Jindal’s 10 point healthcare plan

By Scott A. Robinson

Filed Under Race for White House 2012 on Oct 7 

In yesterday’s Washington Post, Bobby Jindal came out of hiding, hoping most of America has forgotten about his disastrous speech, to pen an op-ed where he discussed his 10-point healthcare plan. Jindal appears to be positioning himself for a Presidential run, attempting to appeal to conservatives. He began by writing “health care is an American issue, and the Republican Party has an opportunity to demonstrate that conservative principles work when applied to real-world problems”. Yet his plan has some fundamentally non-conservative points. Let’s explore his concepts.

– Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.
– Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to “own” their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.
– Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system — the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.

I agree for the most part with his first three points, which are basically multi-group pooling, inter-state portability with the same tax incentives given to businesses also shared with individuals, and tort reform. However, his following positions overall stray sharply from conservative principles.

– Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.

Requiring coverage does not allow the marketplace to work properly. It actually adds costs. This is part of the problem we are currently experiencing as each state requires differing specific coverage levels. We should allow insurance companies to differentiate themselves by what they do and do not cover and what they will and will not charge for it by what the market dictates. Requiring coverage is not a conservative principle.

– Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today’s system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.

The price for every medical service should be clearly posted. This would be a great driver of competition. Quality data being kept is also a good idea. However, this should not be mandated. If there is a market for quality data, let the marketplace provide it. Mandating the tacking of quality data will only increase costs for everyone. Besides, the nature of this data is extremely subjective, based upon the individual being treated and that individual’s specific circumstances. Mandating quality data being kept is not a conservative principle.

– Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.

This is another mandate. Mandates add cost. If the business case exists to make records electronic, then individual providers or groups of providers should make of their records electronic. There is no evidence to suggest that patient privacy is not equally at risk with electronic records. The risks are simply from difference sources. As another mandate, this is not a market-driven conservative principle.

– Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.

Reducing barriers for tax-free health savings accounts is a good concept. This is a market innovation that adds value. This point does indeed follows conservative principles.

– Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.

Again, this is mandate. Individual providers can choose to differentiate themselves in cost and service by providing “healthy lifestyle rewards” if they so choose. Once again, as a mandate, this is not a conservative principle.

– Cover young adults: A large portion of the uninsured are people who cannot afford coverage after they have “aged out” of their parents’ policies. Permitting young people to stay on their parents’ plans longer would reduce the number of uninsured and keep healthy people in insurance risk pools — helping to lower premiums for everyone.

This is perhaps Jindal’s craziest point. Young adults who aren’t covered are usually intentionally self-insured. This group has perhaps the lowest risk profile. If they chose to be covered, their cost for even private policies is one of the lowest available. Rather than recognizing this fact, Jindal propose yet another mandate, so again, not a conservative principle.

– Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.

Additional tax credits do not necessarily mean those who the government gives more money to will spend the money in the way intended (on healthcare). This simply creates more bureaucracy. He is right that “we would trust American families to make choices for themselves”. However, the creation of more bureaucracy does not solve that issue. Jindal’s point is kind of a muddled explanation, seemingly made to get to the magic number of “1o” for a “10-point plan”. Although tax reductions do follow conservative principles, creating bureaucracy to redistribute wealth to a targeted group does not.

It seems that Jindal is trying to be the man for all people with this plan. Overall, he clearly is not espousing conservative ideals. He is only labeling his views as this. Jindal will not have credibility going forward if he continues to say one thing yet shows himself to be another.

  • Share/Bookmark

Comments

10 Comments

  1. Stephanie on 07.10.2009 at 11:48 (Reply)

    Since everyone else is doing it, I’ve got a healthcare plan too: Cap medical malpractice at $1 million. Let insurance companies compete by allowing policy portability and eliminating cross state restrictions. Make doctors post their prices just like “car [dealers]or restaurants” do so patients know their costs before they go and can make an informed decision.
    But that’s only three good points so it may be too simple and too “free market” for the politicians to support. It seems everyone has jumped on the Obama bandwagon of “please everyone, by being completely unclear of what you’re trying to ultimately accomplish.”

    1. Scott A. Robinson on 07.10.2009 at 12:37 (Reply)

      I think those are the three key points. Though car dealers don’t typically post their actual prices. Can you imagine going to the doctor and negotiating the price on everything he does?

      One other significant issue is that states are too involved in legislating what insurance companies can and cannot cover. Let the market decide and we will see true efficiency and innovation.

  2. Troy La Mana on 07.10.2009 at 14:51 (Reply)

    Take half of what your employer takes for SSN and put it into a HSA for each employee. That would be a couple hundred per month that you weren’t missing anyway. Considering that I hadn’t used my health care plan for much of anything for 20 years I could have invested the 10K somewhere else and doubled the return on investment.

  3. Gary Russell on 08.10.2009 at 00:36 (Reply)

    Health care…blah blah blah…health care….blah blah blah…Olympics….blah blah blah…health care.

    The nation is being crippled by unimaginable debt.
    Terrorist-friendly countries are going nuclear.
    Fiddling while Rome burns.

    1. Scott A. Robinson on 08.10.2009 at 08:23 (Reply)

      Healthcare is important because the President’s goal of socializing medicine (”I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program” -Obama 6/30/03) would further cripple us in debt.

      Although Jindal’s proposal has some good ideas, it also has mandates, which would also increase cost, likely leading to increased government and consumer debt.

      Heathcare is a critical part of the conversation.

      Plus if the government runs healthcare, it runs over 50% of the economy. That’s a planned economy.

      1. Gary Russell on 08.10.2009 at 09:32 (Reply)

        Didn’t intend to be critical of your post, Scott.
        It’s just that, every now and then, I look at how severely Obama’s policies are weakening the basic fabric of our nation and it blows my mind.

        1. Scott A. Robinson on 08.10.2009 at 09:43 (Reply)

          I don’t mind the criticism friend. I’m happy you made it through the 1,000+ words. :-)

          I agree with you concerning the President’s destructive policies. I just wanted to point out why healthcare is important, especially when someone supposedly is presenting “conservative” methods, yet they are not.

          If there is a so-called “compromise” of some kind and the government gains more control of our healthcare system, we all lose. Our debts will increase and our freedoms will decrease.

  4. dw on 08.10.2009 at 13:34 (Reply)

    If Jindal would just take some of the mandates and turn them into options that insurance companies to offer, he’d be getting a lot more “conservative” support.

    I’m still waiting for someone to get into the picture who believes in limiting the involvement of the Federal government.

    We need more state power, and less federal power. More liberty, and less US Congress. We need to start with a repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments.

    1. Scott A. Robinson on 08.10.2009 at 15:43 (Reply)

      Amen brother. You are getting to the roots of some of our problems. This is how we find real solutions.

  5. Trudy on 09.10.2009 at 11:36 (Reply)

    I am curious if you heard on Bill O on Fox that when Obama stated that illegal aliens would not be covered under his insurance plan that the way the constitution is stated, the country would legally have to cover all illegal aliens under this insurance plan. Since Obama is a constitutional lawyer from Harvard, he should know this and in fact more than likely does. He knows he can tell the people that the new plan will not cover illegals but he knows the supreme court will change the law so we have to.

Leave a comment

  • The Wire

    • Sign up for The Wire