The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Alternative Hypocrisy

Text Size

One of the ways Democrats and President Obama have sought to deflect attention from the growing public opposition to their health care plans is to turn the tables and argue that Republicans are just trying to kill "reform" without offering any alternatives. This argument is problematic on serveral levels. Republicans do not have the votes to kill any legilsation, and in any event, several Republicans have offered alternatives (see here and here). Now, it is true that Republicans as a whole haven't united around a single alternative bill. However, it's hypocritical for Democrats to try to criticize them for it given that in 2005, they didn't offer an alternative to President Bush's plan to reform Social Security -- and still haven't offered anything on this crucial issue after two and a half years in control of Congress, and six months in control of the White House. Instead, they just attacked Bush's plan until public support for it collapsed and any chance of passage died. So, Democrats simply have no leg to stand on when they argue that Republicans are being the "party of no" on health care.

View all comments (8) | Leave a comment

Bob| 8.3.09 @ 11:14AM

Please, Philip, do your homework. The DeMint plan uses money from the TARP that is already being returned -- IT IS NOT A FUNDING SOURCE. They misstate the cost of insurance by a factor of three. Here's what they say with their source as an internet insurance seller (that only sells minimal plans):

"The premium for the average private policy sold in the individual market in 2007 was $1,896 for an individual and $4,392 for a family (Source: eHealthInsurance)"

Yet, the Kaiser Foundation -- a company that actually provides health care -- says the annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700. Then this "plan" wants to just give money to people to buy insurance (but not enough). Then they want to provide price information to consumers but don't fund any organization to do that.

C'mon, Philip, this is NOT a plan -- and I think you know it. DeMint would be afraid to have it scored by the CBO.

The Ryan "plan" makes absolutely no sense. They want to "fund" health care with tax deductions when half of the people pay no federal income taxes. In addition, they also want to distribute information without funding the means to do so. Plus, they do not address rising costs. And Philip, if you know anything about insurance, you'd know that the health insurance market is already highly competitive. If you allow purchasing across state lines then it will only result in the low cost state raising costs because people with the worst problems will always go to the lower cost plans equalizing them with the high cost plans.

These are not real alternatives -- and I would hope that you know it. Now I also don't like the Democrat plan -- but for a different reason -- it is just too expensive. If you notice, the Republican plans do not address cost reform at all -- that is the one thing that a plan should address as that is what is killing the manufacturing segment in this country.

Philip Klein| 8.3.09 @ 12:00PM

You may disagree with Republican plans and argue that they are bad alternatives to what the Democrats are proposing, but by definition, they are alternatives.

FWIW, I didn't endorse any of the Republican plans (in fact, I've criticized every one of them).

Bob| 8.3.09 @ 12:33PM

Philip, as I've said before, I don't like any of them either. But these are not really alternatives -- they are straw dogs and I think you know that. You and I could come up with an "alternative" as well containing our pet buzz words.

We spend 16% of our GDP on health care and are thus losing our manufacturing base. The ONLY solution to this is some sort of rationing -- which is politically unacceptable. I would like to see plans where the cost is in direct relation to the amount of rationing you want. So you don't want a lot of end of life care? Then you can pay a lot less. You don't want to sue? You pay less. You are willing to be tested once a year to see if you are obese and exercise? You pay less. You don't smoke? You pay less. Republicans are supposed to believe in individual responsibility. But they really don't...

Robert M| 8.3.09 @ 2:21PM

I'm going to Hopefully keep this short, speaking for myself i have never in my seventies two years of life ask my government for anything . The only things that I ever Wanted the government to do was for them to stop taxing me to death . The bible said that i am my brother's keeper but it doesn't say i and my neighbors keeper and my neighbors children's keeper and on and on . I believe unless this country rises up in total rebellion' that we have lost our country.If we can't do it with the constitution then we'll have to do it like our forefathers did . Can any one here tell me how world trade has improved this country?I have never seen a more corrupt government then the present one .

Robert M| 8.3.09 @ 2:27PM

Bob| 8.3.09 @ 2:38PM

Hey, Tex, you've said NOTHING. The reason the Texas bill passed is that it meant NOTHING. All you are saying is that people with health problems cost more. Of course insurance companies know this and the risk premium associated with adverse selection carries a rather high margin. But you don't realize that health care costs by state are regional in nature:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=596&cat=5

It costs more to deliver health care in cold climates and in the South. So what is your point????

Bob| 8.3.09 @ 7:18PM

You should all know that Good Ole' Tex only has a rudimentary knowledge of adverse selection and proved it with his responses. And then, he doesn't even understand that health insurance premiums are not "allocated" by state, they are "calculated" by state. Allocation assumes a sum of money is divided. Then again, he only thinks he knows something about insurance.

But the point of my comment (and he completely missed it) is that if you allow people to purchase insurance across state lines it changes the risk profile by state and thus the cost structure. If Ol' Tex knew anything about actuarial costs, he would have known that. What will happen is that those in the NE would buy policies in the SW thereby increasing the cost of insurance for those that live in the SW.

But then again, you have to know insurance to understand that.

C4P| 8.3.09 @ 11:32PM

Democrats don't need Republicans to pass ObamaCare--let the Democrats take ALL of the credit for this obamanation. Liberals will pay dearly for their stupidity.