Bobby Jindal’s Health Reform

The plan begins by repealing ObamaCare. It would also “guarantee access” to people with pre-existing conditions, through a “high-risk pool, reinsurance, or some other method ensuring those with chronic conditions can obtain needed care.”

Like the Republican Study Committee’s plan, Jindal’s proposal replaces the current exclusion of employer-based tax benefits with a standard tax deduction. The problems:

  • It is regressive, giving more tax relief, the higher your income tax bracket.
  • It is not helpful to the half of the population that does not pay income tax.

Now that ObamaCare has handed out tax credits to millions of people in the health-insurance exchanges, the total effect of the plan would likely be to take insurance away from a large proportion of the people insured through the exchanges, as well as all the people covered by ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion. By election day, it would probably un-insure ten million people.

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Matthew says:

    We are so far into ObamaCare, repealing it now would probably be a major setback. Just because it is a alternative to ObamaCare, doesn’t mean that it is a good one.

    • Thomas says:

      “By election day, it would probably un-insure ten million people.”

      The goal is to be better than ObamaCare, not to sink lower.

  2. Jay says:

    I wonder if it guarantees access to medical care after an exorcism…

  3. Trent says:

    I refuse to listen to anything by that man

  4. Wally says:

    “It would also “guarantee access” to people with pre-existing conditions”

    That is absolutely necessary

  5. Lucas says:

    I think you mean Jesus

  6. Connor says:

    Oh fantastic, uninsuring more people

  7. Tricia says:

    Well, at least Sebellius stepped down

  8. Erik says:

    You can always count on today’s GOP to squander one opportunity after another.

    Day late, dollar short.

  9. Bob Hertz says:

    In both the Jindal plan and the Republican study committee plan, the federal support for high risk pools is embarassingly low. (somewhere between $2.5 billion and $10 billion a year nationwide.)

    Even by Heritage estimates, this is way short of what would be needed if we allowed insurance companies to underwrite again.

    Is this a way to signal that these are not serious plans? Or a recognition that sick people do not constitute a voting bloc at all?