Opponents Against Health Care Law's Repeal at Odds with Reality

I thought I had heard it all when it came to conservatives and health care, but when my colleague Trisha Torrey, About.com's Guide to Patient Empowerment, recently wrote about proponents for the repeal of the Democratic health care plan, I was a little surprised.

Responding to a piece by CNN contributor LZ Granderson, Torrey quipped the absence of a plan to replace the Democrat's plan, should it be repealed, was meant to hold people down. In essence, if they're sick, they can't fight back.

While the erroneous statement that Republicans have no plan is bothersome, the fact both Granderson and Torrey do not see they are going to being held down by the liberal end of the spectrum if we don't kill this law is frightening.

Granderson argues:

"Any politician who is touting repeal without offering something significant in its place is not only incapable of connecting the dots, but is out of touch with the kind of sacrifices people make in their health decisions every day."

Obama's health care reforms are predicated on the idea that all Americans must purchase health care insurance. In order to have insurance, you will need a job. If you are unemployed, you are still required to buy insurance unless you qualify for Medicaid.

Fortunately, Speaker John Boehner'sassessment of the Democrat's plan as a job killer is debatable, right? Not if you look at the hard facts.

No Jobs, No Insurance for You

This health care law is hard to defend when considering what our small businesses, the employers of 52 percent of Americans, must endure.  The health care law gives no incentives for businesses to hire, which is what our neighbors of both red and blue stripe demand.

In fact, it sends many scrambling to make cuts in order to either provide coverage or pay a penalty of up to $3,000 per employee to meet the mandate. Fascinatingly, the law also states that any employee electing to receive subsidized coverage on their own will incurs their company a $3,000 penalty.

Some businesses, like CKE Restaurants, have carried a 150 percent increase on their insurance costs to avoid being slapped with a fine by the federal government.

Next, these businesses must find a way to absorb over $500 billion in new taxes over the next decade, ensuring reduced capitol for jobs well into the future.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses estimates under this plan, we will lose 1.6 million jobs, 66 percent coming from small businesses. That's a lot of jobs.

Without jobs, you have no money. Without money, you have no insurance. But, there's always Medicaid, right? Medicaid requires money to run, too, believe it or not. Money collected in taxes.

If businesses must shut their doors, as will invariably happen, you can be sure Medicaid will be strained with new applicants and less cash, especially when Obama offers Medicare and Medicaid cuts as a negotiating tactic.

With such odds as these, maybe Mr. Granderson and repeal opponents like him are the ones not only incapable of connecting the dots, but seeing the sacrifices people will make in terms of health care if this law survives.

Why Liberals Hate Conservative Plans

While it might seem most Republican presidential candidates do not have a solution to replace the current administration's plan, it's probably because liberals are more apt to respond to emotional "hopey-changey" appeals rather than facts and figures.

Republicans in the House have been working on an ambition plan and have even given a number of specifics, including lower health care costs through tort reform; encourage competition by allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines; passing laws to make it illegal for insurance companies to deny someone with prior coverage because of pre-existing conditions; and prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion.

A glance at the websites of all the Republican candidates reveal some solid, conservative ideas, all carrying a common theme of respect for the individual and the businesses which employ them.

Ideas like giving Americans the freedom to choose their own care plan, not forcing them with threats of fines and jail time, and tax credits so Americans can keep more of their hard earned money to spend on health care show more concern for patient empowerment than forcing them to to swallow a bitter pill at gunpoint.

Policies which allow states the flexibility to enact plans right for their own citizens add credibility to conservatives as they observe the constitutional limits of our federal government, something Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid care to inform themselves about.

This leads me to my final point: Maybe a plan to a liberal isn't a plan until it's shoved down America's throat, rather than allowing folks to talk about it.

Mr. Granderson pondered why the conversation on the president's health care plan was so toxic. I'd invite him to consider how healthy it was for Obama and the Democrats to hold a one-sided conversation to begin with.

At a Feb. 26, 2010 televised meeting, Obama spoke for 119 minutes. Twenty-one Democratic lawmakers and supporters of the president shared 114 minutes. Seventeen Republican representatives spoke for 110 minutes total. Hardly the conversation we should have had.

Yet, when asked about the disparity between speaking times, this is how the president chose to respond, according to The Washington Post:

"You're right, there was an imbalance on the opening statements because - I'm the president."

And thus, here we are.

The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of the health care law, while a  majority of Americans--47 percent--want the law repealed.

A presidential election looms large on the horizon with the wind at our backs.

And now, it seems, a real conversation about not just health care, but the future of our country, is set to begin.

--Brandon De Hoyos, Guide to IM