Republican presidential frontrunner Rudy Giuliani unveiled his ownhealth care reform plan yesterday, while taking potshots at the“socialists” over in the Democratic party proposing universalinsurance. Rudy got his sound bites in, but I don't believe histax-credit-based program will win him many votes, and could in factcost him the general election, if he makes it that far.

According to coverage by the Associated Press, the foundation ofRudy's plan is to provide a $15,000 tax deduction so families canbuy private health insurance. While this might offer some relief tothose currently uninsured, it also will certainly encourage moreemployers to dump their health benefit plans and leave workers tofend for themselves.

Rudy's half-baked scheme is similar to those in the privatesector trying a defined contribution approach for the purchase ofhealth insurance–the same path that stripped millions of theirpension security. Instead of guaranteeing health coverage, theemployer gives you a tax-protected stipend and lets you buy yourown policy.

Good luck finding affordable coverage as an individual in thatframework, especially if someone in your family has a serious“pre-existing condition.”

Mr. G made a point of pushing the central idea that he wants togive people more “control” over their health care, and more“choices.” There certainly aren't many choices in today's healthinsurance system–you are stuck with the plan and benefits offeredby your employer, which often dictates which doctors you can see,which facilities you can use and even which drugs you can take.There will be even fewer “choices” and millions more uninsured ifRudy succeeds in making our system completely “free”–in otherwords, every man and woman for themselves.

Rudy did not offer many specifics, such as the cost of coverageunder such a system, or how many uninsured people would be able toafford such coverage. And AP reported he “also acknowledged that itcould take years for insurers to drop their prices and makeinsurance affordable to those who don't have it.” Thanks a lot.

Rather than present a serious alternative to our currentpatchwork system, Rudy seized the moment to hammer his Democraticcounterparts, which really was the point all along.

“We've got to solve our health care problem with Americanprinciples, not the principles of socialism,” he said. “I knowDemocrats will say this is unfair, I know they'll squeal… But I'm arealist. I face reality, which is: if you take more people and havegovernment cover it, it's called socialized medicine.”

While Rudy expressed hope that one day tens of millions ofindividuals would shop for health insurance the same way they buyauto coverage today, the reality is that the two systems are vastlydifferent. Health insurance is a lot dicier tounderwrite–especially on an individual basis. One little healthproblem and insurers run for the hills.

As broken as the current, employer-based system is, I wouldrather stay put and try to patch the gaping holes than tosseveryone into the “free” market on health insurance and hope forthe best. In insurance, there is indeed power in numbers.

Rudy won't lose any Republican primary votes with his plan, buthe won't win many in the general election if this is the best hecan do on health care reform. In fact, in a close race, theuninsured vote could cost him the White House against a Democratwith a more comprehensive plan to provide health care security.

That is, if he manages to get that far despite his more“liberal” leanings on abortion, gun control and gay rights.

I still cannot imagine today's national Republican partynominating someone with Rudy's progressive views on such hot buttonissues. (For the record, I voted for Rudy twice to be New York'smayor, as well as twice for Mike Bloomberg–who is a far bettermayor, by the way. I wonder how Mike would handle health carereform?)

What do you folks think of Rudy's idea?