Health Care: The Elephant in the Room
According to Governor of Tennessee Phil Bredesen, McCain, Obama and others may talk and write about energy as much as they like, but when they do so they are ignoring the true elephant in the room; health care.
Gas prices are in the political spotlight right now; this year’s spike has been painful and the calls for action — and heads — have pushed other issues to the side. But it is worth remembering that when it comes to real, sustained growth in costs, when it comes to real, sustained erosion of families’ disposable income, gas still can’t hold a candle to the real elephant in the room: health care.
If gas prices had risen during my adult lifetime — since I got out of high school in 1961 — at the same rate as per capita health-care expenditures, gas would not be $4 a gallon today. It would be about $15.
In this election season, we need to demand more attention to health care. It’s not the squeaky wheel now, but after gas prices have been driven down or we have bought smaller cars, our health-care problem will still be with us.
He suggests three basic principles to guide the US (in order to push down the costs of health care):
Incentives. The first principle is to once and for all fix the incentives. There are many reasonable explanations offered for the growth in health-care costs, but they are for the most part symptoms of an underlying disease. The economic incentives are all wrong; they work against value, not for it. If we don’t seize the opportunity as a part of broad changes to fix these incentives, we will never get costs under control. - An Rx for everyone. The second principle is to build a solution good enough for all Americans. The examples are under our noses: Build it as we did Social Security or Medicare. Unlike patchwork and means-tested government programs, they enjoy broad public and political support. They don’t read as government largesse, but as a benefit earned by and owned by every American. A national health care solution needs to work the same way.
Incremental change. The third principle is to make changes a step at a time. Health care reform is a huge undertaking, involving one-sixth of our economy. We’ve learned that no one can design the perfect solution right out of the box. Furthermore, health care is not like most other products or services. It’s something that people reach out to and depend on when they’re scared for themselves or a loved one.
Health care should indeed be one of the major issues during this campaign. However, it is not a ‘glossy’ subject. When politicians talk about it, the average journalists falls asleep and (as a result) the average American doesn’t know about it.
Bredesen’s plan may not solve America’s health care image, but the attempt to bring health care back in the center of the public debate is worthwhile.










"Incremental change. The third principle is to make changes a step at a time. Health care reform is a huge undertaking"
Keep in mind that taking an "incremental" step will always be viewed as an "inadequate" proposal.
Incentives need to be in place so that health care is affordable for most people.
For certain life/death situations maybe, there needs to be some sort of emergency fund perhaps? Perhaps not, Darwin would say no.
The problem with health care is as simple as the problem with buying a good toy for your kid. The good toy may be expensive, and it may drain your pocket of money, and thus it may not benefit the child because you won’t have money to feed him. On the other hand not having the toy may lead to some sort of depression or mania in your child, and so it is quite necessary for his well being maybe. It’s a dilemma that neither side can adequately solve!!!!
However, the Republicans are one step ahead of the Democrats. A Capitalist system for health care would work better IF established correctly, versus a socialized government run service.