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 ...
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;
Get government our of healthcare and dissolve the 1$ trillion Dept of HHS which doe way more harm than good.
Plus 100
This is very well stated!
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....
"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.
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.
I’ll happily agree with that.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.