The Senate bill would force private plans to spend a minimum amount on paying medical claims and tax excessive premiums.  The tax on those premiums however would not count towards the limits.

As Robert Book explains:

It would be very easy for regulators to become to develop a plan “with a minimum benefit package that is high enough (say, above $8972 in average claims) that makes it literally impossible for health plans to break even, let alone make a profit.

Bush criticized Republicans for giving the impression that the GOP is the “party of no.” He told the group that Republicans are often “too nostalgic” and that the party needs to be more “forward looking” in order to regain national success. Bush reminded the audience that voter demographics are changing and called for the party to become more “youthful” and to abandon their image as “the old white guy party.” “Tone matters,” Bush said, “in twenty or so years our country will have a minority majority.”

But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the party must move towards the center. When asked by a student if the party platform needed to become more moderate on social issues, Bush replied, “no.” Rather, he stressed that Republicans “need to apply conservative principles to 21st century problems.”  Emphasizing “economic prosperity” is an issue which he believes can both unite conservatives from all wings of the party and attract new voters. Bush told the crowd that President Obama was turning the country into a European socialist state and killing innovation.

The former governor went on to say that the GOP must be the “limited but effective government party,” and stressed, there is no such thing as “big government conservatism.” Bush pointed to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels as an accomplished fiscally responsible politician, and urged Republicans to follow his example.

When asked for actual policies Republicans should be pushing, Bush called for “simpler and lower taxes,” and suggested a committee similar to Reagan’s Grace Commission to investigate and reduce government waste.

The students NewMajority spoke with were impressed with Governor Bush. One student wished that, “he would run for President in 2012.” A College Republican asserted that “Bush is a great leader for the Republican Party, he is a good ideas man, and he’s like Newt Gingrich, a powerful man behind the scenes.” Another student told Frum Forum that “Jeb seems a lot smarter than W., much more poised and articulate, I wish he was the Bush that achieved the presidency.”

“Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites,” Tancredo argued.  The former congressman told students that mutually assured destruction was the best policy for preventing attacks from “Islamo-Facists.” Tancredo insisted that Islamic terrorists would be greatly deterred from launching an attack on U.S. soil if they believe we are “crazy enough” to “take out” Mecca and Medina.

During the course of the event, Frum Forum also asked Tancredo his thoughts on the current state of the Republican Party. He replied, “Bipartisanship is overrated, we don’t need moderates in the party, we need principled conservatives.”Tancredo is looking for another Reagan, “a politician, who can inspire.” However, he does not see anyone who currently fits that mold.

During the speech, Tancredo also played a new tune for the audience, addressing fears about global warming.  When asked if the G.O.P. needs to adopt a platform on climate change and current environmental issues his response was quite eloquent in its brevity: “We have a position, its bull****.”

Tancredo’s old hits about bombing Mecca were not well received.  Those statements were met with mixed reactions from the crowd. Many students’ jaws dropped in amazement after he made the comments. Some looked around in awe and asked “Is he serious?” Others defended the need for such crazed action by saying “there is no other option.”

Distressingly though the students in attendance seemed quite happy with Tancredo’s new remarks on climate change and his statement that the GOP needs to move farther to the right, purging itself of moderates and RINOS.

I was chatting with one of my fellow interns when I noticed she had a stack of Pro-Life stickers, T-shirts, and pamphlets piled up on her desk. She apparently was given the material at one of Grover Norquist’s “Wednesday Meetings,” by someone who asked her if she would be interested in starting up a Pro-Life group on her college campus. Like a good young conservative activist eager to fight the liberal establishment, without hesitation she precipitously agreed.

My intern friend proceeded to ask me if I would like to have a sticker for my car. When I replied with a solemn “no,” she proceeded to Socratically question my position on abortion. When I told her that I do not consider myself “pro-life” or an evangelize for the movement, my friend was quite taken aback and looked almost insulted. My young colleague ardently disagreed with me, to no surprise as she is Catholic and a strong social conservative. But what’s notable was her initial response to my view of the issue, “Maybe you are working in the wrong place.”

Now of course the MRC is a conservative organization, and leans to the right on abortion. I chose to intern there because I am a conservative on foreign policy, immigration, economics, and basically every social issue, I don’t even consider myself “pro-choice.”

This kind of seclusion regarding social issues seems to be an overwhelming theme of the conservative movement and Republican party politics lately. More than once, I have been labeled a “squishy moderate” by my College Republican counterparts because of my view on abortion.

Apparently, gone are the days of Frank S. Meyer’s and William F. Buckley’s “fusionism.” While maybe supply-side economics won’t fix the financial problems of today, and SDI won’t help win the Cold War, a return to Reagan’s “big tent” philosophy would be a positive for conservatism. How can we rebuild a party when we practice seclusion rather than inclusion? Does one need to check every box on the conservative ideological checklist in order to be a Republican or a conservative?