>Jake,
>
>The directors would be political appointees and the Congress would control the purse strings just like Social Security, Welfare, et all.
>
>I'm saying there needs to be a proportion of tax ringfenced for health- unlike other expenditure that comes out of the general pot and can be heavily politicized as you note. You're right that you need to watch government: some governments have been doing exactly this for years charging petrol tax for roading infrastructure purposes, but dropping the $ into the general pool and spending only a fraction on roading.

I'm saying it will not work because thet's not how our government works. Whether you call it "ringfence", "lock-box" or "trust fund" it all is simply a whim of Congress away from being spent on whatever the cause of the day is.

>A general model might be the ACC in New Zealand that is a socialized insurance scheme for personal injury. it's funded by levies on employers and employees. Risky jobs pay more, so a scaffolder pays a higher levy than a pastor. The rate has stayed about the same or has even reduced in the last 5 years or so. Coverage includes not just healthcare but compensation for disability or loss of earnings as a result of injury.

I have no knowledge of the ACC so I cannot comment.

>Once you try any of this hybrid crap the businesses in the state start dropping care because the state must pick the people up.
>
>A universal entitlement scheme cannot be "run around" because it is funded by taxes paid by the employers and employees being "picked up".

I agree, but you weren't referring to a "universal entitlement scheme", you mentioned a "joint public/private" plan. Like I said before, take a look at what Tennessee has been through recently.