The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Congressional Conservatives Offer Health Care Alternative

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Congressional Conservatives Offer Health Care Alternative

By Molly O'Connor on 6.24.09 @ 3:28PM

Anti-Obamacare legislators have moved beyond criticizing and offered the Health Care Freedom Act as an alternative to nationalized health care. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) spoke out today to announce the plan and react to President Obama’s Wednesday press conference. Like Obama’s plan, Sen. DeMint’s bill also aims to get all Americans health care coverage. But the conservative alternative does so by encouraging free market competition and using existing funds. Price argued that Obama was wrong to say the public option won't impact people's private health coverage: With tax subsidies for the government-sponsored plan, many employers and insurance companies may find it difficult to stay competitive. Some companies may drop their coverage and dump their employees onto the government plan.

Under the DeMint-Price bill, those who are satisfied with their insurance company can maintain their current coverage. Those whose employers don’t offer insurance or aren’t satisfied with their current coverage qualify for a $5,000 certificate to seek insurance on their own, from any state. DeMint pointed to the cost and ineffectiveness of existing government health care programs like Medicaid and Medicare. His bill reallocates money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (currently a “Treasury slush fund,” according to the Senator).

Opponents of the bill say that the $5,000 is not nearly enough to cover insurance costs for a family and individuals remain at-risk of being denied by the insurance companies. While the Health Care Freedom Act may not solve everything, it does at least show critics are offering positive alternatives to government-run universal health care.

View all comments (9) | Leave a comment

hmm_contrib| 6.24.09 @ 3:43PM

as an alternative to nationalized health care.
Nationalized health care? The Obama plan is calling for a public option to exist along with private insurance, so there is no nationalized, single-payer boogeyman here.
Price argued that Obama was wrong to say the public option won't impact people's private health coverage: With tax subsidies for the government-sponsored plan, many employers and insurance companies may find it difficult to stay competitive. Some companies may drop their coverage and dump their employees onto the government plan.
So by "affect" their private coverage, you mean it will improve by moving (ok, ok, "dumping") to a cheaper, better option. This is a bad thing?
Opponents of the bill say that the $5,000 is not nearly enough to cover insurance costs for a family and individuals remain at-risk of being denied by the insurance companies.
So it doesn't address whether people can get health care? or help stop the problem of recission? or denial of coverage? Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the plan?

wbfrank| 6.24.09 @ 4:31PM

What flavour Kool Aid are you drinking? The government run 'health care' is not better. The government can not run any thing efficiently; you KNOW what I am talking about. RememberP: there is NO lock box for Socialist Security which was and is a bad idea.
MSA can be an option along with Tort Reform! Get the vicious ambulance chasers out of the equation and we all would have better health care!
Remember that in the UK there is a government board (BHO wants one too) that decides just what care the Citizens get. Recently it was reported that the government board decided that a medical treatment for breast cancer was much too expensive... not to mention that it was a much better option than the current treatment. Well, there are probably thousands of women with breast cancer that will go under-treated.
Also, Big Brother Health Care ushers in: EUTHANASIA!

Joshua S| 6.25.09 @ 8:19PM

Despite claims that citizens will be able to keep their current private insurance, nearly ever major government action has unintended, unforeseen consequences. Perhaps there will be no legal barrier to private insurance, but what effect will the public option have on private insurance rates and coverage? This concern at least warrants a little more thought and research before we dive in.

Cheaper option perhaps, but it is a little premature to call public health care a “better” option. This is a bad thing because if millions of people drop their private insurance to get on the government program, it will greatly increase the burden placed on this program. Proponents of government health care are planning for the 40-something million uninsured Americans, not the insured that are going to switch. Vastly over-burdened government programs don’t exactly have a great track record. This also puts people into the same predicament as private education. Those who enroll their children in private school pay twice for their education: once to the school and once in taxes. Those who stay with their private insurance will not only pay for their own insurance but also, though their taxes, everybody on the public plan. Most of these people, faced with the dual cost, will switch to the government plan, probably until private insurance is practically nonexistent.

In reality, most people do qualify for insurance but simply cannot pay. The certificates will help alleviate the primary cause of the uninsured: money. The government plan will insure everybody, regardless of health condition and/or ability to pay. That sounds a little too reminiscent of the housing crisis that got us into this economic mess. Ms. O’Conner clearly states that this plan is not perfect, which is more than I can say for the proponents of public insurance. Perhaps government insurance could be expanded only for those that are “uninsurable,” but that is a question for another time.

DMac| 6.27.09 @ 12:27PM

Price and the Republicans are not honest players on this issue or many others. For example, yesterday on the House floor, Republican after Republican spoke out in opposition to the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation. In doing so Republicans kept denying that global warming was real, and that it was primarily man-made and that the consequences would be catastrophic. The Republican Party is a joke. They cannot be taken seriously.

On the health care issue. They freak-out over the price of Obama's plan, yet we currently pay more for health care than any other country. What do we get in exchange for this exhorbitant price tag? We have the 37th best health care system, just barely better than Cuba's. So, we already pay too much and have a mediocre system. Price's solution is to hand-out a little money to people so they can hand it over to the insurance companies. These insurance (too-big-to-heal) companies will continue to abuse the system.

France has the best health care system and they pay much less than we do. Why aren't we modeling our system after theirs? Certainly, Republicans would agree that we could do better than the French.

We need single-payer.

reviews| 7.8.09 @ 11:44PM

The civilization is facing problems with such laws. This has to go officially permitted and it’s needed to be sort out at the earlier.
------------
Henry Pollick

Les Coomer| 7.27.09 @ 12:07AM

Let the $5000 be put in a medical savings account, with a small % to buy catastropic health insurance. If you do not use all of the money in your account, it is yours at the end of the year. This will encourage people to seek the best care at the lowest price, thus creating competition and driving prices down. There shoud be some co-pay(no more that 10% of annual income) before catastropic care "kicks in". This will also eleminiate the illusion that care is free and encourage thrift in seeking the best care. How about a tax credit to purchase a million dollar policy for end of life/permanant disability care? The care provider can invest the pay out at 10% and get 100 thousand per year forever to care for you and will still make money after your death. I am pro-life & must be for universal care to provide the means to keep people alive, but put the patient in charge via market solutions, not the goverment, nor insurance companies.