Health care reform through policy, not pandering

Back in August, I noted that Republicans needed to come up with a health care plan of our own. Fortunately, Governor Bobby Jindal was listening.

Gov. Jindal has to be considered one of the leading Republican authorities on health care, given his support for common sense budgeting and fiscal policy, along with his experience in serving as Louisana's Secretary of Health and the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. Jindal published an editorial in today's Washington Post that listed ten basic Republican tenets of health care reform. Common sense solutions that actually would benefit everyday Americans, such as:

• Voluntary purchasing pools
• Portability of coverage
• Tort Reform
• Coverage of preexisting conditions
• Transparency
• Electronic Medical Records
• Tax-free Health Savings Accounts
• Rewarding healthy lifestyles
• Allowing younger adults to be covered on parents policies
• Refundable tax credits

Jindal's plan, more so than any other plan presented on the national stage, will accomplish what the ostensible goal of health care reform should be; getting more folks covered at a lower price to the consumer.

Of course.....there is a minor hitch in that giddy-up.

Does anybody really think that the Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress want any of those things that are listed above? Do they want individuals to be able to buy coverage across state lines, or to take it with them when they move? Do they want taxpayers or businesses to be able to join together cooperatively to purchase coverage at a lower rate? Do they want tort reform, or tax free savings accounts? Of course they don't. The issue of health care, on the national scene, has never been about maximizing the number of people with health insurance while minimizing the price to consumers and taxpayers. Because if that were the goal, some of Governor Jindal's recommendations would be a part of the plan being put forth by Congress.

Instead, what do we see being proposed? Larger government, more bureacuracy, a reduction in the ability of people to purchase coverage without government strings attached....and a fine/tax if the citizen does not want to play ball with the government mandate. And that says nothing of the fact that a system is being proposed that even doctors don't want to see.

Can somebody tell me how any of those things are going to maximize coverage and minimize costs? They aren't, because the Democrats aren't interested in solutions to the health care problem. Just demagoguery at best, or a radical change in American society at worst.

Leaders in Congress would be wise to consider Gov. Jindal's path. Because if the goal is truly "health care for all" this, frankly, is one of the only logical, affordable ways to get there.