While I can’t take the insult-laden prose of most of National Review Online, I really like their Agenda blog headed by Reihan Salam. He says things that I sometimes agree with, but often not. But he and his fellow Agenda bloggers do two important things:
1) They usually acknowledge that there are problems to be solved as opposed to saying that a particular problem is merely a liberal delusion.
2) They argue over facts rather than personalities. They will argue that Obamacare has flaws. But they will do so without personal insult. They will also stick to what’s in a plan and so don’t discuss the mythical death panels when discussing Obamacare.
Because they do these two things, I’m willing to listen to what they have to say. If you’re a conservative who wants to change my mind instead of venting, this is the approach you ought to take with me.
This particular Agenda article is interesting because it talks about how we’d likely be within the projected targets for enrollment under the Affordable Health Act aka Obamacare if only the federal exchange worked as well as the best state exchanges. They use this as a springboard to criticize the cumbersome federal IT procurement process.
This is all fine and valid, but I find it interesting that they do not devote any attention at all to examining what might have been if 26 states (including my own) had not refused to open their own exchanges. If it is a Conservative given that states will normally operate more efficiently than the federal government, why not criticize those states that did not take enough responsibility for their own citizens to set up a locally produced exchange?
Perhaps they’ll address that issue later. I think it is a logical topic for them.