What is the conservative alternative for health care reform?

Don't know?  It's not because it does not exist, it's because the MSM could care less, and so could the Obama administration.  It seems to me that all he is doing is trying to streamroll his ideological and non-sustainable program through as fast as possible.

But ask Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona if the GOP is just trying to make Obama fail, he responds "that's just a political ad."  In a short interview this morning on NPR, he was clear, calm, and sensible.  Please, may sense prevail, because

  • Health care in America is still better than elsewhere in the world, not on the verge of catastrophe (like all liberal issues which are trumped up to emergencies)
  • The Obama plan will make it WORSE, not better. 

I mean, wanna see government run healthcare?  Look at Medicare (insolvent), Veterans Care (poor), Native American Care (poor), and Social Security (insolvent).  They can't even run the "Cash for Clunkers" program well.

The minority whip sounds sane.  Obama's plan is insane, just like a real Joker might promote.  Give a listen to Kyl: Health Care Fix Should Be Right, Not Just Quick.

8 thoughts on “What is the conservative alternative for health care reform?”

  1. Cineaste says:

    If they can pass health care with a public option, I will definitely choose it over private insurance.

  2. Cineaste says:

    Cheaper, better coverage.

  3. danielg says:

    Cheaper to the end user, yes, but not cheaper overall, and not cheaper to the taxpayer. But I'll have to explain why in detail.
    Better? Have you seen the health care in Britain, Canada, in our VA Hospitals, etc? What makes you think the care will be better? What data?
    I don't buy the Netherlands explanation – they are buoyed by oil money.

  4. Cineaste says:

    "but not cheaper overall"
    Cheaper to me and also cheaper to the taxpayer. If I am uninsured and I go to the emergency room, the cost is passed to the taxpayer and I don't pay a cent. These uninsured visits cause premiums to skyrocket and premium increases are passed to businesses and consumers. It's a horribly flawed an inefficient system that amasses debt. Also, the best way for a health insurance company to make a profit in the free market is to collect on premiums until people get sick then deny them coverage, right?
    "Have you seen the health care in Britain, Canada, in our VA Hospitals, etc?"
    I've been to both Britain and Canada and I've spoken to their residents first hand about their health care system. Can you say the same? Basically, we have a pathetic health care system compared to theirs.
    SICKO – Britain
    SiCKO – Canadian Waiting Room Scene

  5. James says:

    Bobby Jindal has some good ideas:
    Here's one from NextRight:
    Tom Coburn has a plan:
    A documentary by Michael Moore is not data.
    This article has some:
    Our current health care costs are largely driven by government regulations that prevent competition between doctors and insurance companies as well as price fixing for the failing Medicare and Medicaid programs. If people could buy insurance ala carte, and across state lines, the market competition would change the landscape entirely. As it is, federal and state law prohibit both things. Medicare and Medicaid also underpay doctors, which deflates a bit just how bloated and failing they are, and also drives up private insurance costs (because SHOCK, the doctors pass on those costs…).
    With Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and the Indian Reservations health care systems all failing financially and/or in service, I have no confidence that the fed can control healthcare for the whole nation. Heck, for that matter they couldn't forecast Cash for Clunkers properly by several orders of magnitude (1 week actual vs. 4 months predicted).
    Combine that with disengenuous statements by our POTUS (telling the lady at the AARP meeting that no one was talking about cutting services from Medicaid when he had just a month previously talked about cutting $300B from Medicaid; videod statements about using "public option" as a trojan horse for single payer, favoring single payer personally, and then saying that he's not making any attempt at single payer; deriding Bush for trying to push through legislation without deliberation and then trying to push through legislation without deliberation; instructing followers to get in the face of their neighbors on the health care issue then complaining about rude tactics by opponents; putting out the word to get after "false grassroots" opponents and then sending out a mass email to all supporters to form grass roots support) and even people who favor socialized medicine and single payer systems should have a bad taste about THIS process.

  6. Cineaste says:

    "Heck, for that matter they couldn't forecast Cash for Clunkers properly by several orders of magnitude (1 week actual vs. 4 months predicted)."
    They said on the news that cash for clunkers originally had 4 billion allotted to it but it was cut to 1 billion in an effort to water down the bill for republicans and blue dogs.

  7. James says:

    …Okay, so was the failure the ability to predict 1 week vs. 4 weeks (25% accurate is an "F" in both the classroom and in business practice) or is it the ability to communicate that the program was no longer supposed to last as long as it was originally supposed to last? Both?
    Should what you said reflect reality, then should it inspire confidence suddenly?