The Definitive Republican Alternative to Obamacare REVEALED!

An artist's depiction of how conservatives write bills in Washington.
An artist’s depiction of how Republican alternatives to Obamacare are written.

Recently, President Barack HUSSEIN Obama announced that his government takeover of America’s healthcare system, the Affordable Care Act, allegedly reached its goal of enrolling over 7 million Americans. The Democrat party is touting this biased statistic as a sign that the law, which takes away your ability to make your own healthcare decisions while enabling women to get abortions in the aisles of dissenting Hobby Lobby stores.

While real conservatives like Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindal have proposed plans, their plans have all been criticized for containing elements that are either not conservative, or are unpopular, or both. I have been able to come up with a complete alternative to Obamacare that is both based on conservative principles and known to poll well with the American people!

My proposal, The Operations, Bandages, Acupuncture, Mammography and Sometimes Ultrasound X-Rays Act, or The OBAMASUX Act for short, is a comprehensive plan that fixes problems with the healthcare system in place before the so-called President had to mess everything up with the ACA’s sweeping shift to a government run system. It is backed up with research and findings from leading respected conservative institutions such as The Heritage Foundation and The Weekly Standard.

It is in absolutely no way similar to the Affordable Care Act, which does absolutely none of the things I am about to mention.

  • OBAMASUX works by providing health insurance to those who cannot afford it by giving them subsidies, which basically means lowering taxes to give people healthcare.
  • OBAMASUX does not regulate your health care decisions, but rather health insurance companies, which would continue to remain private businesses but also encouraged by law to support the public good.
  • Yearly check-ups, immunizations, and routine screenings for diseases will have no out-of-pocket cost, as they have been proven to decrease healthcare costs long-term.
  • Those with insurance through their employer will not have to change plans, as long as they meet minimum coverage standards and their insurance company does not discontinue that plan structure, as they have always done.
  • Rather than gutting Medicare or Medicaid, OBAMASUX expands these popular programs, allowing more elderly and lower-income families to receive medical services.
  • Businesses with over 100 full-time employees will be strongly encouraged to provide health insurance to those employees.
  • Young people under the age of 26 will be able to stay on their parents’ insurance plans.

All of these elements would take the world’s greatest healthcare system and carry it into a bright, prosperous future. Barack Hussein Obama knows this, and with the help of conservative patriots like you, we can force him to repeal Obamacare and enact these reforms.

 

The Heritage Foundation embarrasses itself with numbers… again.

problems measuring austerity

problems measuring austerity

The Heritage Foundation doesn’t know what “austerity” means or how to measure it, and just can’t seem to understand how numbers actually work. This is causing some trouble for a party that doesn’t want to be seen as the “party of stupid”.

We’ve written before about how the Heritage Foundation regularly makes predictions that are wildly inaccurate, and normally we are perfectly content to blame liberally-biased “facts” rather than the good conservatives at the Heritage Foundation.  However, in light of recent evidence that Young Republicans don’t want to be part of “a stupid party”, we think it’s time to put our foot down and ask the important question: Heritage Foundation, what the hell is wrong with you?

The most recent topic is that of austerity.  Liberals have been claiming that the conservative notion that “austerity will fix everything” is debunked by the problems in Europe.  “Europe has austerity,” these evil liberals will say, “And their economic situation has gotten worse. That proves you are wrong, Q.E.D, neener-neener.”

The most recent fad going around the internet has been for conservatives to respond by saying, “What Europe has done isn’t really austerity, because they increased taxes instead of cutting spending.  Increasing taxes is what is causing their problems. Real, true, manly austerity is based on cutting spending.”

OK, so they don’t usually use the word “manly”, but you get the idea.

It is important to realize where this idea comes from: The Heritage Foundation.  They have been peddling this idea for a long time now, and have most recently summarized it nicely in the congressional testimony by Salim Furth (PDF).  Instead of “manly”, Dr. Furth uses the term “classic austerity”, presumably because he is aware that the word “austerity” by itself refers to

Definition of austerity

So by adding the word “classic”, he can fudge this a little bit and claim that tax increases are the “wrong” kind of austerity, because they are not “classic”. Or whatever.

The problem is, no matter how you define “austerity”, the Heritage Foundation claim that Europe hasn’t been implementing austerity is wrong.  Dr. Furth claims that European countries have not been decreasing their deficits, but then presents a table showing that their deficits as a percentage of GDP in each year (left side table, above).  In other words, countries that cut their deficits would still show an increase if their GDP dropped by a larger amount.  When the change in the deficit was measured as a percentage of a constant GDP (right side graph, above), the United States, Britain, France, and Spain–all showing increasing deficit in the Heritage Foundation table–can all be seen to have actually decreased their deficits.

But what is even worse is this: even if you allow the Heritage Foundation their notion of “classic” austerity, most of the countries in Europe were still implementing austerity.  According to the OECD, when you compare what percentage of the budget cuts were due to spending cuts versus tax increases in each country, the majority of the countries closed their spending gaps mostly with spending cuts:

EOCD Austerity chart

So it comes down to this: Heritage Foundation, you need to get your act together.  In the past we have been more than happy to defend you on the  grounds that numbers and statistics have a liberal bias.  However, it’s 2013 now…. if you can’t manage to simply get the numbers right in your arguments, you will never shake that reputation of being the “party of stupid”.

 

For more discussion: Yes, Europe really is in the throes of austerity (WonkBlog)

graphs data sources: OECD
graphs found viaThe Washington Post

related article: Liberal facts conspire to embarrass the Heritage Foundation

Liberal facts conspire to embarass the Heritage Foundation

Heritage Foundation vs Liberal Data

When liberal facts and numbers dare to embarrass good, conservative institutions like the Heritage Foundation, it’s just downright unseemly.

The above graphs provide a good example of this kind of scummy behavior that liberal facts like to engage in.

On the left you see two graphs that were published by the Heritage Foundation in 2001 as predictions of the miraculous panacea the Bush Tax Cuts would be over the following ten years, from 2001 to 2011. The top graph shows the prediction that the Bush Tax Cuts would produce a veritable explosion of tax revenues from 2001 to 2011. The bottom graph shows the prediction that the Bush Tax Cuts would cause a virtual orgasm of jobs during that same period. Together, these graph proved that the Bush Tax Cuts would be better than sex and solve all of our economic woes.

On the right, you have graphs that show what actually happened in the years 2001-2011. Revenue plummeted, unemployment skyrocketed. In other words: everything turned out pretty much the opposite of what the Heritage Foundation predicted.

How embarrassing.

Obviously, there is something seriously wrong here. The Heritage Foundation are good people. They are doing the best they can. It’s just not fair for facts and actual data to make them look so very, very pathetically inept. It’s just not nice for real statistics to somehow give the impression that the Heritage Foundation is made up of a bunch of yahoos that have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and couldn’t predict themselves out of a paper bag.

So obviously, as usual, it must be the facts that are wrong. The reality of the situation is, the Bush Tax Cuts would have done exactly what the Heritage Foundation predicted, if it were not for the unexpected circumstances that arose, including a black president, and of course lots and lots of liberal bias!!!!

graph data source: The Heritage Foundation 2001, Associated Press, and US Bureau of Labor Statistics
graph found via: “How Awesome The Bush Tax Cuts Were Supposed To Be“, The Atlantic Wire.