Can someone explain to me the philosophical opposition that the GOP has to the Obama healthcare plan? I don't mean political opposition to the plan. That I get. Anything Democrats favor, the GOP oppposes. That wasn't always the way of things in Congress, but that's the way it is now.
What I mean is, what's the philosophy to the opposition? For instance, the GOP is philosophically in favor of banning gay marriage because it believes that government has an interest in recognizing only a marriage between one man and one woman. I can argue the validity of that position, but it is a philosophy.
There doesn't seem to be any philosophy underpinning the opposition to the healthcare plan. The arguments have been based on states' rights, a long dead doctrine resolved once by the Civil War and again by Brown v Board of Education and its progeny, or that there's a violation of individual rights in requiring the purchase of health insurance.
This Supreme Court, which can't even read the one sentence Second Amendment accurately, may well be dumb enough to revive states' rights, but that's still not a philosphical opposition to the plan itself. If the plan were changed to be universal, government administered healthcare paid for by a tax, the states' rights argument would die on the vine but the opposition would not. As a tax paid program it would be no different from any other government plan, such as agricultural subsidies, defense spending, or WIC. Yet the GOP remains adamantly opposed to providing healthcare to as many Americans as possible, operating in some sort of logical bubble that separates the availability of medical providers from the expense of paying for them.
The opposition based on the requirement of individual purchase of coverage is not a philosophical objection, either. It's convenience. The GOP doesn't oppose mandatory auto insurance. For that matter it doesn't oppose requiring fees to register vehicles or to obtain a driver's license. These are all required purchases. Again, the current Supreme Court is dumb enough, and ideological enough, to buy this argument, but it's still not a philosophy.
Why does the GOP oppose Americans having healthcare available and paid for in a sustainable manner? (Not that this plan is necessarily either, but it's an attempt, and none of the opposition to it is couched in any failure it may be in that attempt.)