Strangely enough…. as poorly thought out and implemented as this program is it actually is a very good concept for healthcare "reform".

This program sets aside a pool of money. American citizens can choose to use this money or not. They can use this money to buy a car of their choice, as long as it meets certain standards.

There is very little government interference in the choice of the consumer or the choice of the automobile dealer. The Consumer can buy the car they want…the dealer is free to advertise it’s merchandise and to offer additional incentives.

Apply this concept to healthcare. The government can offer tax credits to people to pay for insurance. You can get the insurance that you want from the provider you want. The government will then offer up to "X" amount annually in tax credits to pay for it. This will modify your deductions on your W4 so you keep the money in each paycheck. It never goes to the government and forces you to apply for a refund.

To be eligible you need to be enrolled all year…any partial year enrollments are credited on a pro rated basis.

American citizens can choose their providers….companies are free to compete for new business and will likely see a rise in enrollments (driving down prices) as a result.

Of course we will still need to take additional steps to reduce the actual COST of healthcare (tort reform, reduced regulatory costs) but isn’t this is a great start?
Regrugg -
Agreed.

I was using the model as an example. In the healthcare implementation people would keep their OWN money to pay for their insurance.

The principle is that the government allocate the money to be spent in the free market (as ironic as it is to allocate a person their own money)
ej -

It really didn’t fail. It was just overwhelmed and may run out of money. This was a failure of planning and implementation (an Obama Administration trademark)

The healthacre wouldn’t run out of money because it just allows people to keep their own money to be spent on their own needs.

It’s simple in concept

Strangely enough…. as poorly thought out and implemented as the Cash for Clunkers program is it actually is a very good concept for healthcare "reform".

This program sets aside a pool of money. American citizens can choose to use this money or not. They can use this money to buy a car of their choice, as long as it meets certain standards.

There is very little government interference in the choice of the consumer or the choice of the automobile dealer. The consumer can buy the car they want…the dealer is free to advertise its merchandise and to offer additional incentives.

Apply this concept to healthcare, but rather than create a pool of money from other people’s taxes the government can offer tax credits to individuals to pay for insurance. You can get the insurance that you want from the provider you want. The government will then offer up to "X" amount annually in tax credits to pay for it. This will modify your deductions on your W4 so you keep the money in each paycheck. It never goes to the government and thereby you do not need to apply for a refund to benefit from it.

To be eligible you need to be enrolled all year…any partial year enrollments are credited on a pro rated basis.

American citizens can choose their providers….companies are free to compete for new business and will likely see a rise in enrollments (driving down prices) as a result.

Of course we will still need to take additional steps to reduce the actual COST of healthcare (tort reform, reduced regulatory costs) but isn’t this is a great start?
zaza –

I voted for McCain albeit reluctantly. I was more inclined towards Mitt Romney the former Governor of my State.

A government health insurance plan sounds nice and pretty, but when you consider a little bit of history concerning the government and its regulation of the private insurance market and consider basic economics it’s pretty darn clear that as time goes on more and more people will be forced into government run plans.

First, the lie that the government wishes to just "compete" with private insurers is complete BOGUS. The federal (and state governments) already heavily regulate the private insurance market. Over the years governments (both state and federal) have required insurers to cover more and more procedures, many which have nothing to do with health thereby forcing customers to shell out more money instead of just simply allowing consumers to customize their plan….you know kinda like how you do with other insurance.

Also doctors spend around 30 billion per year (according to CNN) on malpractice insurance. So if we could have some tort reform of some sort to reduce law suit abuse.

But the point I REALLY try to make to people is this….Private insurance companies need to at least break even to keep themselves in business. Government does not. Government can afford to operate at a loss because it has an endless supply of tax revenue and the ability to borrow money from sales of bonds or by monetizing the debt with the Federal Reserve. Now ask yourself this….if you were a business of some sort, and you were competing against someone who could afford to operate at a loss indefinitely don’t you think you would have a hard time competing against them? They could afford to continually undercut you (at their loss) and eventually put you out of business. So as you can see the government is NOT competing against private insurers in a FREE market because
1) they regulate their competitors already and 2) they can afford to lose as much money as they want since they do not need to make a profit or even break even to stay in business.

Now some people would say that as long as they can afford to give people cheap medical care then it shouldn’t really matter if they operate at a loss….Well ok, but there is one problem with that and that is supply

If the government sets prices artificially low then their will be an increase in demand for those services. The system will not be able to handle everybody in a timely manner which will lead to long waits and rationing. Now to be clear there already is rationing today just as their is rationing of every product and service we buy….the rationing factor is the price. There are ways to lower the price using Free market solutions instead of the heavy coercive hand of government such as:

Tax deductions for health savings accounts that can be used towards deductibles or insurance premiums, tort reform, allowing private insurance to compete in a free market unlike what it has endured over the years as increased government regulation has increased the price.

I’m starting to ramble, but the main point I wanted to put out for debate is that government is NOT competing against private insurers because it is government that is setting the terms of competition and not the market and also the government can afford to operate at a loss while private insurers can’t. Talk about a monopoly!

Please if all you can say is a bunch of rude or ignorant things then please don’t comment.