The American Spectator : The Republican Alternative

Text Size

The Republican Alternative

By Peter Ferrara on 11.18.09 @ 6:08AM

The GOP health bill -- which House Democrats rejected -- would mean lower costs, more coverage, no taxes, and no deficits.

(Page 2 of 2)

The lower costs from the provisions above would also expand health coverage, as lower insurance costs reduce the number of uninsured. Wider availability of low cost HSA insurance would also expand coverage.

Blue Dog Fraud

Again, exactly the opposite of the House Democrat health care scheme, this Republican plan includes no tax increases, no Medicare cuts, and no health care rationing. In sharp contrast, the latest numbers from CBO show the costs of the Pelosi plan already exploding. Once that plan is fully phased in, over the first 10 years (2014-2023) total government spending would increase by over $3 trillion, not the $1 trillion that has been so widely reported. Total Medicare cuts over those 10 years would be over $1 trillion, and total tax increases would run over $1 trillion as well.

Yet, not one of the supposedly fiscal conservative Blue Dog Democrats voted for this Republican plan. Every single Democrat in the House voted against it. The so-called Blue Dog Democrat phenomenon is a scam. These Democrats were elected to the House in conservative districts on the promise that they were, honest to God, real conservatives. But once elected, they play a game with the left-wing House Democrat leadership providing just enough votes to pass Pelosi/Obama socialism every time, with the rest free to vote against it to keep the scam going back home. Whenever the leadership needs their vote, however, they are there.

It is these Blue Dog Democrats that keep the ultraleft House Democrat leadership in power, from Speaker Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco, to Banking Committee Chairman Barney Frank from Boston, to Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman from Hollywood, to Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charley Rangel from Harlem, to Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers from Detroit. If this is not the kind of leadership you want for America, then the so-called Blue Dog Democrats all need to be replaced.

The Democrats' Death Panel for Grandma

Whether they vote for any of the Obamacare bills or not, the so-called Blue Dogs in both the House and the Senate are enabling the ultraleft Democrat Congressional leadership in the passage of legislation that imposes government health care rationing on seniors under Medicare, which will deny them essential health care, and begins the implementation of such rationing for everyone else.

Included in these Democrat health bills is a new, unelected, Medicare "Commission" which would implement a new "global budget" for Medicare each year. That global budget would set an arbitrary limit on how much would be spent on health care for seniors every year. The Commission is to enforce that budget by deciding what health care treatments, procedures, surgeries, drugs, etc. would be covered under Medicare and paid for, and which would not. If the Commission decides that the expensive surgery or treatment that Grandma needs to stay alive is just not worth the cost, then the doctors will just come to tell you they are sorry, but there is nothing they can do.

The Wall Street Journal explained the result on Monday by quoting prominent health economist Alain Enthoven, who "has likened a global budget to ‘bombing from 35,000 feet, where you don't see the faces of the people you kill.'" The Journal explained further:

The hard budget cap means there is only so much money to be divvied up for care, with no account for demographic changes, such as longer life spans, or for the increasing incidence of diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic conditions. Worse, it makes little room for medical innovations. The commission is mandated to go after "sources of excessive cost growth" meaning treatments that are too expensive or whose coverage will boost spending. If researchers find a pricey treatment for Alzheimer's in 2020, that might be banned because it would add new costs and bust the global budget. Or it might decide that "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain-killer," as President Obama put it in June.

No true liberal would support allowing the government to play God in this way, deciding who will live and who will die. 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.

The House Republican health bill alternative not only includes no such rationing or Medicare cuts. It actually tries to roll back rationing provisions that have already been adopted. The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness is a new bureaucracy created in the so-called stimulus bill. President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors explained the role of "comparative effectiveness" in controlling health costs in a report it issued in June, "The Economic Case for Health Reform." The government bureaucracy in Washington would decide what health care works and what doesn't for everybody. It would then enforce its decisions through the payment system for doctors and hospitals. Those doctors and hospitals that don't follow the received wisdom of the wise and all-knowing federal bureaucrats would be penalized in their payments for your care, if they get paid at all.

The Journal again further explained this policy on Monday, saying:

The reason that physician discretion -- not Washington's cost minded judgments -- is at the core of medicine is that usually there are no "right" answers. The data from large clinical trials produce generic conclusions that rarely apply to individual patients, who have vastly different biologies, response rates to treatments, and often multiple conditions. A breakthrough drug like Herceptin, which is designed for a certain genetic subset of breast cancer patients, might well be ruled out under such a standardized approach.

You might think that your doctor who knows you and your illness would know what will work for you and what won't far better than faraway government bureaucrats that don't know you at all. But don't tell that to today's Washington Democrats, who know everything about everything, and don't need to hear anything from anybody.

This health care rationing involves a radical decline in America's standard of living. Today, Americans enjoy the best, most advanced, high tech, patient-centered health care in the world, devoted to improving and saving their lives. But after the Democrats get through imposing their throwback socialized medicine philosophy, this will all be gone, and we will suffer with the same third rate health care as in other socialized medicine systems around the world. This suits President Obama, whose "moral" vision is that America is just another country, and that it is embarrassingly immoral for America to have more prosperity or power than anyone else. That is why all of his policies are leading to this same dead end for America.

Page: < 12

topics:
Republican Party, Obamacare, Blue Dogs, Health Savings Accounts

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Senior Fellow at the Carleson Center for Public Policy, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, now available from HarperCollins.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (133) | Leave a comment

Pingback| 11.18.09 @ 6:47AM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : The Republican Alternative [spectato links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Turn tweets into comments for your WordPress blog. Topsy Plugin – WordPress Shortened Links Linking to the spectator.org page http://bit.ly/xfyfG info 4 tweets retweet The American Spectator : The Republican Alternative spectator.org/archives/2009/11/18/the-republican-alternative – view page – cached Democrats have been telling us all year that the Republicans have no health reform…

Pingback| 11.18.09 @ 7:06AM

HEALTHCARE THAT WORKS: The Republican Alternative links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Conservative news magazine Conservative news and opinion … a daily roundup of what you might have missed. HEALTHCARE THAT WORKS: The Republican Alternative Posted at November 18, 2009 The Republican Alternative from The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog by Peter Ferrara Democrats have been telling us all year that the Republicans have no health reform alternative. They are just the party of no! So we…

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:

…has been charged with stealing more than $2.5 million from the institution through bogus construction contracts. John E. Lawler, 52, formerly of Stow and the senior director of major The Republican Alternative - Spectator.org The Republican plan allows insurers to sell health insurance across state lines. This would greatly expand course, includes medical liability tort reform modeled after successful…

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:

…Turn tweets into comments for your WordPress blog. Topsy Plugin – WordPress Shortened Links Linking to the spectator.org page http://bit.ly/1zUUqK info 2 tweets retweet The American Spectator : The Republican Alternative spectator.org/archives/2009/11/18/the-republican-alternative – view page – cached Democrats have been telling us all year that the Republicans have no health reform…

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:

…and have it at the ready so sure you don’t miss the great shopping opportunities starting this week. Stock up on holiday gifts and decor, accessories for you and your home, and The Republican Alternative – Spectator.org 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…

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:

…gotten a serious consideration this political season, but let’s review them before we plunge over the cliff into the land of GovernmentCare. Peter Ferrara offers up a list of some alternative methods of health reform: expand consumer choice in insurance; tighten up rules on lawsuits that drive up medical spending; use HSAs to let people know just how much they’re spending on health care, which…

Pingback| 11.19.09 @ 9:03AM

A Review of Alternative Reform Ideas « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…have not gotten a serious consideration this political season, but let’s review them before we plunge over the cliff into the land of GovernmentCare. Peter Ferrara offers up a list of some alternative methods of health reform: expand consumer choice in insurance; tighten up rules on lawsuits that drive up medical spending; use HSAs to let people know just how much they’re spending on health care, which could…

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:

…in high places. He’s part of that K Street Crowd. You can rest assured that he will work for the highest bidder. Clearly the Democratic Party didn’t see much in him. And if you read his full paper, I’m sure you will see why. Peter Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation, and general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in…

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

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

mili8951| 5.8.10 @ 1:30AM

http://www.edhardycawholesale.com/

notebook tamir| 7.13.10 @ 1:21PM

thanks for sharing