Why Universal Health Care Vouchers is the next big idea.

[Lannes]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0506.emanuel.html


If progressives want to use this moment to achieve universal health care, they will need to put forward a proposal that makes the most of what's good about the current system and reflects America's basic values.

What would such a system look like? To begin with, any comprehensive health-care reform should meet seven elemental tests.

First, it should cover every American, no exceptions.
Second, it should pay for covering those who are currently uninsured by cutting waste, not by increasing the total amount our country spends on health care.
Third, it should hold down the rate of increase of future health-care costs.
Fourth, it should give Americans more choice of health plans, not less.
Fifth, it should make our economy more productive, not less.
Sixth, it should reduce, not expand, government bureaucracy.
Finally, to get anywhere, a comprehensive reform plan must be politically viable by offering advantages to more (and more powerful) interest groups than those it upsets, while cohering with American values so that it can draw a broad base of support.
This vision is not a wonky figment of the imagination. It is possible to recast our health-care system in a way that is fair, progressive, efficient, and realistic. We have designed such a system, which we call Universal Healthcare Vouchers (UHVs). As the name implies, our plan achieves goals long sought by both sides of the political divide: the progressive dream of universal coverage and the conservative values of free choice and efficiency. Most importantly, it puts the brakes on the ruinous increases in the cost of health care that threaten to engulf our economy.

[justinsb]

1. The problem you're going to run into

is cost. Here Universal health care eats a big chunk of federal and provincial budgets. With the Baby Boomers retiring we're having to increase health care spending almost every year. Fortunately, with the system and the infrastructure already in place we can increase it in small doses. Having universal health care in the US is going to take a huge tax hike, because you're coming in late in the game and the system and infrastructure is going to have to be ramped up in a hurry. So, you'll not only have to convince people of the value of universal health care (socialized medicine) but also that it's worth a huge tax hike and spending cuts in other areas to get there.

[Lannes]

2. It costs a big chunk of your budget because your budget is smaller

You dont have our military expenditures among other things(lucky for you).This isnt the same system as in Canada.

"4. Funding by an Ear-Marked Value-Added Tax: Earmarking creates a direct connection between benefit levels and the tax level, serving as a political restraint on health care inflation. If the public wants more services to be covered in the basic plan, they must be willing to support a tax increase.

5. Reliance on Private Delivery System: This proposal does not call for government health care and would not legislate changes to the current private delivery system. Health insurance companies and health plans would continue to contract with physicians, hospitals, rehabilitation facilities, pharmacies and other providers for services to the individuals who enroll in their plans. "

It would also eliminate some programs like medicare,saving around 400 billion a year.Im not totally convinced its the answer but I dont believe it can be compared to the canadian system which is socialized.

[justinsb]

3. alright, well I wish you luck then

ya know though, the funny thing about our system is that the amount I pay in taxes here is still less than what I paid in taxes in the US + what I paid for health care. The sad part is I don't think people in the US would see it that way, they'd be all for not having to pay for health care but would be very upset if their taxes went up, even if their combined spending on these two things went down.

[johnnomac]

5. It may cost them less, actually

Right now Americans spend almost half again as much on healthcare per capita as Canadians do. So if it becomes socialized, the cost of healthcare could actually drop overall. Although in the short term you are right, to put the infrastructure into place will cost more money.

[dcfirefighter]

4. Through tax spending and other sources

The Federal Government already covers approximately 60% of healthcare costs now.

The system you describe sounds like the Swiss system:
Universal Coverage - Compulsory Insurance required of all residents
Partial Subsidy for low income persons
Many insurers compete for individual customers
Insurers must aggregate rates by geography and age
Rates cheaper for higher deductibles, and less 'fringe' coverages (i.e. no private rooms)
Rebate for not using insurance except for annual check-up
Insurance covers user's choice of doctors.

The advantage over the Canadian system, and how it fits in the US 'way' is the amount of competition - which encourages efficiencies and improvements in service while controlling costs.

[Sugarbleus]

6. I'd go for almost anything at this point, but 1st lmake the Gov get

their filthy fingers off of HOUSING VOUCHERS. Those were a great idea for years. Now they are "cutting" all of the funding BACK for those "vouchers"... We need a system that is tamper proof. Set in stone, as it were...

Whadda country!