Matt,

In education, voucher programs seldom provide sufficient funds to cover tuition at a good private school. In an aggressively inflationary sector like health care, vouchers would constitute an open invitation to private insurers either to raise existing premiums sky-high or to invent ever-more creative methods to deny benefits to policyholders. I don't believe that at this late date federal regulators can keep up with, much less rein in, the endlessly imaginative tricks health insurers have devised to save money at the expense of their customers' health and financial security. Even if I did believe such regulations could be devised, I would never pretend that it was a mere matter of tossing in "a couple of rules."

And anyway, why impose vouchers on health consumers when you aren't imposing them on bankers? Paulson is offering lenders straight-up socialism direct from the federal treasury. I think our nation's uninsured and underinsured deserve no less. So instead of your voucher plan, how about simply adding the following line to the end of the bailout bill: "Starting January 1, all citizens of the United States will be eligible to participate in Medicare." In addition to all the stated advantages, it'd be a hell of a lot easier to draft.

Do that and then, yeah, you'd get my vote to let Wall Street greedheads keep their executive pay, at least for this round.

cheers,

Tim Noah
senior writer, Slate