Thanks for commenting, Kandahar,
The bottom line may be the same, but the destination is different. A local co-op under the taxpayers control is where his money will now be spent, instead of a national program distant in Washington. Getting entitlements off the federal books is a very desirable objective, since they aren't good at cost control and spending our money. It is also considered unconstitutional by some.2. The document cites lowered federal spending/taxes as a benefit of this idea. But if that is offset by higher local spending/taxes, it's no better from the taxpayer's perspective.
I changed this to open the way for states to determine how to pay for it out of some mixture of property taxes, income taxes, consumption taxes, and luxury taxes. It is up to the state to decide.3. It will be funded by property taxes, which I think is a bad idea for anything other than basic local services and infrastructure...and certainly for entitlements. Just as we've seen with public schools, those in wealthy areas will continue to shine while those in poor areas will get worse and worse.
This is not an extra premium. The poor and the elderly will have it waived. The poor because they cannot afford it and the elderly because Medicare promises coverage.4. "For coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, there will be premiums assessed." Enough said.
The only way is to have taxpayers pay for it. Regarding freedom to pick doctors/insurance/pharmacies: it may be likely that a co-op purchases clinics, hospitals, pharmacies and staffs them with doctors and nurses and so many in the co-op should not have freedom to pick and so we can control costs. I can even imagine co-ops sponsoring a doctor to med school and pay for it for 10 years co-op service.5. The promises this proposal makes are not realistic IMO. There is no way that I can think of in which we can have universal coverage, affordable outlays, and complete freedom regarding our choice of doctors/insurance/pharmacies. We can pick any two of those three, but I don't see any realistic way to have them all.
They will be issued an insurance card.Also, the document promises that it will be portable across county lines. But if you've just devolved this responsibility back to the counties, I don't see any way that is possible.
It's not the same. Social Security is an unfunded, paygo liability. Healthcare is not.6. The document correctly points out that you can't do this with social security, because it wouldn't be fair if a person works in New York and then retires in South Carolina. However, the same logic applies to these programs as well. People could work wherever they wanted, then move to the county with the best benefits as soon as they got sick.
It would be interesting to get their opinion as well. They aren't the best at managing money.7. Very few local communities would be on board with this idea. For the last 50 years (when revenues exceeded outlays for Medicare/Medicaid), the federal government has been in charge of the program and collecting the money. And now that the programs are about to become a budgetary time bomb, the feds want to hand them over to the local communities? I think most mayors and governors would strongly oppose this.
I'd like to hear about some of these other ideas, if you'd care to mention them...There are lots of great ways to get our entitlement spending under control and to cover everyone, but I don't think this is one of them.