The Right Prescription
The Republican Alternative
The GOP health bill — which House Democrats rejected — would mean lower costs, more coverage, no taxes, and no deficits.
Democrats have been telling us all year that the Republicans have no health reform alternative. They are just the party of no! So we must have all been hallucinating when, lo and behold, just before the recent House vote on the Pelosi/Obama government health care takeover bill, there was a vote on…the Republican alternative.
Exactly the opposite of the House Democrat health plan, the Republican alternative would actually reduce the cost of health insurance and care. It would also expand coverage and provide a safety net ensuring that no one would be excluded from essential health coverage or care. It would also expand consumer choice and control over health care.
At the same time, the Republican plan involves no tax increases, no Medicare cuts, no rationing, and no increased deficits now or in the future. Exactly how all this is accomplished is fully explained below.
Lower Costs
The Republican plan allows insurers to sell health insurance across state lines. This would greatly expand competition, enabling the more than 1,000 private insurance companies to each compete nationally. That vastly increased competition would reduce health insurance premiums and costs. It would also greatly expand consumer freedom of choice.
We hear liberal complaints about areas within some states that only have a couple of insurance companies competing. That is entirely due to government regulation. We see ads for car insurance, and every other type of insurance, competing nationally all the time. There is no reason why we can’t enjoy the same for health insurance.
The Republican plan, of course, includes medical liability tort reform modeled after successful reforms in California and Texas. This would sharply reduce costly junk lawsuits and the resulting costly defensive medicine pursued just to protect against frivolous claims. Democrats crassly oppose this because of the enormous contributions they receive from Plaintiffs’ attorneys, which has been openly admitted.
The Republican plan would further reduce costs by enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which are themselves a Republican reform fundamentally changing health care by introducing market incentives to reduce costs. Individuals with HSAs keep most of their money for health care in a savings account, earning tax-free interest, with the rest going to purchase a high-deductible, catastrophic insurance policy. The premium cost for such catastrophic coverage, with deductibles generally ranging from $2,000 to $6,000 a year, is much lower than for standard, low-deductible health insurance, allowing the savings in the account to grow quickly to cover the entire deductible. Patients with HSAs are free to use the money in their accounts for any health care, including preventive care, check-ups, prescriptions, dental care, eye care, and the full range of alternative medicine. Nothing could do more to increase consumer freedom of choice and to put patients in control of their own health care.
Money kept in HSAs can be used for health care in later years, or for anything in retirement. So patients are effectively using their own money for non-catastrophic care. That provides powerful incentives to avoid overly costly or unnecessary care and to look for doctors and hospitals that can provide quality care at lower cost, creating real market competition to reduce costs.
The Republican House alternative would allow consumers to use funds saved in HSAs to pay for the catastrophic insurance covering costs above the deductible. Broadly expanding HSAs across the entire health system, including Medicare and Medicaid, would essentially solve the health cost problem.
CBO confirms that this Republican alternative plan would reduce health insurance costs, exactly the opposite of the Pelosi/Obama plan that CBO confirms would increase health insurance costs. The CBO analysis shows that for millions of families health insurance premiums would be almost $5,000 per year less under this GOP plan than the cheapest health insurance under the Pelosi bill.
Expanded Coverage and a Safety Net
The GOP alternative also includes several provisions to expand health insurance coverage. Most important are the Universal Access Programs that would expand uninsurable risk pools to ensure that all Americans would be able to obtain coverage for any pre-existing condition. The uninsured who become too sick to buy private health insurance covering their condition can turn to their state’s risk pool for coverage. They are charged premiums for such coverage based on their ability to pay. Each state then subsidizes its uninsurable risk pool to ensure that it could cover all costs.
Few people become truly uninsurable because of their health condition, so the risk pools are a low cost solution. But trying to force these people into the same market risk pools as everyone else through such policies as guaranteed issue (requiring insurers to accept all applicants for coverage regardless of health condition) and community rating (requiring insurers to charge everyone the same regardless of health condition) just ruins health insurance for the general public, making it too expensive and sharply increasing the uninsured as a result. Providing for the uninsurable separately through their own pool is consequently a much better policy.
The GOP plan would also enable small businesses to pool together to offer health insurance at lower prices, like big corporations and labor unions, which would further increase coverage. The proposal would also allow and encourage coverage for young adults on their parents’ insurance through age 25. And though this has already been the law for many years, the Republican plan would also expressly prohibit insurers from canceling health insurance policies as long as payments continue, unless the insured commits fraud or conceals a material fact about a health condition.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (134) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/18/the-republican-alternative
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 11.18.09 @ 6:47AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : The Republican Alternative [spectato links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.18.09 @ 7:06AM
HEALTHCARE THAT WORKS: The Republican Alternative links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Big J| 11.18.09 @ 7:14AM
"But today's so-called liberals are so fiercely partisan now that they have become mentally disengaged. They refuse to even consider any conservative or Republican arguments on any issue, from global warming, to tax policy, to economic policy, to the budget. As a result, they have become dangerous people. What they are supporting is an outright assault on the health care of America's seniors. But they don't have a clue."
At the risk of being argumentative, I have to disagree.
Maobama and the congress critters currently in Washington D.C. are punch drunk on power. Much like a meth addict, they will stop at nothing to get one more bump.
"Health care reform" is not about reform at all, hence the complete opposition to sound solutions. It is about nothing more than control over a large portion of our economy, as well as every aspect of our lives.
"Cap and trade" is not about stopping "man-made global warming (oops! climate change), it is about control and the redistribution of wealth.
The misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act"? Payback to the unions that put these clowns in power.
Anyone who has read Ayn Rand recognizes exactly what is going on.
Who the heck is John Galt?
He is me.
Paul McGrath| 11.18.09 @ 7:23PM
You nailed it. Health care reform has nothing to do with reducing costs or insuring the uninsured. It has everything to do with this enormous amount of money going to the federal government FIRST, before it gets distributed--at their whim--to your doctor or to yourself. And while this enormous amount of money is in their hands you can be sure huge chunks of it will be used for all sorts noble and ignoble purposes. It's sickening to think about how much of it will be wasted.
martin j smith| 11.18.09 @ 7:59AM
Who supports Obama care. Let me hazard a theory and a guess: First of all the "true believers" --Communists-who are perfectly aware of the implications of this Bill as a political weapon. Seond: The fellow travelers: These folks are not as ideologically driven as the first group, but being a Liberal Democrat is their religion--so to speak. The third group are what have been termed"moderates"--they want everyone to be happy and for this country to be "fair". Except for one tiny,tiny little problem( in the case of the moderates ) They too will pay a very high price for Obama care. For example the recent new protocol on women's breast cancer. When middle class "moderates" wake up to find themselves,their daughters etc being rationed on their health care--then the light bulb might go on and bingo it will be fair for thee--not for me buddy. Finally what of the second group ? These folks I am afraid as so stupid that even if they were told that a "Death Panel" refuses care they need, they would not do a thing ?.
Colin | 11.18.09 @ 8:09AM
This is all fine well, but I see no mention of whether the Republican plan contains the illegal and unconstitutional ... MANDATE!
If the da-m MANDATE is also included, a lot of us will be as screwed as the Democrats plan would have us.
Is it in there? If so, where?
S.L. Toddard| 11.18.09 @ 8:29AM
Nowhere in there do I see a proposal for an amendment delegating to the federal government the power to regulate health-care.
Sir| 11.18.09 @ 9:03AM
Surprisingly enough, I agree with you. This matter should ONLY be taken up in the national congress AFTER some Amendment is ratified which gives the national government the DUTY to oversee it/healthcare/health insurance. Until then, everything they do is still un-Constitutional, regardless of good- or bad- idea status. They just can't help but jump into the middle of it.
Ray| 11.18.09 @ 12:13PM
I'm hoping somebody -- citizen, senator, Supreme Court Judge -- will file suit on the grounds that this bill is unconstitutional. I would do it, but I don't have the resources.
victor| 11.18.09 @ 10:26PM
Seems to me, that the Republicand bill is all about Government Non-Control of Health Care.
Equating Health insurance with car insurance is just the Right Way to go.
You buy only what you need. More coverage or less coverage, the Buyer decides.
Health savings accounts give the consumer the power of their dollar and not the Government.
Erasing stae lines and mandates will get the State out of Health Insurance.
No need for any amendments.
Kent| 11.18.09 @ 10:11AM
Fantastic! I agree wholeheartedly with the points in this article. Trouble is, where was the big push to initiate these reforms when the Republicans had some measure of control? This is precisely why the "moderates" dislike the right. We talk a good game, but we're always on the defensive. Now we have the Obama, Reid, Pelosi trifecta to contend with and we're locked out again. Too little too late. If, and it's a big if, we can make some gains in 2010 we better just shut up and carry through with reforms. Playing defense only left a vacuum for Obama to fill. TAS- thanks in advance for keeping this discussion alive.
ALWAYS VOTE| 11.18.09 @ 10:12AM
HOW QUICKLY WE FORGET THAT THE CITIZENS DID NOT WANT A HEALTHCARE BILL - PERIOD! NOT A DEM BILL, NOT A REPUB BILL! INTERESTING HOW CONGRESS - BOTH SIDES - ARE TRYING TO REGULATE OUR LIVES.
Pingback| 11.18.09 @ 10:22AM
Texas Health Insurance - Afghans on hold, awaiting Karzai, Obama decisions - Mohave D links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
martinm j smith| 11.18.09 @ 10:37AM
I do not trust either party--but since the Repubs are the opposition I support them in any opposition to Obama Care. Here is the problem: The idea that"something needs to be done" has gained currency--the problem is what ? Going back to what I have said above--the goal is to wake up as many" moderates" as possible that they too will be victims of Obama care Rationing among other things. In a way I think this federal panel's recommendations on breast cancer should be used as a wake up call to these folks who dutifly gone on marches for breast cancer research ( and advertise their survival ) . There is a need to get the word of danger out as much as possible. The first duty of doctors is:" do no harm" Well.....
Sir| 11.18.09 @ 10:46AM
Mr. Smith, you're wrong. NOTHING needs to be done... by the national government. Period. It's not their job.
martin j smith| 11.18.09 @ 11:45AM
Remember I said " Do no harm" . That is crucial. Another even more important thing is to win elections. If doing nothing is a winner GREAT!!
But, if something can be done that does not harm the delivery of health care--not a health insurance card and does not overburden the economy and taxation included that is good. What about tort reform. What opening insurance purchases accross state lines ? These aspects among others re ones tht should offered and explained to voters. And--the alternative consequences of Obama care on the economy,service deliver you name it should be continueously exposed.
Sir| 11.18.09 @ 11:59AM
I see your point, and since I agree with you I'll only add that the national government never should have gotten into regulation of insurance businesses in the first place. They just can't seem to help themselves. They're control freaks, insecure and desperate to take action which aggrandizes them in the public eye.
victor| 11.18.09 @ 10:31PM
Absolutely!
Across State line purchases.
Health Savings Accounts.
Portability.
Tort Reform.
All of these will lessen the grip of the State and lessen the cost of Health care.
he last point about pooling coverage to offer lower cost coverage is already being used by Christian groups to provide coverage to church members who pay a small monthly fee and then submit receipts for nearly complete reimbursement.
No Government Involvement Needed!
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 11:25AM
IF repubes are against a health care bill, why are the so stupid to actually create their own version. Stick to your guns and don't pander to politics. Morons.
Chris| 11.18.09 @ 3:01PM
Your intelligence shines so brightly when you use such eloquent language. Get a life.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 11:30AM
The republican alternative basically assures that Obama's bill will pass. It retards the republicans fight that Government shouldn't get involved in health care and also alludes to the fact that reform is needed. whoever is in charge of the new bill should be demoted. What a knucklehead.
roy| 11.18.09 @ 11:40AM
Please enlighten us. Where in the Constitution is the government authorized to regulate healthcare? Also, how is deregulation that would lower individuals healthcare costs not reform?
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 11:49AM
This isn't a constitution class. I suggest you sign up for one. The constitution doesn't have a lot of things that happen in this country. Deregulation wouldn't reduce healthcare costs imo but deregulation eliminates or reduces the govs involvement in the health care industry so it is a type of reform but I don't really understand your question so I don't think I answered it.
Bydand76| 11.18.09 @ 11:45AM
So if your opponents tell you that you have no viable option to counter their proposal, then it is ok to be critical without offereing your own solution to the problem? If you have the leverage of a serious argument but are unable to offer a solution then you run the risk of being a empty shell?
That makes no sense at all.
I think the point is that Americans would like to see some type of Health care reform.
I fail to see how the Republican plan ensures passage of the Democrats bill.
I think you are putting to much emphasis on what you would like to see become a reality.
Anything that is an alternative would be better than this Democrat created abomanation.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 11:53AM
See that's the problem. Your saying that any alternative would be better than the Democrat bill but from day one, repubes said that govt shouldn't get involved. All of a sudden they have a bill waiting. The funny part is that the republican version would only save consumers a couple of bucks and doesn't provide an alternative to those who can't afford insurance. I know your probably the type that says screw them, bootstraps and etc but I am a bleeding heart and would rather use billions on our own citizens than blunder it away in Iraq.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 11:57AM
If it does save consumers money, which I honestly opine that it won't, it would only be penny's on the dollar. Pretty soon you'll have Sal the gas attendant moonlighting as a medical insurance salesman.
Bydand76| 11.18.09 @ 8:13PM
Ok,
So in a nutshell what you are saying is that since the Democrat purposal is bad to begin with. Then the Republicans should not do anything even while they are being called the just say no to everything guys. Right?
So when the Republicans come out with their own purposal then you are taking the stance that it is a pointless excercise because it is a bad purposal to begin with?
I think the underlying point which you are missing here is that the Republicans are simply saying that if America wants a Govt. run Health care insurance program then this purposal might be a better way of going about it,
Also, if its money that is an issue with you then why in the world would you support the Democrat plan.
See that is the fundamental flaw with bleeding heart ideology.
While some people are taken care of it always ends up screwing someone else.
I would opine that you already have Sal the gas attendant moonlighting right now due to the fact that he is simply trying to make ends meet. If he is qualified then I have no problem with that.
I guess I am not following the logic of your argument. All the Republicans said was that there is a better way to do this IF we have to do it at all.
It really isnt that big of a deal considering it was ignored for all intents and purposes
victor| 11.18.09 @ 10:35PM
Hey Bydand76,
No use in talking, he makes himself plain.
No War, but spend the money anyway on social programs.
Bydand76| 11.18.09 @ 11:05PM
(SIGH)
I know. I am just bored I guess.
Has anyone else seen this?
This from CNN news: http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/17.....c-vi26.wmv
Kind of interesting. Wouldn't you agree?
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 11:36AM
Is Marion Berry a republican strategist because whoever is running the show is smoking crack. Republicans had the bill stalled on death squads, government paid abortions, and that govt shouldn't be involved in health care. Now people are scratching their heads wondering if Govt needs to be involved since both sides are suggesting reform is needed.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 11:39AM
And the alternative is basically the same thing that happened with utility companies and we all know how that worked out. Higher "trasnportation" costs and other hidden costs due to so called "competition".
Sir| 11.18.09 @ 11:46AM
Congratulations. You've succeeded in only a few mindless posts to prove that you know nothing about business, with the additional implication that you've never held a full-time job in your life.
I repeat: Congratulations.
Moron.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 11:55AM
So I'm to assume that your a filthy rich business man that spends his days fishing for yellow tail? Bitterness does not suite you well.
Sir| 11.18.09 @ 12:01PM
Mr. Pigs, I assure you that I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. However, I DO understand the simplest of economic theories and philosophies, which apparently you do NOT. The rest of your inference I'm not sure I understand.
Do have a nice day.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 12:11PM
It is a sad day when you get censored by American Spectator.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 12:13PM
Firefox is lame. Anyway, I still don't get how you even understand simple macro economics let alone theories and philosophies. Maybe you should use examples in the future rather than use ad hominem fallacies.
Sir| 11.18.09 @ 12:22PM
Mr. Pigs, let's start with this question for you to answer: Where in the Constitution of the United States of America does the national Congress have the authority - let alone the duty - to dip their putrid hands into health-something/health-anything? When you find that in the Powers, let me know. If I've underestimated your schooling and/or experience in Economics, please accept my apology. It's just that your response(s) in this thread/topic betray a lack of understanding of the core, base, simple economic concepts - that you believe in the widely discredited Keynesian theory(ies).
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 12:29PM
Dude this isn't a constitutional theory classroom. To me though, not much of the Constitution's meaning can be read as implicit in the text. So in the end when it is all settle in the legislation, leave it to the judiciary a la Marbury v Madison and not to Economic experts such as yourself.
Sir| 11.18.09 @ 12:33PM
Mr. Pigs, the problem we're faced with today is that we, the People of the United States, have been 'leaving it to' the congress-critters and justices rather than governing ourselves.
Dude.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 12:43PM
You got to use dude first followed by your point. THis argument can go on for days. Apparently we govern ourselves through who we elect. Honestly anarchy would break out in the streets if we "governed ourselves". Can you imagine all the different "governments" we would have if everyone "governed" themselves?
Duke| 11.18.09 @ 12:32PM
You know, two things strike me about this article...
One- Isn't it curious that there was no coverage of this Republican initiative anywhere.
Two- Why aren't the Republicans themselves shouting about this from the highest rafters.....
I really think they all should be tossed and we need to start again.. but that's just me.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 12:38PM
I'm actually not an economics major but I still fail to see how the Kenesian theory of economics has been widely discredited. Please enlighten us. Because Laissez-faire economics worked well for the auto industry and the banks.
Sir| 11.18.09 @ 12:47PM
Mr. Pigs, I was not an Econ major, either. I'm not here to tutor people on one subject or another, either. If you want enlightenment, try not being satisfied with any given answer unless it makes perfect, logical sense taken in consideration with human nature.
WRT the auto and banking industries, if you think that they were/have been "left to be" by government/regulators, you're out of your mind. The free market can only truly work when entities are allowed to fail. Failure is the key. Our country - especially the congress-critters - have become such pansies that we've lost the stomach to see people and firms fail, to be bought up by a competitor (who had been doing things differently and perhaps more wisely). GM should have been allowed to fail. The banks should have been allowed to fail. People should have been allowed to lose their homes. Etc. It's a bit cold-hearted, but that's the only way free markets can work.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 12:52PM
Who does free market work for? Your going to eventually have an aristocracy if failure is your key to survival. You think the murder suicides and mass killings are bad now, let more people fail and see what happens. All those people that you think need to fail for success are just going to be a bigger burden on our government. So why not try to save these institutions before you have to pay unemployment benefits to a ceo.
Sir| 11.18.09 @ 12:58PM
Wow.
Never mind.
Just... I'm... I... don't know what to say to that.
Have a nice day.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 1:02PM
ha ha. Apparently you don't agree or maybe I got a little crazy on that one. Anyway enjoy your day.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 1:02PM
ha ha. Apparently you don't agree or maybe I got a little crazy on that one. Anyway enjoy your day.
Doorgunner| 11.18.09 @ 2:07PM
"President Barack Obama's job approval rating is 48 - 42 percent, the first time he has slipped below the 50 percent threshold nationally, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today."
Enjoy your day.
Doorgunner| 11.18.09 @ 2:10PM
He'll be below Bush's December '08 numbers by May at his rate.
And you're an idiot.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 5:17PM
Speaking of job approval rating, how did the hoopla over Palins book turn out. lmao a couple hundred people.
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. – Hundreds of Sarah Palin fans lined up Wednesday at a Michigan book store to get the chance to meet the former Alaska governor as she kicked off a national tour for her book "Going Rogue."
victor| 11.18.09 @ 10:47PM
You Asked For It!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYgIYzs-yJ8
School boy| 11.19.09 @ 1:10AM
Nice!
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 5:09PM
Quinnipiac University poll is the laughing stock of survey research.
Doorgunner| 11.18.09 @ 6:18PM
Here's a tidbit from today's Rasmussen Presidential Tracking:
"Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That figure includes 40% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Overall, among all voters, 52% now disapprove.
Republicans continue to hold a six-percentage point lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot.
Just 29% agree with the decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and five other terrorists suspects in a New York city courtroom. Only 14% believe terrorist suspects should receive the same legal rights in court as U.S. citizens."
As for Palin, from yesterday's Wall Street Journal:
"Sarah Palin’s memoir just hit the stands today but demand for “Going Rogue: An American Life” is so strong that HarperCollins Publishers is going back to press for an additional 100,000 run, bringing the total number of hard-covers in print to 1.6 million copies."
The only laughing stock here, is you.
Doorgunner| 11.18.09 @ 6:22PM
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan
School boy| 11.19.09 @ 1:12AM
Real Nice!
victor| 11.18.09 @ 10:48PM
You Asked For It!
Sarah Palin Update!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYgIYzs-yJ8
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 1:00PM
A lot of these companies that failed, failed because of lack of oversight by the government. If anything, govt should have saved them years ago and not when they were in the dumps already. You can't expect money managers to do what is right all the time. The almighty dollar does not allow it. Everyone is trying to squeeze the last juice out of every possible penny no matter what the consequences are.
Doorgunner| 11.18.09 @ 7:19PM
Why, here's the dean of Harvard Medical School to refute every argument your paper-hat-wearing ass has made here regarding health care reform:
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....54014.html
Ding! Fries are done.
Bydand76| 11.18.09 @ 8:21PM
Ha Ha!
Nice Shot Doorgunner!
Can I get a liter of cola with that?
School boy| 11.19.09 @ 1:17AM
O thats a burn! keep it coming Doorgunner
George True| 11.18.09 @ 1:47PM
Interesting posts. It is absolutely true that nowhere in the Constitution is the government authorized to take over health care. But those of you who arguethat the Republican bill is just a different version of a government takeover, and thus just as unconstitutional are missing a fundamental difference. The Republican plan in no way has the government taking over any part of health insurance or healthcare. What is does is REMOVE decades of prior government interference in and regulation of the health insurance and healthcare industries that has been the root cause of most olf the current problems that are in need of "reform". Thus, I don't believe there is anything unconstitutional about a bill that largely REMOVES government from the equation.
Personally, I think an insurance company should be legally able to offer just about any kind of health insurance policy they want to. Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware. Would some people get burned on some piece of crap health insurance policies? Probably. But it would not be long before consumers would zero in on the policies that offered the best value. In addition there would be a plethora of new policies that would be custom tailored in many ways to specific market niches. And prices would come down. Publications like Consumer Reports would rate the best policies with the best values. Health insurance would become a truly market driven commodity like it used to be a long time ago. BUt first, the government has to largely remove itself from the equation and from the process.
The risk pools to cover those with pre-existing uninsurable conditions would be done at the state level. Under the Constitution, the federal government has no authority to do this, but the states do.
Duke: The Republicans had their alternate bill ready to go back in the first quarter of 2009. But the state-run mainstream media has steadfastly refused to cover it in any way. They would not even tell the public that such an alternative plan even existed. They refused to have Republican lawmakers on their news programs talking about healthcare for fear that said Republicans would then inform their viewers that there was a viable alternative to the Democrat party's so-called "reform" bill.
victor| 11.18.09 @ 10:52PM
Thank You George!
This truly is a Pro Choice Bill.
Free to Choose your own coverage.
Free to choose your own company.
Free to choose your own Doctor!
This is a Choice that democrats don't believe in!
Oldefarte| 11.18.09 @ 2:20PM
Though extremely informative, this editorial is missing the POINT, which is that Obamacare is nothing but intended W-E-L-F-A-R-E [or WEALTH TRANFER if you prefer]!!!!!
Sir| 11.18.09 @ 2:30PM
True, Mr. Farte. The whole objective of the modern, leftist, democrat socialists is to get the populace (as many as possible) accustomed/addicted to the government dole... to solidify their voting base, for re-election and maintenance of power (as they see it).
It's pure evil.
victor| 11.18.09 @ 10:53PM
Dear Sir,
Well Said!
Democrats are pure evil!
Pingback| 11.18.09 @ 2:57PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : The Republican Alternative [spectato links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.18.09 @ 3:36PM
Adults Only – The Bargain Hunter: Early holiday deals – San Francisco Chronicle « Adu links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
LIberal Reader| 11.18.09 @ 4:21PM
John Boehner is orange.
Big J| 11.18.09 @ 4:28PM
Ladies and gentlemen, behold:
What you witness here today is probably the most intelligent and relevant post Liberal Reader has ever blessed us with.
I am speechless.
Sir| 11.18.09 @ 4:32PM
At least Boehner isn't a watermelon like the modern liberals: green on the outside and red on the inside, that is. Not that I like any single, solitary one of the congress-critters, though.
Bydand76| 11.19.09 @ 2:43AM
That was awesome!
From henceforth I shall refer to all Liberals as "watermelons"
Brilliant!
Pro Libertate!
Margie| 11.18.09 @ 11:07PM
ha!
School boy| 11.19.09 @ 1:22AM
LOL . O Shi** that was funny
Duke| 11.18.09 @ 4:56PM
Who is this A-hole pingback.... there's always some fruitcake that just has to spam isn't there? God... what an idiot.
defeated pigs| 11.18.09 @ 5:12PM
ASHINGTON – Health care legislation heading for the Senate floor this week would extend coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans at a cost of $849 billion over a decade, a Democratic leadership aide said Wednesday, citing a report from congressional budget experts.
As rank-and-file Democrats gathered to learn details of the long-awaited bill, the aide also said the Congressional Budget Office had estimated the legislation would reduce federal deficits by a total of $127 billion over that decade.
The aide said the budget agency also projected that if enacted, the legislation would leave 94 percent of eligible individuals with coverage.
Doorgunner| 11.18.09 @ 6:09PM
I thought was 46 million. ObaMao said it was 46 million; so did all the other Lefty tools. What happened to those 15 million poor, uninsured souls? Please, tell us.
School boy| 11.19.09 @ 1:28AM
thats $27387 each
ARTLmedia| 11.18.09 @ 8:00PM
'Red Herring.'
Conservatives LOVE distractions from reality.
Buy health insurance accross state lines?
Where are the 50 state insurance commisioners
going to go?
Tort reform/limits? That will tackle the 1-2% of health care costs related to lawsuits.
Yes ,the key to happiness is allowing healthcare costs to eat up 20-30% of the avg american salary
by 2016-thats a conservative plan we can all get behind!Keep the HC Industry profitable- we get something from that..don't we???
victor| 11.18.09 @ 11:02PM
Dear ARTLESSmedia,
"Buy health insurance accross state lines?
Where are the 50 state insurance commisioners
going to go?"
Making sure that insurors follow the rules, much like auto insurors.
They are referee's, not rule makes.
"Tort reform/limits? That will tackle the 1-2% of health care costs related to lawsuits."
Where did you get that number from? John Edwards?
"Yes ,the key to happiness is allowing healthcare costs to eat up 20-30% of the avg american salary"
Do you know how many health insurance companies there are?
3000!
Consumer costs will go down, down, down, when the consumer has CHOICE!
We pay $800 a year for auto insurance because we have the CHOICE to do so.
There are companies that sell basic coverage for 100-150 a month or so, but they are not allowed by GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER'S MANDATES in our state.
Cervantes| 11.18.09 @ 11:08PM
YAY!
Robert Byrd the former KKK Democrat is now the longest serving senator in Congressional history!
I wonder if Obama is going to give him some DVD's for this or something?
Maybe a Pinata or something?
Conrad| 11.18.09 @ 11:18PM
The Republican's proposed health insurance reform plan HNET (Health Savings Account - Nationwide Purchasing - Expanded Coverage - Tort Reform) allows for the people to be responsible and accountable for their own type of coverage, keeps the free markets competitive, reduces government influence on our lives and creates the desperatly needed savings accounts we need to strengthen our economy. This plan will not need to be shoved down our throuts either, especially after Obama ensures that our country is economically dead.
ATLmedia| 11.18.09 @ 11:38PM
Sorry Vic, but you have to keep ignoring the real world to support 'republican reform'.
No...you can't buy car insurance accross state lines
No ...choice for most people, is (all of) one of three companies in most cities, for health insurance- Avg cost, $13g for a family of four...
A # that doubled in Bushs 8 years of ignor-ance. &
No, Lawyers didn't make your insurance costs sky rocket- insurance companies actually make a fortune on malpractice- between 1-2% goes to court ordered awards.&
No Palin-esque platitudes can make the healthcare crisis go bye-bye.
It's gonna take real reform.
Kinda like,well, the rest of the world has done.
Nick| 11.18.09 @ 11:58PM
Hey, ALTmedia, are you stinking democrats still cheering?
Is Corzine? Is Deeds? Is Greg Craig? Are global warmin nuts?
Cap-n-Tax is dead!
ObamaCare is dead!
Buh-bye, ObamaCare, buh-bye!
Bydand76| 11.19.09 @ 2:35AM
Your operating on the premise that there IS a crisis.
SOP for you bitch Democrats though. Make one up when there isnt one. To many illegals immigrants clamoring for attention and pandering to the liberal elite maybe?
No Nancy Pelosi platitudes will ever make that go away either.
Rahm Emanueal, David Axelrod, and Harry Reid can go to hell!
Push this GRHCP down the throats of the American people and you will suffer the consequences.
I promise you!
Make no mistake about it.
The rest of the world is not the USA cannot be compared! Quit using this a basis for your argument because we have the best run health care system and it is privatized!
You refer to the Western world and their Govt Run Health care plans are a fiasco.
Your numbers are made up and false. Please use actual data if you are going to cite numbers and please refer to a source. Pulling stuff out of your arse is typical though for left wing loonies though.
Go suck on G. Soros's big toe some more you!
Sir| 11.19.09 @ 8:41AM
Mr. media, has it completely escaped your awareness that the national government has NO power to do anything about healthcare/insurance... other than to remove its large, hairy, sandy, snotty nose from the tent? Crisis or not (really, not), the national Congress has no business in the realm of physical care. Physical defense, yes. Physical care, no.
Osamas Pajamas| 11.19.09 @ 12:53AM
We need a mighty axe to chop off Uncle Sam's hands and feet and leave him hopping around an' waving the bloody stumps until he keels over and croaks. And by "Uncle Sam" I mean every level of bloodsucking predatory humanitarian government.
rainbow anarcho-capitalist77| 11.19.09 @ 1:09AM
I have a question for the supporters of the Republican plan and the Democrat plan as well. Do you really, truely believe that it is possible to accomplish 1. more people covered 2 decreased costs while 3. maintaining the right to make decisions concerning health care without government imposed rationing, all the while not increasing the supply of medicine and continuing the government-imposed monopoly on non-generic prescription drugs?
rainbow anarcho-capitalist77| 11.19.09 @ 1:10AM
I should say the supply of medical care
Sir| 11.19.09 @ 8:47AM
Mr. rainbow, the line in the sand is widening between whom I refer to as pro-Constitution and anti-Constitution - rather than "supporters of the Republican plan and the Democrat plan..." Thank you, by the way, for using the word 'Democrat' rather than 'Democratic'. That always irks me. Most of us here at AmSpectator making comments will likely agree with you - the underlying premise of your question. I, for one, do NOT believe (because I understand basic economics) "we" can "cover" more people AND decrease costs AND allow patients/Drs to be the decision-makers... in perpetuity.
THIS is the number one reason that we MUST get our country back to the Constitution. With the path we're on, the ONLY conclusion can be communism. And NO, communism is not an o.k. thing.
Pingback| 11.19.09 @ 8:55AM
A Review of Alternative Reform Ideas | www.statehousecall.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.19.09 @ 9:03AM
A Review of Alternative Reform Ideas « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ATLmedia| 11.19.09 @ 11:59AM
Mr rainbow, the answer is...nearly everyone else in the world made their Insurance companies
non-profit & covered all there citizens at 40-60% lower rate than we pay here.
Note: Mr. 76er, the Sept 05 USA today survey found $11,000 avg Health Ins policy cost (back then) Maine studied lawsuit costs to medicine, there 04 survey found 3-6% of the overall cost could be pinned on lawsuits &..
2007,National Avg- 95% of lawsuits, never go to trial & are relatively small.
Facts are sooo Liberal, Arrrg
(under 5 thousand$)
Michael Kirsch, M.D. | 11.19.09 @ 12:02PM
Who can oppose liability reform in the unfair and dysfunctional medical malpractice system? We are wasting billions of dollars on defensive medicine and abusing innocent physicians. I've been drawn into several lawsuits in my 20 year career and was innocent in every case. I was released at various stages along the legal process. Great fun spending time and money on cases that should have never been filed against me. See www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com
Pingback| 11.21.09 @ 5:00PM
Peter Ferrara – right wing hack « PoliticoGoGo links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Alicevivi | 3.1.10 @ 10:47PM
Here are many Chinese special products sold online, you can choose them for your friend as the Birthday present or send to your parents. They must feel very surprise.
d | 4.2.10 @ 3:26AM
d
ghdmanufactoryoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 2:40AM
fgfh
sunglass | 4.4.10 @ 2:44AM
ghfdhg
paulsmithoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 2:58AM
hfg
burberryoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 3:01AM
fhgh
poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 11:22PM
thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica
dunia | 4.9.10 @ 1:06AM
kumpulan lagu lagu hits
dunia pewayangan
bolum izle | 4.26.10 @ 7:45AM
Who can oppose liability reform in the unfair and dysfunctional medical malpractice system? We are wasting billions of dollars on defensive medicine and abusing innocent physicians. I've been drawn into several lawsuits in my 20 year career and was innocent in every case. I was released at various stages along the legal process. Great fun spending time and money on cases that should have never been filed against me. See
notebook tamir | 7.13.10 @ 1:21PM
thanks for sharing
sineperde | 1.7.13 @ 9:53AM
We apprehend advanced complaints about areas aural some states that alone accept a brace of allowance companies competing. That is absolutely due to government regulation. We see ads for car insurance, and every added blazon of insurance, aggressive nationally all the time. There is no acumen why we can’t adore the aforementioned for bloom insurance.
www.kanal6.net