Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, a hard line liberal, has just come out against a national health care plan, as well as Cap & Trade.  Her departure from the fold will send a clear signal that Obamacare is in deep trouble.  I'm not sure the Kennedy family wants their name affiliated with what may be a losing effort.

Criticism without ideas is never healthy.  And the Republican Reporter is not simply about criticizing.  Hence, two suggestions:

1. A few congressmen are now whispering about coming up with different ideas of health care packages and trying out separate plans in different states.  EXCELLENT.  That's the magic of this great nation.  We have a myriad of states against which we can measure the best ideas and experiences.  They are our built in "proving grounds" that haven't been used near enough.
    Democrats have been quick to criticize such an idea, as they say, "Oh, but the comprehensive health care only works when you have the benefit of the ENTIRE US population on the rolls."  
    Before you fall for that trap consider this:  The one national program that Democrats have touted as a great example of Nationalized Health Care comes from Sweden.  The population of Sweden is a total of.......(drum roll please)..... 9 million citizens.  
    Here's a list of the US states that have a population greater than Sweden:
                North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, New York, Texas and California.  
    These are 10 great "proving grounds" for replicating the Swedish Model in an even larger population.  

2. I've said it before, but until we reconnect the payor with the payee on health care, the system will be a financial black hole.  Recipients of health care need to have a "stakehold" in the financial costs.  Even having patients pay $5 for a trip to the emergency room would dramatically reduce the number of unnecessary and financially burdensome visits that are made.
   Without enacting nationalized health care, what about experimenting with Medicare.  We currently spend an average of $8,000 per Medicare recipient every year.  Why not provide a financial incentive?  If you only use $2,000 of Medicare benefits in a given year, the US Government will give you a $1,000 bonus the following year.  Suddenly, we turn the Medicare recipients into financial stakeholders.  Decisions on visiting the doctor will be weighed against the economic cost.  
    The plan doesn't mandate participation.  It simply provides the incentive.   

Instead of "Cash for Clunkers", we'll call it "Assets for the Aging"!