Last Modified: Friday, July 13, 2012 5:24 PM
There is plenty to dislike in Obamacare, the nation’s now Supreme Court-approved health-care program.
There’s the loss of freedom that occurs whenever the government forces an individual to purchase a good or service, in this case health insurance ... or, worse, when it forces others to pay for that good or service for others.
There’s the loss of freedom that occurs when the government leaps over the division between church and state and attempts to coerce churches to act against their own moral principles. Obamacare does that in the cases of reproductive rights and services and certain religions.
Then again, there is something to desire in what Obamacare enthusiasts say about its purported upsides: full coverage for the poor, including working poor, and for their children. It would take a cold heart to turn away the sick because they are impoverished. Some 350,000 Louisianians might benefit from the plan, and perhaps a half-million, by some estimates.
That said, there is still much to know about the Affordable Care Act, which is a many-headed monster. Gov. Bobby Jindal, with a political background steeped in health care issues, may make an excellent stand-in on this issue on the campaign trail for Mitt Romney, the Republicans’ presidential hope in the fall campaign. Jindal has spent much of the last two weeks up north, touting Romney as the Obamacare antedote.
But back home in Louisiana, people might like for themselves to hear what Jindal, their elected state chief executive, has to say about the issue. Not everyone is fully opposed to the Affordable Care Act; not everyone is fully in favor. Beyond broad philosophical disagreements, what are Jindal’s specific objections to the act? What would he improve? The governor has written on this topic for national publications; in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, why not talk to Louisianians?
In an analysis published in these pages, the Associated Press’ Melinda Deslatte rightly noted that Jindal ought to make his case against Obamacare here to the people who elected him. After all, Jindal has flatly stated that he will not take the steps to put Obamacare in place in Louisiana, and his decision may have some profound impact on this state’s uninsured residents. Instead, Jindal has said he will work to elect Romney as president and repeal Obamacare, which Romney has said he would do.
That is just what Jindal has done of late, taking to the road to tell folks in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania why Obamacare is wrongheaded. But voters who re-elected Jindal in 2011 did not necessarily cast their ballots against the Affordable Care Act or for Romney. And if Romney loses, what then? Louisianians might want to know.
This editorial was written by a member of the American Press Editorial Board. Its content reflects the collaborative opinion of the Board, whose members include Bobby Dower, Ken Stickney, Jim Beam, Dennis Spears, Crystal Stevenson and Donna Price.
Posted By: Dwight On: 7/17/2012
Title: Jindal has other ambitions
Mr Jindal has been running for a national office since he became Governor. He does not care if he leaves LA in ruins as long as his ideological purity remains unsullied.
Posted By: S.A Thompson On: 7/17/2012
Yeah......What Larry said, this is how the game is played. You keep people from educating themselves, allow for very little healthcare, minimum or near minimum wages, no aspirations to unionize, and fighting or killing one another. You tell them stories of a time gone by when things were better (they never were) and point to a boogey man in DC or their own capitol who is to blame for their lot in life. You promise to make things better if elected, but instead you keep pressing that "Make them angry" button because you know that calling your people stupid is political suicide. Putting them in position to prove their stupidity, however has been and continues to be the winning ticket!!!
Posted By: Larry Linn On: 7/15/2012
Title: Jindal Fails
Louisiana ranks close to the bottom on education, health, and other economic and quality-of-life indicators. It ranks next-to-last in life expectancy, has the third highest in infant mortality rate, and it is near the top in violent crime. Only four states have a smaller percentage of citizens with college degrees, and only one state has a greater proportion of its citizens living below the poverty line. If Jindal cannot take care of the problems in the state which elected him Governor, why would anyone expect him to improve the conditions in the other 49 States?