So I've been probing into the den of the other (free market)side regarding health care, health insurance, how to pay for it, etc. And an interesting thought came up. One I hadn't heard proposed or crucified on the too many sites I visit. Perhaps my information streams need some widening?
Now, I'm for single-payer. It seems a proven system in other countries with lower costs and universal coverage. I'd link back to the diary that cited "Things you'll never hear in the Canadian Health System" (or something along those lines), but this is a first post and that's beyond my scope right now.
I'd like some input. My personal belief is that health care access is a moral issue. i.e. People are not widgets and shouldn't be subject to the whims of the market.
John McCain had a potentially good idea. We wanted a better hybrid car battery. He proposed we set some guidelines on what the Gov't was looking for, and award the first company or person to come up with something meeting those specs $300 million. Okay, might be a good thing, let's explore this. But now...
Apply this method to health care. Have the government ask the industry to come up with a policy that meets X requirements of coverage at Y cost. Then pledge to fund ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE through that company for the next Z years on the condition that it makes the requested plan open for every person in the US.
Now, instead of mandating a policy and setting prices and all that nonsense, they will have insurance companies competing for the single biggest insurance policy contract in the united states. This would do WONDERS for the industry, and it would also require the removal of mandates, because federal employees work in every state.
They could also do this with CAFE standards, green energy etc.... Here we would spend money on results, not promises.
Source: non-public discussion.
Free market? Yes. Talking head garbage? Pretty much out of their league I think. But I hadn't heard this line of thought before. What's the hitch?