Lets pretend there are 10 different ways to provide "universal" healthcare to a country's citizens.
You could probably legitimately say, for each method, that it helps people. Does that mean each disparate method is perfect and beyond reproach? Logic dictates that one of those 10 must be better than the other 9, so if you're using one of the 9 ways, that aren't the best way, they'd be deserving of criticism, right? But you're not allowed to criticize it?
While its unfair to say there is no "republican alternative" or "free market alternative" or just "alternative" to Obamacare, it is also unfair for Republicans who personally aren't offering an alternative, or cannot articulate one, to attack it. Both sides can get pretty stupid on it, though I find it a constant source of amusement how liberals are willing to defend it seemingly because of whose name is on it, rather than it actually being a tool to accomplish any of their published goals (private goals of the increase in government power and rewarding special interests put aside).
There alternatives, and in fact I'd go so far as to say Obamacare is probably the worst possibly designed system on the face of the Earth for providing "universal" healthcare, you might dispute that but you'd be a retard to say its the best it can be. There are big problems with how it was designed, how it pays for itself, how it provides care, what it considers care to be, etc. It is 2000 pages, 1900 of which are crap.
I'd personally be in favor of a system that gave subsidies to more people, and reduced the number of uninsured even more than the rosiest predictions from the White House, and I'm a crazy libertarian. I'd just design it in a free market way and get all the stupid out. Personally I think somewhere between switzerland, germany, and us pre-obamacare is a good place to start.
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapotheca...pita-20101.png