Santorum in USA Today: I have a plan not just to repeal, but also to replace Obamacare

posted at 12:30 pm on April 2, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Ever since Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress, Republicans have repeated the slogan, “Repeal and replace.” Yet, the “replace” element of that piece has never been particularly clear. What, exactly, is the Republican plan for health care reform?

As a conservative, it seems to me perfectly legitimate to just say, “Repeal.” It’s not necessarily the role of the federal government to guarantee access to affordable health care for all Americans, even if we as a society agree that such access should be a shared priority. A fourth federal entitlement program isn’t the only — or the optimal — way to meet citizens’ health care needs.

Nevertheless, the CW suggests that it’s always better to be for something than to merely be against something. Broadly speaking, Republicans are for free-market-based health care reform. The specifics of such reform, though, vary from Republican to Republican. Today, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum laid out his specifics in an op-ed in The USA Today:

My plan offers a better way to combine fiscal responsibility and health care reform. Americans should have access to high-quality, affordable health care with health care decisions made by patients and their physicians, not bureaucrats.

Our wise Founding Fathers didn’t give the government control over your health. The government has done little right these past few years, and President Obama wants to inflict this incompetence on your personal life.

Under my plan (see my website for more details), Americans will be able to buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars, or continue to receive insurance through their employer. All licensed insurance plans would be eligible. Companies would be encouraged to compete over state lines, and Americans would have a choice of different plans and premiums, just like with auto and home insurance. Health insurers could offer high-deductible plans with lower premiums combined with health savings accounts, or more traditional managed care or fee-for-service plans. Low-income individuals would get tax credits so they could buy the same kind of health care as other Americans.

The contrast with ObamaCare could not be starker. ObamaCare prohibits health savings accounts, and turns the insurance industry into a federally controlled public utility. My plan would allow all Americans to shop around and get their health insurance on the open market — just like they buy other kinds of insurance.

Santorum also advocates health care liability reform to address rising costs caused by frivolous lawsuits.

As Santorum states, his plan contrasts sharply with Obamacare in that it’s not an idea for a new federal program: It’s a plan to return the freedom to decide questions of health care to individuals. It’s a mark of how widely accepted the idea of a welfare state has become, though, that presidential candidates are expected to present a plan to increase access to affordable health care at all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wait what? our party has plans other then kick Hispanics out the country, and hate all gay people?

Happy happy joy joy

boogaleesnots on April 2, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Free market all the way. Get the government out of it.

dentarthurdent on April 2, 2012 at 12:35 PM

When will these myopic dunderheads get the message?

WE DON’T WANT A GOVERNMENT HEALTH PLAN!!!!!!

Try this, Rick:

“I will repeal the ACA, and allow the market to re-establish a viable healthcare system”

Is it really that difficult to understand?

BobMbx on April 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM

You can’t repeal without taking the Senate and the White House. What is his plan for that?

As it is good to have a ‘replace’ plan, I do believe that Michelle Bachmann, has had the replace plan from day 1. She also has noted it is impossible to implement said replace without implementing phase 1: Win Senate and White House. Of course if we had a 2/3 majority we could still lose WH and repeal.

Santorum, a day late and a dollar short.

uhangtight on April 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Can these candidates just stop with the “government funded health care because we think we care about you BS”.

I hate this election cycle.

upinak on April 2, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Face Palm!

bgibbs1000 on April 2, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Not a bad plan from the caption, although I am not going on Santorum’s website to read the full plan. I think Romney should also come up with a plan that Republicans in the House can push through in the even Obamacare is struck down.

milcus on April 2, 2012 at 12:37 PM

oh great. get out santorum. you’re a clown.

sbvft contributor on April 2, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Americans will be able to buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars

No, no, Ricky–if the Federal government subsidizes health insurance premiums in this way, they will stay high.

And, as subsidies go, this one gives the most benefit to people in higher tax brackets. You know, the country club Republicans. The upper middle class saves about 40% on premiums under this plan, while working stiffs save about 15%.

You should stick to talking about social issues, Ricky.

Emperor Norton on April 2, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Low-income individuals would get tax credits so they could buy the same kind of __________ as other Americans.

Car
Home
Clothing
Cellphones
Grass seed
Hammers
Insurance

Folks, don’t be fooled. We don’t have a conservative anywhere near the top of the GOP.

Same shit, different team.

BobMbx on April 2, 2012 at 12:39 PM

SantorumCare… a day late and a dollar short… again…

Rick: please go away if you still have a shred of dignity left… which I doubt based on your remarks during the campaign for the nomination…

Khun Joe on April 2, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Yawn.

Good Lt on April 2, 2012 at 12:40 PM

You can’t repeal without taking the Senate and the White House. What is his plan for that?

uhangtight on April 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Win the Senate and the House.

hillsoftx on April 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM

The Republicans are all for having some sort of government health-care. They are as beholden to the health-care lobbies, not to mention so many others, as these Democrats.

rickv404 on April 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Low-income individuals would get tax credits so they could buy the same kind of health care as other Americans.

I don’t agree with this portion of his plan. Low-income people mostly don’t pay income taxes so that tax credit is just more redistribution.

Btw, Rick, you’re a little late with this idea. Might have been better to roll this out in January or early February….when you still has a decent shot at the nomination.

Bitter Clinger on April 2, 2012 at 12:42 PM

And the shilling continues.

Game On!

JFS61 on April 2, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Try this, Rick:

“I will repeal the ACA, and allow the market to re-establish a viable healthcare system”

Is it really that difficult to understand?

BobMbx on April 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM

For a career politician, yes.

UltimateBob on April 2, 2012 at 12:43 PM

What about the free riders? That’s the question republicans can’t seem to answer.

rubberneck on April 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

“Btw, Rick, you’re a little late with this idea.”

Exactly. He’s 42 points behind in the 4th quarter with two minutes left and he attempts a field goal.

crosspatch on April 2, 2012 at 12:45 PM

when you still has had a decent shot at the nomination.

Bitter Clinger on April 2, 2012 at 12:42 PM

My fingers betray me again.

Bitter Clinger on April 2, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Low-income individuals would get tax credits so they could buy the same kind of health care as other Americans

Whoa, I missed this part on the first read!

If the Federal government subsidizes health insurance premiums in this way, they will stay high go even higher.

Emperor Norton on April 2, 2012 at 12:46 PM

HSA’s need to be more mainstream and favorable from a govt. perspective.
One of the achievements of ObieCare was going to be killing off that little concept of “Personal Responsibility” in HSA’s that the nanny staters just hate.

FlaMurph on April 2, 2012 at 12:46 PM

In 2009 the economy was tanking, uunemployment rising, the stock market diving and president Obama wanted to spend his time “fixing” health care.
Now with his campaign tanking, high unemployment, gas prices through the roof, inflation looming, Little Ricky Santorum wants to waste time on something that may not even exist after June. Who is not that different from Obama again?

cartooner on April 2, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Santorum is on the right track.

Gotta do it! If there’s no replacement for the loony toon version of the supposed health care fix the GOP is shot down in flames and its more likely that liberals will have their wedge.

Here’s the opportunity, show what improvements can really be made, there’s a bunch.

Some have been shown before, that was then this is now, put it all together and put it in a big way before the public, ASAP!

Speakup on April 2, 2012 at 12:47 PM

After the Supremes sprayed urine on Obamacare last week stating, the chatter has begun–”what is the GOP plan–they never had one”, blah,blah–don’t forget, HR 3218 was the House plan marched forward when Obamacare was manifesting itself in the govt colon…

hillsoftx on April 2, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Ron Paul is the only candidate I trust to deal with America’s healthcare problems, he is both a doctor and a champion of freedom and liberty and would employ American solutions to the problem.

FloatingRock on April 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

But . . . Sketchy supports the Individual Mandate!!!

The GOP has spoken.

DannoJyd on April 2, 2012 at 12:50 PM

As a conservative…

It’s not necessarily the role of the federal government to guarantee access to affordable health care for all Americans, even if we as a society agree that such access should be a shared priority.

So much for your being a conservative. It’s one thing to call yourself something, but it’s another to actually understand an ideology and embrace it.

Dante on April 2, 2012 at 12:51 PM

One big government statist helps another.

mythicknight on April 2, 2012 at 12:52 PM

How in the world can you spend that much time on the campaign trail and think that Romneycare is the albatross around Romney’s neck and then come out say with gusto:

“I’ll do what he did, but better!”

What an absolute tone deaf putz.

beatcanvas on April 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM

The government has done little right these past few years

Here’s the fallacy: it’s been more than “a few” years, Santorum. Runaway debt/deficit spending was a problem under Bush with a Republican Congress, as well, and you yourself played an active role making yourself part of the problem.

FloatingRock on April 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM

If the Federal government subsidizes health insurance premiums in this way, they will stay high go even higher.

Emperor Norton on April 2, 2012 at 12:46 PM

While I don’t agree with that portion of Santorum’s plan, please explain why tax credits to low-income people to buy health insurance would push premuims higher. Do we not want people to purchase their own health care (sans the tax credits)?

Bitter Clinger on April 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM

“I checked out Santorum’s website. There’s no “there” there. No numbers. Turns out, Santorum’s idea is some other congressman’s idea (and he’s a doctor for added credibility on budget issues.) It’s like Nixon’s super duper secret plan to get us out of Vietnam. No plan. It’s like Nancy Pelosi’s “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill” claim.

Tell us your plan, Senator. Complete with the numbers. And do it before you expect to win my vote. Because I, for one, am tired of voting first and revealing later.

rogaineguy on April 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM

While I don’t agree with that portion of Santorum’s plan, please explain why tax credits to low-income people to buy health insurance would push premuims higher. Do we not want people to purchase their own health care (sans the tax credits)?

Bitter Clinger on April 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Low-income people aren’t paying taxes. Why would they need a tax credit?

But the more people on an insurance plan, the more risk that the company acquires, and the more payouts it makes; therefore, rates go up to cover their increased costs.

Dante on April 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM

rogaineguy on April 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM

How is his proposal any less detailed than Romney’s? (I know that you didn’t mention Romney in your post, but it’s reasonable to compare the two, since Romney is the presumptive nominee.)

Just Sayin on April 2, 2012 at 1:03 PM

fail, mary pass.

the problem is almost entirely federal and state governments making miserably failed attempts at manipulating the market( mandating that certain things have to be covered(all shilled for by the insurance companies themselves and the pharam companies.) to make it affordable- and in the process driving up the costs, making insurance companies rich and keeping ‘affordable’ care and ‘affordable’ insurance unaffordable to working americans.

but the democrats and rinos and their lap dogs in the press do their utmost to hide the false economies of mismanaged care by governments to scream loudly and often that only they care about people and are saving lives. and anyone against this expensive, broken farse is an empathy-less, money grubbing baby and child killer.

the POTUS isn’t the pastor of the united states nor is he the physician of the united states.

mittens on April 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Just Sayin on April 2, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Romney’s was so detailed that he passed it into law in Mass, and that’s why he is disqualified from office, IMO.

FloatingRock on April 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I think Romney should also come up with a plan that Republicans in the House can push through in the even Obamacare is struck down.

milcus on April 2, 2012 at 12:37 PM

It’s called Ryan-Wyden. Look it up.

MJBrutus on April 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Low-income people aren’t paying taxes. Why would they need a tax credit?

But the more people on an insurance plan, the more risk that the company acquires, and the more payouts it makes; therefore, rates go up to cover their increased costs.

Dante on April 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM

You’re making it sound like the market place isn’t the solution to the health care problem. Aren’t premiums already artificially high because providers make less off of Medicare and Medicaid patients and make up the difference with higher charges to those with health insurance? If everyone has private health insurance, wouldn’t that negate the current problem?

Bitter Clinger on April 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM

There is no way to reform health care to make it affordable and still keep the quality. Health care in the 21st century is very expensive. The professionals are highly paid, and the machines and drugs they use are very expensive to produce. We are no longer talking about a cast, a bedpan, and some bandages. It has turned into Star Trek very quickly and has outpaced our collective ability to pay for it. So how can you give something that is very expensive to 330 million people? You can’t. It’s like trying supply every American a Ferrari when they are ill.

The politicians don’t want to tell the American people that some things are simply too expensive to distribute to everyone.

keep the change on April 2, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Romney’s was so detailed that he passed it into law in Mass, and that’s why he is disqualified from office, IMO.

FloatingRock on April 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Lol!! Good point! :-)

Although I will be very reluctantly voting for him if he’s the nominee.

Just Sayin on April 2, 2012 at 1:07 PM

It’s called Ryan-Wyden. Look it up.

MJBrutus on April 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Isn’t Ryan-Widen a Medicare reform? We do need Medicare reform but that alone isn’t a “health care” plan.

Bitter Clinger on April 2, 2012 at 1:09 PM

rogaineguy on April 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Yep.

Where’s the Beef?

Here’s what Santorum’s plan says:

Platitude platitude vague, John Adams platitude fantasy pejorative Romney pejorative. Taxpayer platitude platitude lie oxymoron fantasy.

Just like all the other 5, 10, and 20 year plans.

Never has any politician offered up a 1 year plan to do anything.

BobMbx on April 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Although I am a Mitt man some of Santorums stuff makes sense. It also has been suggest by othe rpeople.

1.Tort reform -good
2. Insurance over state lines( sort of good although each state mandates some coverages.
3.The big thing to me would be the ability just to buy catastophic coverage at a lower price. this is the weakness in the current plans.you have to buy coverage for everything.
High deductible plans seem to be the way to go(liberals hate this).

4. tax credits as opposed to total control make sense-as long as you have to make income to get credit.

5. high risk insurance pools regionally for people with pre-existing conditions that can’t get covered.
6. no mandates

gerrym51 on April 2, 2012 at 1:13 PM

What about the free riders? That’s the question republicans can’t seem to answer.

rubberneck on April 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

you mean the 40% plus who don’t pay federal income taxes anymore?

mark81150 on April 2, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Romney’s was so detailed that he passed it into law in Mass, and that’s why he is disqualified from office, IMO.

in Romney’s defense-i live in mass.

he wanted a high deductible low premium plan option. the legislature(dumb liberals) said no

gerrym51 on April 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM

You’re making it sound like the market place isn’t the solution to the health care problem.

Bitter Clinger on April 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM

LOL. Really?

Dante on April 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM

So much for your being a conservative. It’s one thing to call yourself something, but it’s another to actually understand an ideology and embrace it.

Dante on April 2, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Rombots, take note.

gryphon202 on April 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Slightly O/T, but y’all will love this, here is Arlen Specter melting down on a conservative talk radio show. I guess Arlen is having trouble coping with not being relevant: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/02/arlen_specter_melts-down_on_conservative_radio_talk_show.html

Lawdawg86 on April 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM

No, no, Ricky–if the Federal government subsidizes health insurance premiums in this way, they will stay high.

You should stick to talking about social issues, Ricky.

Emperor Norton on April 2, 2012 at 12:39 PM

And you are making the classic mistake in assuming the money is the governments instead of the people who earned it. I like this plan, and I’m lukewarm on Santorum. In fact, my response to liberals is that I would be willing to completely opt out of Mediscare if I could take that money and put it into an HSA… which is basically what “Ricky” is suggesting.

Btw… namecalling occurs when you can’t debate someone on the substance of their plan.

dominigan on April 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM

It has turned into Star Trek very quickly and has outpaced our collective ability to pay for it. So how can you give something that is very expensive to 330 million people?

Looks like we need to invest heavily into Tri-corders and medical scanners.

We need to get some readings

BobMbx on April 2, 2012 at 1:19 PM

What about the free riders? That’s the question republicans can’t seem to answer.

rubberneck on April 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

It’s been answered repeatedly. There is no “free rider” problem. The “problem” has been vastly overstated in order to justify this particular solution. We can’t help it if you don’t like the answer, and therefore choose to ignore the answer.

The reality is that shrinkage (to use a retail term for theft and fraud losses) in the healthcare industry due to the “free rider problem” is between 2% and 2.5%. That’s roughly 2.5% of the money spent in healthcare is shifted from these free riders to the paying healthcare clients. By comparison, in the retail world, shrinkage usually averages anywhere from 5-15%, and Medicare losses average about 10% through waste, fraud, and theft.

So, why are liberals so concerned with the free rider problem in healthcare jacking up insurance rates, rather than complaining about Medicare losses jacking up your taxes at 4x the rate of the healthcare free riders? Why aren’t you upset about having to pay 5-15% more for your TV or iPod due to “free riders” in the retail market?

gravityman on April 2, 2012 at 1:19 PM

What about the free riders? That’s the question republicans can’t seem to answer.

rubberneck on April 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

The free riders only exist because the government decided that no one should be able to deny service due to an inability to pay. Remember that this is a problem that the GOVERNMENT CREATED.

dominigan on April 2, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Romney’s was so detailed that he passed it into law in Mass, and that’s why he is disqualified from office, IMO.

in Romney’s defense-i live in mass.

he wanted a high deductible low premium plan option. the legislature(dumb liberals) said no

gerrym51 on April 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM

I live in MA too.

The MA Senate wanted to require insurers to offer a high-deductible, low-premium option. The House was opposed. If Romney had been more active during the conference committee process, instead of metaphorically and literally absenting himself, we might have ended up with that instead of this lame “Young Adults” plan.

What Romney initially proposed was something that was NEVER. GOING. TO. HAPPEN: elimination of all state-mandated benefits. He lost a lot of credibility with the legislature after that.

Just Sayin on April 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM

in Romney’s defense-i live in mass.

he wanted a high deductible low premium plan option. the legislature(dumb liberals) said no

gerrym51 on April 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Gerry, stop with logic. MA is like Kansas. You can pass conservative legislation and Romney just chose to pass something that, in a talking point not grounded in reality, Obama said was the basis for Obamacare.

milcus on April 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM

please explain why tax credits to low-income people to buy health insurance would push premuims higher.

Because there would be more money out there to pay for insurance premiums. The Federal government would be subsidizing the cost of insurance, paid out of general tax revenues. The health insurers would raise premiums.

Similarly, student loans means more money out there to pay for college tuition. Colleges raise tuition fees.

Many low-income people aren’t buying health insurance now, but if they were subsidized, they might.

Emperor Norton on April 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM

It has turned into Star Trek very quickly and has outpaced our collective ability to pay for it. So how can you give something that is very expensive to 330 million people? You can’t.

keep the change on April 2, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Absolutely correct. Like I pointed out to my liberal friends who pine for the perfect society of Star Trek… WHO MINES THE DILITHIUM?

In an accurate Star Trek scenario… no one would mine the dilithium (that allows a starship in the Star Trek universe to move) without being compensated for the extreme danger in mining it. Without capitalist intervention, those magnificent ships would be “dead in the water”.

dominigan on April 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Santorum ad attacking Obama?

Steveangell on April 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Do we not want people to purchase their own health care (sans the tax credits)?

I think you mean health insurance, not health care.

If people buy health insurance for the first time because of certain tax credits, the Federal government, in effect, is buying it for them.

Emperor Norton on April 2, 2012 at 1:28 PM

You’re making it sound like the market place isn’t the solution to the health care problem.

Bitter Clinger on April 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM

LOL. Really?

Dante on April 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM

You said putting more low-income people on private insurance plans will increase premiums. Sounds like you don’t think that’s where they should be. Please explain.

Bitter Clinger on April 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM

WHO MINES THE DILITHIUM?

The Koch brothers.

Emperor Norton on April 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Because there would be more money out there to pay for insurance premiums. The Federal government would be subsidizing the cost of insurance, paid out of general tax revenues. The health insurers would raise premiums.

Similarly, student loans means more money out there to pay for college tuition. Colleges raise tuition fees.

Many low-income people aren’t buying health insurance now, but if they were subsidized, they might.

Emperor Norton on April 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Again let me stipulate that I don’t agree with subsidizing low-income people for health insurance. But these same low-income people are already using goverment-paid insurance (Medicaid and, for low-income seniors, Medicare) to get their health care. Because providers make much less from Medicare and Medicaid payments, they make it up on the backs of the privately-insured which drives premiums higher in an artificial manner. If we eliminated these government-paid plans and everyone was insured by private means, premiums would eventually level off.

Bitter Clinger on April 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Thank you, Dr Pepper.

Rusty Allen on April 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM

As a conservative, it seems to me perfectly legitimate to just say, “Repeal.” It’s not necessarily the role of the federal government to guarantee access to affordable health care for all Americans, even if we as a society agree that such access should be a shared priority. A fourth federal entitlement program isn’t the only — or the optimal — way to meet citizens’ health care needs.

EXACTLY RIGHT!!!

We don’t need a different excuse for government excess: the EXCESS is the problem…not the excuse!!!

landlines on April 2, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Who’s Rick Santorum?

echosyst on April 2, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Told you he was a big gov’t liberal. The gov’t is not created to fix every problem.

Just for the people who don’t understand supply and demand: Subsidizing something increases demand and therefore prices! See eduction for an example.

aniptofar on April 2, 2012 at 1:51 PM

WHO MINES THE DILITHIUM?

dominigan on April 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Re-purposed hologramatical doctors.

FloatingRock on April 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Santorum also advocates health care liability reform to address rising costs caused by frivolous lawsuits.

This crap again? It has been shown time and time again that medical malpractice limits have no impact at all on health care costs. It reduces the cost of insurance to doctors, but there are no savings passed to patients. Texas put in sharp lawsuit award limits several years ago, and our healthcare costs have risen among the fastest in the nation since then.

AngusMc on April 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM

You said putting more low-income people on private insurance plans will increase premiums. Sounds like you don’t think that’s where they should be. Please explain.

Bitter Clinger on April 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM

You asked how putting more people on plans would push premiums higher, and I answered that question. Nothing more. You’re trying too hard to forecast my beliefs into an answer that had nothing to do with them.

Dante on April 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Under my plan (see my website for more details), Americans will be able to buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars, or continue to receive insurance through their employer.

This does not solve the portability problem. The better solution is to sever the relationship between employers and consumers and provide generous tax credits formerly enjoyed by employers to individuals. That way no one feels chained to the employer for fear they will be uninsured if they choose to branch out.

Buy Danish on April 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Just like the solution to too much debt isn’t more debt, the solution to too much government isn’t more government.

FloatingRock on April 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Repeal and stay out of my business.

davidk on April 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Three bad Obama Policies

Great short video. 33 seconds

Steveangell on April 2, 2012 at 2:08 PM

So Santorum’s idea is to use tax dollars through a credit directly to the individual to pay for insurance for the uninsured instead of using tax dollars directly to insruance exchanges to pay for insurance for the uninsured.

That’s like saying my new improved plan to reduce the cost of electric cars is to give a $10,000 tax credit to the electric car buyer instead of giving it to the the electric car manufacture.

Something terrible happens to people’s brains when they decide to become politicians.

BMF on April 2, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Santorum never writes “replace” in that op-ed. He spoke about the federal government’s actual powers and limits with respect ot health insurance, and that involves nothing more than making regular interstate commerce of it, not taking it over and burdening all the players with duplicate and extraneous regulations from Washington on individual policies or forcing mandates on people at the state level.

Show a little more integrity in your headlines. Try, at least.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Every time Santorum opens his mouth, the less I think of him. Just shut up and go away. Get back on your bowling tour.

lhuffman34 on April 2, 2012 at 2:20 PM

This does not solve the portability problem. The better solution is to sever the relationship between employers and consumers and provide generous tax credits formerly enjoyed by employers to individuals. That way no one feels chained to the employer for fear they will be uninsured if they choose to branch out.

Buy Danish on April 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Not only that, but I’ve not seen ONE person in this thread bring up the 800lb gorilla in the room – EMTALA. Do away with that, make it a pure pay-to-play with the Fed as your last backstop (think of you have Uncle Sugar via the IRS garnish you for picking up the bill, of which they are charged a fee-premium to make it an abhorrent option, like 2x cost of public insured or cash pay). That right there is the single biggest way to de-fang all the cost shifting BS like credits, etc, etc. Portability – Good, Interstate Availability – Good, Getting rid of EMTALA, superb.

SkinnerVic on April 2, 2012 at 2:32 PM

We can safely say that I am no friend of Santorum. There is no guarantee that I would vote for him over Obama. Yet I think that people are being overly negative about his ideas on health care. One example is criticizing his plan to give lower income people tax credits for health insurance. It’s just a fact of the distribution of income in the United States that some people are not going to be able to afford a reasonable level of health care. While we want to see how much of their health cost we can offload to charity–perhaps charity will be enough at some point–we shouldn’t disregard how preventable medical suffering of the poor in a wealthy country is not going to win a single convert to the cause of capitalism.

thuja on April 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM

he wanted a high deductible low premium plan option. the legislature(dumb liberals) said no

gerrym51 on April 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM

This is one of the many problems with Obamacare.
The way to make insurance work is to get healthy people to buy it. If you have low utilizers but charge high premiums, they won’t buy it. To get the premiums down, you need to increase the deductibles and limit some of the services-for instance, people can pay for their own contraceptives.

Obamacare does the opposite. It requires so many things that the policies are exhorbitant. (Do you think the health insurers had anything to do with drafting those aspects of the bill?) It limits deductibles.

If the government allowed a high deductible catastrophic health insurance (which Obamacare specifically prohibits)-say something like $500 per year for 20 somethings, with premiums allowed to increase for age, that only covered real medical expenses over $5000 (not elective plastic surgery, special policies needed for things like IVF), but had no copays over $5000, would there be a market? I would certainly buy such a product. I’d get it for my kids, too, it they didn’t have other coverage.

Something that allows a high deductible but eliminates copays after that would actually help with almost all the problems in the market. People would pay attention to elective costs because they would have to pay out of pocket-they usually come to under $5000. People wouldn’t have healthcare related bankruptcies-it’s not the $5000 that gets you, it’s the 20% copay for the $250,000 bill for the open heart surgery that led to complications. Does your homeowners insurance have copays after the deductible?

Obamacare doesn’t solve a single problem with the system. It just increases overall costs.

talkingpoints on April 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM

It’s still a government plan you fake conservative!

KOOLAID2 on April 2, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I really wish Republicans would stop saying we have free-market health care. The fact is we don’t. Even if Obamacare is repealed, we will still have way too much government intervention in health care.

modnar on April 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Tell me again how prolonging the primaries helps in the cause of defeating ObaMao in November? Time for some folks to drop out and then get on board. I’m looking at you, Santy and Newty.

cicerone on April 2, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Santorum’s got a plan to replace Obamacare. Him and his three middle kids put it together at Chuck E Cheese last weekend. It’s good. It’s real good. Not the pizza, their plan. His wife Karen likes it because it takes care of old men, and she’s got a soft spot for old men. She likes old men real good, and pizza too. When she bowls. Karen likes to bowl.

jan3 on April 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Who’s Rick Santorum?

echosyst on April 2, 2012 at 1:48 PM

He WAS the first LOSER for the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination.

I am not surprised you have forgotten him. He wasn’t memorable.

Gunlock Bill on April 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Americans will be able to buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars

No, no, Ricky–if the Federal government subsidizes health insurance premiums in this way, they will stay high.

And, as subsidies go, this one gives the most benefit to people in higher tax brackets. You know, the country club Republicans. The upper middle class saves about 40% on premiums under this plan, while working stiffs save about 15%.

You should stick to talking about social issues, Ricky.

Emperor Norton on April 2, 2012 at 12:39 PM

All Santorum’s plan does is to allow you to buy health insurance directly with your pretax dollars rather than buying health insurance through your employer with your pretax dollars. It’s a definite improvement over the status quo before Obamacare, and a good example of a genuine free-market small-government solution to the high cost of health care.

Granted, it would be better to replace all this health insurance with buying directly from healthcare providers. But I don’t see that happening in anything except an idealized world.

This is a good thing, and gets us closer to that idealized world than we were. In modern American politics, that makes it an almost astoundingly good idea. One that should be praised rather than panned.

tom on April 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Low-income individuals would get tax credits so they could buy the same kind of health care as other Americans

Whoa, I missed this part on the first read!

If the Federal government subsidizes health insurance premiums in this way, they will stay high go even higher.

Emperor Norton on April 2, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Yeah, that part’s not so great. Though it all depends on how much in the way of a tax credit you’re planning to offer. Too big of a tax credit becomes just a subsidy.

tom on April 2, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Under my plan (see my website for more details), Americans will be able to buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars, or continue to receive insurance through their employer.

This does not solve the portability problem. The better solution is to sever the relationship between employers and consumers and provide generous tax credits formerly enjoyed by employers to individuals. That way no one feels chained to the employer for fear they will be uninsured if they choose to branch out.

Buy Danish on April 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Actually, that’s exactly what Santorum’s plan attempts to do. Note the highlighted word OR in the above quote (emphasis mine).

IOW, if you’re already getting insurance through your employer, you can continue. But you can also buy insurance without going through your employer, which decouples health insurance and your employer.

You’re not going to force people to stop getting insurance through their employer with any plan that stands a chance of passing. You have to first create an alternative, and then start incentivizing that alternative. But let’s face it, as long as an employer can lure employees by offering better health insurance, some people will be getting health insurance through their employer.

tom on April 2, 2012 at 7:10 PM

As a conservative, it seems to me perfectly legitimate to just say, “Repeal.” It’s not necessarily the role of the federal government to guarantee access to affordable health care for all Americans, even if we as a society agree that such access should be a shared priority.

Great thought, Tina. And nice job on Cavuto tonight.

Jaibones on April 2, 2012 at 9:29 PM

So many great comments:

Try this, Rick: “I will repeal the ACA, and allow the market to re-establish a viable healthcare system” Is it really that difficult to understand? — BobMbx on April 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Apparently.

Can these candidates just stop with the “government funded health care because we think we care about you BS”. I hate this election cycle. — upinak on April 2, 2012 at 12:37 PM

oh great. get out santorum. you’re a clown. — sbvft contributor on April 2, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Amen and Amen.

Jaibones on April 2, 2012 at 9:34 PM