Health Care Reform: Two Conservative Perspectives

Herman Cain: "Shhhh! There's GOP Alternative To Obamacare"

The conservative Republican businessman writes: "The 'Empowering Patients First Act,' or H.R. 3400, was introduced by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., and 27 co-sponsors on July 30, 2009, prior to the congressional recess. It was then referred to eight House committees. The head hijacker is Speaker Nancy Pelosi. As Rep. Price pointed out during a radio interview with me last week, the rules in the House assert that bills will remain in committees 'for a period to be subsequently determined by the speaker.' Thank you Nancy! The highly contentious 1,000-plus-page Democrat health-care proposal cleared the committees in a few days. The 63-page Republican alternative is stuck in committees, and it can't get out. Speaker Pelosi can simply keep it there while they continue to try to shove their proposal down the throats of the American people."

He continues his commentary about health care reform: "Here's what the Democrats don't want us to know. The Empowering Patients First Act, or H.R. 3400, would allow:

• Individuals to choose their health insurance (no mandates)

• Deductibility of health insurance premiums regardless of who pays

• Employers to provide flexible health-insurance options to employees

• Health insurance coverage for low-income families (300 percent of the federal poverty level)

• Health insurance for high-risk individuals (pre-existing conditions)

• Sale of health insurance across state lines

• Expansion of Health Savings Accounts, or HSAs

• Individual membership association health insurance plan

• Association Health Insurance Plans

• Medical liability limitations (Tort reform)

Unlike Democrat-care, the Republican alternative would not impose fines on workers or employers, require cuts in Medicare, increase taxes, require a new government bureaucracy, require a 'government health insurance' option nor add $1 trillion or more to the national debt. The Republican alternative is simply less government, fewer taxes and more choices, whereas Democrat-care is just another attempt to hijack more of our liberties. But hush y'all. The Democrats don't want you to know that."

Alan Keyes: "Health Care — Funding The Revolt To Freedom"

The conservative activist and America's Independent Party member writes: "The idea of replacing existing insurance policies with individually owned health provident accounts aims to initiate the health sector's move to a twenty-first century paradigm of economic activity. Ironically, though it represents a major change in the administrative structure of health care finance, in other respects the funding structure for those who presently earn employer funded access to health insurance as part of their pay would remain pretty much as it is. Some questions (like portability, for instance) would take care of themselves, since individual ownership of the health provident account means that the relationship between the insurance fund manager and the individual would be unaffected by changes in employment. Employers would pay the insurance fund manager in the name of the employee, just as they do now. But just as someone's employer doesn't decide where they have their checking or savings account, the employer would not decide where the employees establish their health provident fund accounts. This would in no way prevent employers from developing and promoting plans in concert with a particular insurance fund management firm. If the resulting cost and services package was attractive enough, a large number of their employees would sensibly prefer it. But the decision between competing fund management firms would be made by the individuals themselves."
He continues his commentary: "This also opens the way to the creation of contributor pools based on associations and affiliations apart from work. Individuals could form such groups drawing from people in similar circumstances in their church, their service, fraternal or sorority groups, etc. Those who work for small and medium size businesses, for example, would take whatever level of contribution they receive from their employer and go in search of others being funded at a similar level. Once a large enough initial pool has gathered, the sponsoring organization would work out terms with an insurance fund provider, just as larger employers do now. Such groups would doubtless become a permanent feature of the system, identifying themselves with people at different income levels in order to appeal for their participation.".
Mr. Keyes zeroes in on the poor: "In this regard the first aim of public policy would be to encourage adoption of an approach to health insurance that restores the proper role of individual freedom and responsibility. One way to achieve this would be to exempt from Federal taxation in every respect those who adopted an approach consistent with this objective. This would include both the insurance funds themselves (both as to the individually owned accounts and the investments or other income generating activities related to the general funds) and the transactions involved in their use. This exemption could include allowing health insurance companies to emit tax-free financial securities (similar to tax-free municipal bonds) with the particular intention of raising capital for use in funding individual accounts for the 'hard cases'. Such bonds could then be marketed with particular attention to charity minded individuals. Instead of scoffing at the idea that needs should be met through charitable giving, this policy would aim to make charity a marketable commodity, that allows good intentions to feed upon themselves in order to nourish and increase the resources available to fulfill them."