align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditfacebookglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

FW: An Alternative to Obamacare

From: Henry M.
Sent on: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:51 AM


Well worth the short read.



From: Steve Boehme [mailto:[address removed]]
Sent: Sunday, November 17,[masked]:28 AM
To: [address removed]
Subject: An Alternative to Obamacare


To all,


I appreciate Barb’s letter; I think we’re drifting and we need to focus, even if the solution is less than perfect. I called Portman and Wenstrup to call their attention to this piece in the Wall Street Journal, and I will call Boehner and McConnell as well. It would be a pleasure to see the Republicrats get behind some alternative program while the attention is on this issue, instead of just naysaying and bickering among themselves.


Just in case the WSJ link doesn’t work for non-subscribers, I pasted the entire text into this e-mail.










A Conservative Alternative to Obamacare



Ramesh Ponnuru and

Yuval Levin

Updated Nov. 13,[masked]:35 p.m. ET

As ObamaCare's failures and victims mount by the day, Republicans have so far mostly been watching in amazement. They expected the law to fail, but even among its most ardent opponents few imagined the scale and speed of the fiasco.

Seeing the pileup, Republicans might be tempted to step aside and let ObamaCare continue to disappoint and infuriate Americans. After all, the GOP doesn't have the power to repeal the law, or even to make meaningful changes to undo its worst effects. So why not just watch the Democrats pay the price for their folly?

But such passivity would actually protect the Democrats from paying that price. What Republicans can and should do is offer the public something better. Now is the time to advance a conservative reform that can solve the serious, discrete problems of the health-care system in place before ObamaCare, but without needlessly upending people's arrangements or threatening what works in American medicine. That the Democrats are now making things worse doesn't mean the public wants to keep that prior system, or that Republicans should.

The biggest Republican misconception about health care is that the system before ObamaCare was a free-market paradise. On the contrary: It has consisted chiefly of massive and inefficient entitlements that threaten to bankrupt the nation; the lopsided tax treatment of employer-provided coverage that creates incentives for waste and overspending; and an underdeveloped individual market struggling to fill the gaps.

Exploding health-care costs and millions left needlessly uninsured are a result of misguided federal policies. Solutions require targeted reforms to those policies.

The outlines of such reforms have been apparent for years. The key is to enable all Americans to purchase coverage and to approach health care as consumers: with an interest in quality and an eye on cost.

The first step of a plan to replace ObamaCare should be a flat and universal tax benefit for coverage. Today's tax exclusion for employer-provided health coverage should be capped so that people would not get a bigger tax break by buying more extensive and expensive insurance. The result would be to make employees more cost-conscious; and competition for their favor would make insurance cheaper.

That tax break would also be available—ideally as a refundable credit sufficient at least for the purchase of catastrophic coverage—to people who do not have access to employer coverage. This would enable people who now choose not to buy insurance to get catastrophic coverage with no premium costs. It also would give those who want more-comprehensive coverage in the individual market the same advantage that people with employer plans get.

Medicaid could be converted into a means-based addition to that credit, allowing the poor to buy into the same insurance market as more affluent people—and so give them access to better health care than they can get now.

All those with continuous coverage, which everyone could afford thanks to the new tax treatment, would be protected from price spikes or plan cancellations if they got sick. This guarantee would provide a strong incentive to buy coverage, without the coercion of the individual mandate. People who have pre-existing conditions when the new rules take effect would be able to buy coverage through subsidized, high-risk pools.

By making at least catastrophic coverage available to all, and by giving people such incentives to obtain it, this approach could cover more people than ObamaCare was ever projected to reach, and at a significantly lower cost.

The new alternative would not require the mandates, taxes and heavy-handed regulations of ObamaCare. It would turn more people into shoppers for health care instead of passive recipients of it—and encourage the kind of insurance design, consumer behavior and intense competition that could help keep health costs down. Redesigned and directed this way, the flow of federal dollars and tax subsidies would do much less to distort health markets than it has for the last several decades, while getting far more people insured.

Conservative policy experts have long proposed such approaches, but congressional Republicans, with a few honorable exceptions, have not taken them up in recent years. In 2009, for instance, House Republicans offered an alternative to ObamaCare that did nothing about today's market-distorting tax policy and thus did not do much to help the people whom that policy—by inflating premiums—has locked out of the insurance market.

Some Republicans think that political success requires nothing more than watching ObamaCare fail. But if the new system quickly implodes, that would be all the more reason to have an alternative on hand—other than another leftward move toward single payer. And it might not implode so quickly.

Other Republicans fear that any alternative would amount to ObamaCare Lite, just another big government health-care program. But a real market-oriented conservative reform would take us toward an actual functioning consumer market in coverage—and so to the right not only of ObamaCare but of the system that preceded it.

There has also been a fear among some Republicans that proposing an alternative would give Democrats a target and distract the public from the expected and now real failures of ObamaCare. But the absence of a credible alternative has been the GOP's greatest weakness in the fight against ObamaCare, and it is probably why polls show that even many people who are skeptical and concerned about ObamaCare do not support full repeal.

Defenders of ObamaCare are using the absence of a Republican alternative to suggest that their law is the only answer to the grave problems of American health care and that without it millions of Americans would continue to lack access to coverage. That argument is their final trump card. It is time for Republicans to take it away.

Mr. Ponnuru is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor at National Review. Mr. Levin is the editor of National Affairs and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.


From: BARB
Sent: Thursday, November 14,[masked]:14 AM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: No Rest in sight...


Critical that we tell our Congressional Representative and Speaker Boehner that we Americans except results and not another screw up while maneuvering with Democrats and Obama on this health care debacle.  Barb  Live outside Ohio's 8th District? Click here to e-mail the office of Speaker John Boehner.


Dear Congressman Chabot,


The proposed Rep. Upton law to allow persons to keep their health care policies is fraught with danger.  It appears to have no mechanism for forcing insurance companies to reinstate these policies.  Add this to the fact that the Senate will likely send back to you the Landrieu bill and the House will be in a bind of its own making. Add also the fact that Mr. Upton outlawed the incandescent light bulb, and one must give pause to his ideas.


As an American deeply concerned about the 2014 elections, please proceed wisely with great care, knowing in the past that Obama and his Democrat followers have managed to turn public opinion against even well meaning Republican moves to help the country out of disastrous policies. The media will be back adoring Obama before this is over.  Count on it!


Nothing short of repeal of the ACA will help Americans.  Please don't overlook the need for a replacement plan at this juncture to assure all Americans that the the poor, those with pre-existing conditions, etc. will be provided redress.


America is in this mess because insurance companies have, in many instances, not been operating in the best interests of all Americans.  There has been a lack of sensitivity to certain needs while the insurance companies pursue the bottom line. 


When greed takes over moral reason, the public is the loser, leaving a bad taste and destruction in its wake.  When free market enterprise loses sight of respect for the needs of the customer, Americans tend to be willing to give up more power to government control.


Conservative, free market capitalist thinking Americans must win this battle.  It is far more than about health care.  It is about government control of every aspect of national life.


Barbara Sponaugle











And check this out too:[address removed]

 (be sure to watch the 7 minute  video ... speakers on)





"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value — zero."    — Voltaire [masked]) 



Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy