starr spoke yesterday to about 70 lawyers and Widener University professors and law students at the Union League. He later spoke at Widener.
This time, "one group remains unmollified, and that is the Republican Party," he said. The battle "has become a test of the ability of the Democrats to govern."...
