Don’t read that title wrong–I’m not saying there isn’t a problem. I firmly believe there is. But I’m not sure we’re going about solving it properly.

In any problem-solving process I’m familiar with, the first step is defining the problem. This step is critical, but often not properly performed. Poorly defined problems result in misguided solutions.

Our politicians are presenting lots of solutions, but I’ve yet to hear a clearly defined problem statment. “America’s health care system is broke” is not a problem statement. What’s broke? What are we trying to fix? What will it look like when we fix it?

Without a clearly defined problem statement, we’re almost assuredly going to fail in any attempt to fix the problem. So, What’s the PROBLEM???

To get the discussion started, here’s my attempt:

Adequate, affordable health care is not readily available to all US citizens.

Lots of weasel words in there, that need further definition. That would be the next step of clearly defining the problem. However, I don’t think we start with a solution (universal health insurance, government provided medicine, tort reform, etc) until we’ve agreed on the problem we’re trying to solve.

So, have at it. Take my attempt at a problem statement apart; post your own.

So what’s the answer? I know what’s not the answer: Demonizing either side, disruptive scare tactics, pithy sayings and talking points, or solutions concise enough that you can Tweet them. The rhetoric is nauseating. A real, positive solution is impossible to achieve the way the conversation has proceeded to this point. I’m talking to both sides.

I honestly think the President is doing a relatively good job trying to move a major issue forward, and trying to do so in a constructive way. Does he have an agenda–OF COURSE HE DOES! If he didn’t have one, what good would he be as a leader? Is it an evil agenda, a negative agenda–I don’t think so. Am I saying he’s right? No! (I’m not saying he’s wrong either–I’m saying I disagree with his proposals as presented. That’s fundamentally different than saying he’s wrong). He’s at least trying to have an intelligent conversation. Is he engaging in the mudslinging? Yes, but it’d be hard to avoid. When the nitwit Republican Senator DeMint made the statement “If we are to stop Obama on this, it would be his Waterloo. It will break him”, it’s pretty hard to fault the President for fighting back.

I mean, come on…what’s the priority here??? Fix health care, or “break” the President? If it’s the latter, we may have bigger problems than health care reform. Who among us, when trying to do our job overheard someone saying “this is our chance to break him” wouldn’t fight back? That statement wasn’t about health care, it was about the ugliest form of party politics–not standing for anything, simply opposing the person currently in power in order to depose him in order to gain that power for yourself.

The proponents of the President’s plan don’t get a pass from me either. Speaker Pelosi, among others, has characterized those who express an opposing opinion as uninformed, and even unpatriotic. Both sides appear to be focused more on defending their position and attacking those who disagree, than they do about solving problems.

Let’s get back to discussing the details, honestly evaluating the pros and cons, and proposing possible solutions, instead of calling the other side names, and labeling their ideas with inflamatory words that don’t add any value to the debate.

The other side of the coin: As stated in my previous post, I think what we have now needs some fixing. However, I’m not at all convinced that government-run health care is the answer. As a recipient of government-run health care for all my adult life, I appreciate the price, but it’s not the best service you can receive. Not to badmouth military health care at all, just acknowledging the limits of what they can do given their budgets, regulatory constraints, etc. And I believe the military does a much better job running their health care than any other government agency would–DoD is strongly incentivized to take good care of their most valuable resource (servicemembers), and the people in military treatment facilities take a great deal of pride in honoring our retirees’ service by treating them well. I don’t thing you’re going to get that same kind of service from the Federal Health Care Bureaucracy, whose charter would be to take care of Joe SixPack. I don’t think there’s too many good examples of socialized medicine providing better care than what we have in the US today for the majority of people.

I also don’t believe the government can be more efficent at running a business than the private sector. I’m not saying that the market should be allowed to resolve this itself. A pure market will achieve maximum efficiency, but it’s ruthless, and health care is not the place for ruthless. Also, what we have today is far from a pure market. There’s already a lot of government regulation, insurance expense, welfare programs, etc, that keep the market from resolving this issue itself. But I think this is not an instance where the government needs to take over the operation. That makes sense for certain services (national defense, interstate commerce, primary education, fire protection, etc). I think a strong argument can be made that medical care doesn’t fit that the criteria to justify government operation.

OK, I’m really frustrated on this one. I’m torn in different directions.

On the one hand, The system’s not working well. Costs are out of control; and it’s a death-spiral. A lot of people can’t afford quality health care, so they go without. And they continue to go without until their health deteriorates to the point they have to do something about it. Then they’re often forced to destroy their finances, or take advantage of treatment policies that say that hospitals can’t turn away critically ill, or rely on government programs. It’s demoralizing, depressing, and it’s destroying lives, physically and emotionally. It’s also a drag on our economy. Preventative health care, like preventative car maintenance, is much cheaper than catastrophic treatment. And ultimately others pick up the cost of that catastrophic treatment for those who can’t afford their own care.

This one is kinda personal. I’ve got a very close friend who’s battling for his life. He DOES have insurance, but his out of pocket expenses are still bankrupting him. And he’s too proud to take help from others, so he’s probably going to take himself off the transplant list. His reasoning? He can’t afford the debt himself, and if he keeps working till he dies, his employer-paid life insurance will take care of his current debt load, instead of burdening his family even further to get the life-saving operation. Not at all rational, but it shows what this kind of long-term stress can do to an intelligent human being.

Our nation should be able to provide better health care to our citizens (note I said “nation”, not necessarily “government”).