Posted on 09/25/2011 12:37:10 AM PDT by newzjunkey
Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s endorsement of a “binational health insurance” program with Mexico has drawn increasing attention this week. Most of it points to a 2001 plan, where Perry lauded an “an important study that will look at the feasibility of binational health insurance” that could “treat maladies unique to this region.”
“Binational health insurance” with the United States and Mexico doesn’t exactly make for a great sound bite in the Republican primaries. But the policy Perry discussed in that speech was actually a really good, conservative one that Texas would have been smart to implement.
To clarify, what Perry referenced was not a merging of Mexico and the United States’ public health systems. It was not, as Wonkette put it, “U.S.-Mexico Obamacare.” Rather, he pointed to a newly passed Texas law, which directed the state to explore allowing private health plans to cover services in Texas and Mexico. Those plans would then be available to any Mexican national or American citizen working within 62 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. ...
Last, binational health plans probably would cut into reliance on public programs, particularly the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the same report concluded. “Proponents saw binational health plans as a new, affordable private health insurance that could replace the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP),” the report says. “Savings in tax dollars would be generated with a decreased number of children on SCHIP and revenues from health care would increase (due to reduction in uncompensated care).” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Marketplace based solutions. Loosened regulations. Reducing the strain on taxpayer supported programs.
Sure, let's all gang up on Perry and the legislature for studying this approach because it has a "scary" name.
Sarah Kliff covers health policy for the Washington Post. Sarah joined the Post in August 2011 from Politico, where she authored Politico Pulse, a daily health policy tipsheet. Prior to Politico, Sarah was a staff writer at Newsweek covering national politics. Her writing has appeared in National Geographic, the BBC, Humanities Magazine and St. Louis Magazine. She is the recipient of fellowships from the Kaiser Family Foundation and University of Southern California Annenberg School of Journalism.
* Her bio on Politico states:
She also covered the 2008 election, traveling with Joe Biden and contributing reports to multiple Newsweek cover stories. She has also written for National Geographic, St. Louis Magazine and Humanities magazine.
Kliff attended Washington University in St. Louis, where she was editor-in-chief of the campus newspaper, Student Life. She grew up in Seattle and Toronto, cities that have left her a big fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs and coffee.
It’s funny how the US (Anglos) always get stuck with the bill.
Why’s that?
And what was the plan to force Mexicans to buy it? Of course I’m assuming all the illegals in Texas are free to buy medical insurance for themselves. So why don’t they?
((( PING ))) “binational health insurance” & Rick Perry.
In another thread, some FReepers shed some light on this topic after I joined others in freaking out over it.
Yet, here is the thing that bothers me: “.” Rather, he pointed to a newly passed Texas law, which directed the state to explore allowing private health plans to cover services in Texas and Mexico. Those plans would then be available to any Mexican national or American citizen working within 62 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. ...”
As was pointed out to me, this was long before Obamacare. Fair enough. But what if this plan were put in place (as I understand, it wasn’t)? We have Obamacare NOW. Would these Mexicans who bought healthcare THEN simply go on with their purchased healthcare, or would Obama want them to be covered, as well, because people shouldn’t be ‘discriminated against’ or something?
Perry himself DID use the phrase “ the feasibility of bi-national health insurance” and I am glad this article and other FReepers have clarified that.
But the fact is we are in an Obamacare world now. Perry couldn’t have predicted that—fair enough. But he pushed for this, and what troubles me is, what if he got what he was pushing for? Would we then be expected to fund these workers under Obamacare?
I’m not saying, I’m asking.
Does Mexico not already have socialized or a form of socialized medicine? If so, then why the need for this plan? And are American health insurance companies not allowed to sell insurance anywhere but the U.S.???? I’m on my cell and not able to read this whole article, so can someone enlighten me on this?? please and thank you....
See, you can lead them to water but you can’t make them think. Sorry about the pun.
Now, we’ve got comments about illegals who had nothing to do with this proposal and ‘forcing’ Mexicans to buy insurance.
You can spell it out but some people aren’t going to read it or understand the issue. Oh well, hopefully just a few.
How superior of you...that's it...we are put off by "scary" names....now we have Perry supporters talking down to us like Perry does....
What the hell is wrong with you illegal lover? Get lost.
I suppose you could look into the California program that was implemented in 1999 and see if Obama care has affected it. I honestly don’t know because I don’t live there. Here you go -
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/cobbh/Pages/default.aspx
While I appreciate your comments on the other thread, that condescending attitude isn't going to win any converts.
If the definition of thinking is just reading an article and blindly following it, well, no, you're not going to make anyone think. I don't apologize for that. But the worry here is that unintended consequences are important--saying "Obamacare didn't exist then" doesn't end the discussion, as much as some would like that.
I'm not sorry for asking questions even after the Perry fans, who I respect, have posted an article they seem to think should shut the rest of us up.
To be honest, I really don't care what you think anymore, which is odd, since I've been trying to get to the bottom of this right here on the forum so others who may be interested can follow my thinking as I go from "Holy cow!" to "OK, maybe I have this wrong."
I don't care for the attitude, and will research on my own, and not comment on this anymore, since some Perry fans seem to think discussion after we've been told to STFU is so tiring.
..so true... also condescension won't win any friends or converts....
It wasn't a formal plan, it was a study.
Nothing came of it because it was found there were too many barriers.
Of course I’m assuming all the illegals in Texas are free to buy medical insurance for themselves. So why don’t they? Other Freepers have suspected one reason Texas has so many uninsured is the illegals. Even if somehow illegal aliens could buy medical insurance for themselves here, they won't. Private plans has ungodly expensive. $500/mo premium for a single person is not abnormal. No illegal could pay it.
Why would they want to? Illegals cannot be denied health care by the states. CA tried in 1994 with Prop 187. It was declared an unconstitutional infringement on federal power.
“Selling across state lines is one thing Republicans wanted to do to lower costs instead of Obamacare. Dems wouldn’t even consider it because it would put a lot of state bureaucrats out of work. Their union buddies trump all good policy.”
The state’s rights crowd doesn’t like it, either. We should tell them that the people’s rights come before the rights of any government, state or federal.
Sorry again. I aimed nothing in your direction since I know you honestly want to know the truth. I was referring to the clowns that just start posting crap about illegals and are not interested in learning anything. That in no way includes you which is why the only thing I sent your way was an honest attempt to answer the serious question that you asked. I gave you a good link to the actual California web site that explains their program. So hang in there.
I got that it was a study. I was just wondering if there was the realization that Mexicans would probably have to be forced to by it.
I live in California and I understand fully the ramifications of illegal immigration.
buy not by
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.