Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Republican Health Care Plan: Bobby Jindalís Plan
Red State ^ | April 2nd, 2014 | Dan McLaughlin

Posted on 04/02/2014 10:04:52 PM PDT by entropy12

ERICK ERICKSON FRONT PAGE WRITERS FEATURES E-LETTERS COFFEE & MARKETS GATHERING FRIENDS

« BACK | PRINT RS FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR Yes, There’s A Republican Health Care Plan: Bobby Jindal’s Plan Rolling Out A GOP Alternative To Obamacare

By: Dan McLaughlin (Diary) | April 2nd, 2014 at 07:14 PM | 15

RESIZE: AAA

Bobby_Jindal_CPAC_2013There’s a Republican alternative to Obamacare – a health insurance plan rolled out today by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. It’s not only a better plan, but starts with a better way to think about how we pay for healthcare.

The Search For A Republican Alternative

One of the hoary, beaten-to-death talking points of Obamacare’s last-ditch defenders has been that it’s impossible to repeal the Affordable Care Act because there isn’t an alternative on the table. Of course, while there are some transitional issues that would arise in unwinding the damage Obamacare has done to the pre-Obamacare insurance market, if you believe (as most Obamacare critics do) that the statute has made things on balance worse, then there’s no reason why Congress couldn’t or shouldn’t first tear the thing up and then get to work finding a different way to improve our healthcare system.

(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: healthcare; jindal
1. They want to end the tax bias in favor of employer-sponsored health insurance to create full portability (either through a tax credit, deductibility, or another method);

2. They want to reform medical malpractice laws (likely through carrot incentives to the states);

3. They want to allow for insurance purchases across state lines;

4. They want to support state-level pre-existing condition pools;

1 posted on 04/02/2014 10:04:52 PM PDT by entropy12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: entropy12
The federal government needs to get out of healthcare altogether - it is not Constitutionally authorized to meddle with healthcare. America has had the beast healthcare system in the world becasue is has been run mainly by the FREE MARKET ECONOMY. Since the 1970's government has screwed it up.

Get government our of healthcare and dissolve the 1$ trillion Dept of HHS which doe way more harm than good.

2 posted on 04/02/2014 10:10:39 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Plus 100


3 posted on 04/02/2014 10:28:58 PM PDT by Ray76 (Profit from the mistakes of others, you'll never live long enough to make them all yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
And part of what is at work in this line of criticism is the Wonk Hack Trap: the desire of liberal policy writers and Democratic ad-makers to force Republicans to submit detailed plans to be picked apart with one-sided propaganda before there is any realistic prospect of them even being seriously debated, and possibly improved, in Congress (see this Jonathan Chait piece on the 2015 Ryan budget for a classic example of the genre – of course, with Harry Reid running the Senate, no Republican policy proposal has any prospect of being considered for a vote).

This is very well stated!

4 posted on 04/02/2014 11:06:01 PM PDT by AmericanExceptionalist (Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
My health care plan:

If you go to the doctor, you and your insurance pay the bill, or your property gets auctioned off until the bill is paid. If you are homeless or have no income to spend on health care, you have to rely on private charity.
5 posted on 04/03/2014 3:44:20 AM PDT by arderkrag (An Unreconstructed Georgian, STANDING WITH RAND.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
What goes unnoticed in this proposed bill is the following...

Freeper Insurance Professionals will may see it, but everyone needs to think about it and that is...

Insurance typically was State based, State Regulated and was an exercise of the 10th Amendment. States would try to streamline their laws ( on the retail and State Regulatory side ) via Industry Groups and Organizations. And that makes sense, you might as well streamline the testing and requirements for an "Agent" in neighboring States that might want to get a license right across the line and do business in both.

What Obama did was in essence federalize and industry ( or a part of it ) that was typically State based, and help to "Fundamentally Transform" America just like he did with destroying Contract Law with the GM bailout and the Sibilius Mandate.

Jindal's proposal would move Health-Care back to the States and the Individual.

Chalk one up for Bobby Jindal, well played Governor, well played....

6 posted on 04/03/2014 3:47:46 AM PDT by taildragger (The E-GOP won't know what hit them, The Party of Reagan is almost here, hang tight folks....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
Good point about Federalizing medical insurance. Something to keep in mind, though:

"Medical insurance" isn't really insurance at all. When you buy an insurance policy, you make payments to an insurance company to transfer the financial risk associated with a catastrophic event with a high cost to the insured but a low probability of occurrence. With medical insurance, claims are filed with such boring regularity (especially as people get older) that it functions more like an installment plan for medical services than an actual insurance policy.

Secondly, there's another angle to this that might make it worthwhile for states to get out of the business of regulating medical insurance even if they have the authority to do so. Even before ObamaCare, the laws and regulations (both state and Federal) governing health insurance were so complex and intrusive that they effectively prevented the insurance industry from accurately pricing risk into their policies. Once this happens, it's not even insurance anymore. Telling an insurance company that they have to charge premiums based on projected financial exposure -- while at the same time telling them that they can't include lifetime limits in their medical insurance plans -- is about as idiotic as it gets, and is a huge incentive for the entire industry to close shop. That's like selling someone a homeowner's insurance policy on a $300,000 home, while at the same time being required to replace it with anything that could be built on the property at any price if it burns down.

7 posted on 04/03/2014 4:35:00 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag

Sure, I’ll go along with that, but ONLY when all monopoly protections, anti trust exemptions, gate keeper obstacles and drug reimportation restrictions are removed. And no prescription requirements for anything except for antibiotics. Prices for serices must be posted publicly. Executives and bureaucrats and corporate executives attepting to reinstate any of those can legally be shot on site and all of their family’s assets seized. You want to put me and mine under threat of bankruptcy, fine, but the business end of the industry get to have their necks on the line, too.


8 posted on 04/03/2014 4:53:27 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

I’ll happily agree with that.


9 posted on 04/03/2014 6:05:22 AM PDT by arderkrag (An Unreconstructed Georgian, STANDING WITH RAND.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

I disagree. Before Obamacare, there was minimum interference from the federal government. Yet my insurance premiums and hospital bills escalated at 3 times rate of cost of living increases.

Yes our healthcare system was and still is one of the best if not the best. But costs are out of control because of myriad of reasons, such as lack of competition and lack of sensible tort laws. Again, the costs were escalating BEFORE Obamacare. Obamacare will only make it worse.


10 posted on 04/03/2014 9:21:05 AM PDT by entropy12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
lack of competition and lack of sensible tort laws

What caused lack of competition? Government interference. Government started seriously meddling in healthcare in the 1970's when they started mandating companies to provide employees with health coverage. The government, through the courts, also awarded crazed malpractice suits. Both caused healthcare costs to skyrocket.

Again, the answer is what we had before the 1970's - healthcare in the open, voluntary free market. You'll get what we had before - open competition creating the BEST care for the BEST price. That needs to happen NOW. Right now many doctors are leaving their practice as we speak because they do not want to government employees. Get this out of government NOW or three month waiting lists will be the mode-o-day as in Canada and England.

As far as tort reform, I'd day forget about the feds, they'll never do it, but the states should enact sane, reasonable malpractice laws also to being down costs.

11 posted on 04/03/2014 9:43:54 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Are you sure healthcare was mandated for employers?
I worked for a outfit from 1969 through 1974 and there was no health insurance offered by the employer.

Next question...as you are surely aware, about 100 million people have no jobs. They live off government benefit checks. What is your idea in providing those people with healthcare? Emergency room visits only? And who pays their hospital bills?


12 posted on 04/03/2014 3:13:03 PM PDT by entropy12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
I worked for a outfit from 1969 through 1974 and there was no health insurance offered by the employer.

The 70's was when they phased it in. may not have hit your employer yet.

about 100 million people have no jobs. They live off government benefit checks. What is your idea in providing those people with healthcare? Emergency room visits only? And who pays their hospital bills?

Well, getting the economy off of government addiction is, as Reagan used to say, kind of like getting someone off alcohol addiction. There would be a "cold turkey" period and, as in the 80's, the economy could get worse before it gets better. There would be a phase-out-phase-in period and the key would be LOWERING THE TAX RATE to a flat tax of around 15%. Our economy would boom as it did in the 80's and these issues would be mitigated. Private industry would again be able to assimilate the needy the way it always has, but more importantly, free competition would lower prices and expand availability with a myriad of options for the consumer/patient. It's a heavenly option compared to Obama's hellish nightmare.

Nothing is perfect. The bogus "perfection" argument of the socialists is used by demagogues as an excuse for tyranny. The results of the free market are the best results for the most people in the world. The results of socialism is misery, poverty, and oppression for a great majority of people - and the middle class disappears.

13 posted on 04/03/2014 3:38:34 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson