This is indeed a fine article. I vividly recall reading it and passing  it on to my close friend Bob, with whom I have coffee thrice weekly. I always lend him my TNRs and I recommend all of Jonathan Cohn's fine pieces on healthcare, as well. This voucher system is highly appealing. We now need a president who can implement policies such as the voucher proposal.

I'm no brilliant economist, but aren't flat taxes regressive?  I've heard the arguments before, back in the Steve Forbes-as-candidate era: the rich buy more things so they will pay more of the tax, but is there any reason to expect that they won't loophole out of a VAT enough so that the middle and lower class will be funding this system?  Are rich aging baby boomers going to be buying so much?  Or is it the younger middle class paying for the top and the bottom?  And what about illegal immigration and demographic trends -- if we bring 12 million people "out of the shadows," with all their kids being citizens and claiming health insurance, do the numbers work?  

My humble proposal: universal health insurance should only cover the most serious illnesses and injuries, as well as preventative care.  That would make private insurance for other things (broken arms, etc.) more affordable and people could either purchase it or risk going without  (if something happens, it'll hurt financially but shouldn't devastate).  Start there and then expand universal coverage as much as the budget permits.  

Emanuel & Fuchs may want Universal Health Care, but they are way out in left feild with vouchers.

The tax break for companies that provide health care is a tragedy that provides benefits for the affluent, punishing the working poor who can't negoitiate a benefit like this.  

Unfortunately taaking this tax break awy really won't raise the revenue these Economist expect.  America is quickly off-shoring all manufacturing to countries that won't pay this tax.  The only jobs left with healthcare will be government jobs at the Federal, State and Local level.  And I don't think those folks will pay into the system for this benefit.

My economics on Health Care is a little different.  I believe Health Care inflation is caused by 2 factor.  First is there is too many dollars chasing too few services.  Insurance has created a huge pool of money the health service community is exploiting.  Evidence the many hospitals and specialsits in every city and botique pharmacueticals.  Insurance has prevented the cutbacks that occur during recessions and other difficult financial times.

The second issue is the litigation costs that badly skew patient coverage.  Defensive medecine adds costs to every visit.  While I enjoy the safety of our modern medical system, it really can't be sustained.  I think implicit in the voucher plan run by the governement is lawsuit limits.  You can get that without vouchers.

But taking money out of Healthcare will sove these problems.  I think this is coming with increased Co-Pays, deductibles and offshoring.  The problem will take care of itself before the Goverment succeeds in any Universal Health Care plan.

Wisconsin has an interesting proposal to achieve UHC.

Victor Fuchs won a Nobel in economics? Must have been writing under a pen name.

The only sensible, workable and economical plan for medical care insurance for all is a single payer system, achieved by puting every US citizen on medicare.  Getting rid of the profit-making insurance companies is one of the secrets of saving lots of money.  Medicare costs 5% overhead (and most is contracted to insurance companies); insurance company overhead is 25%. Insurance companies waste lots of money in high executive salaries, trying to not pay claims, and protfits for stockholders.  The European private insurance companies are basically different from US companies.  Also, we could save lots of money in drugs by preventitng big pharma from advertising to the public and wasting money by seeking competing drugs.  Real new drug research is done by hundreds of small companies; big pharma only knows product development not basic rersearch.

Good Catch NBarry.

Takes a lot out of Marty's argument when his Nobel Laureate in Economics doesn't have the award he claimed to have.

Pretty big mistake here.

Makes TNR look a little silly if they can't fact check a Nodel Laureate Award.  Guess they just don't want to question the boss on his assertion, and maybe Marty's memory is starting to fade.

Wonder who he has confused Victor R. Fuchs with.  There has to be someone out there who Marty knows.