|
Written by The ACP
|
|
Monday, 25 January 2010 06:57 |
|
An excellent article on what the Healthcare discussion is actually about. An excerpt: ...Many people suppose that the heart of the disagreement is over whether or not to expand coverage to more people. It is, of course, a primary objective of the Democratic sponsors of the current initiative to ensure that every American, or nearly so, is enrolled in some kind of health insurance plan on a continuous basis. But Republicans are not opposed to expanding coverage to the uninsured. In 2008, presidential candidate John McCain proposed a plan which would have provided to every American household a tax credit which could only be used to purchase a health insurance policy. It was, in a very real sense, a "universal coverage" plan in that it sought to ensure that every American would have the financial wherewithal, provided by the federal government, to acquire some level of health insurance protection. The issue, then, is not over expanding coverage to all. No, the real sticking point between the two sides is really about allocating resources in the health-care sector. Both sides agree that the status quo is unsustainable, largely because costs are rising much more rapidly than wages or governmental revenues. The crucial question is what to do about the problem. Put differently, the question health-care reform advocates must answer is this: what process will be put in place to bring about continual improvement in the productivity and quality of patient care? That might strike some as something of a technical question, not one of fundamental importance. But, in reality, it's just another way of saying that resources are scarce and must be allocated in some fashion. The only way to slow rising costs without lowering the quality of care provided is to improve the efficiency of the interactions between doctors and hospitals and those they care for. The question before policymakers is what is most likely to lead to better care at less cost...
Perhaps one day, Congress will actually have the limited and enumerated Government argument. Right now, they're perfectly content trying to determine which side of them has the best idea on how to interfere with the market...one wants to take it over and the other just wants to give away taxpayer money. Neither is really concerned with whether the Federal Government should be involved at all. Read the whole article here.
|