Health Care: The Elephant in the Room

August 1st, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Chris
    August 1st, 2008 at 20:11
    Reply | Quote | #1

    "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.

  2. Jonathan Wilson
    August 2nd, 2008 at 06:11
    Reply | Quote | #2

    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.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.