Q. You say that your plan will  cost even more than the ACA.  How do you propose to pay for it?

A. Funding for the ACA is supposed to pay for coverage of most of the currently uninsured.  For the moment we would leave funding as it is, knowing that it is probably  inadequate.  The reason is we really don’t know what our plan would cost.  Instead of presenting some computer printouts and pretending we have real figures, we took a different tack.  We already had a form of universal coverage before the ACA.  It’s just that by comparison with the rest of the world it was very high cost inefficient system.  Further it favored large companies over individuals and smaller entities, impeding labor mobility.  Instead we designed a system to achieve the lowest cost to our economy.  As a bonus we wanted the flexibility that would actually enhance economic growth.  Catastrophic policies without any bells and whistles sold nationwide without having to cover preexisting conditions.   Medical credit cards with little or no credit risk for providers.  Huge reduction in third-party pay and the attendant costly paperwork.  Every individual will have a financial incentive to find the best service and cost solution.  People no longer locked in jobs for fear of losing their health insurance. This should give leverage to employees to get wage increases based on employers benefit savings and increase their mobility.  If all these market incentives don’t reduce health care costs as a percentage of GDP, probably nothing would.

Continue reading