Thursday, September 10, 2009

The Shrill Debate

The 2009 Health Care debate proved to be a shrill shouting match with lobbyists writing dubious law behind closed doors while the public screamed at the top of their lungs in Town Hall meetings in a vain attempt to save their health care resources from a corrupt government.

Pundits chalked up the divide to the historic division between left and right. I believe that the angst about health care reform stems from something deeper.

I believe that our problems from health care come from the fact that the method for funding care is in opposition to the nature of our health.

Funding for health care is base on the experience of a pool of people.

Health is not an attribute of a pool. Health is an attribute of an individual.

This is the source of the rift. Republicans fear government ownership of the pool. Liberals dislike the pools being owned by insurance companies. The real source of the conflict is deeper. The resources for health care should be attached to the individual and not the group.

Politicians and mainstream media have us focused on the ownershipe of the pool. The left wants the pool controlled by government. The right wants the pool owned by big insurance companies.

The question below the surface is "Why is health care funded by pools, when health is an attribute of the individual?"

My last post brings up an interesting compromise of creating a public option that uses the logical structure of the Medical Savings and Loan. Rather than basing the premiums for the public option on the pool's experience, each person in the option would have a savings account and access to guaranteed loans.

The post is important since is shows that the mathematical model of the savings and loan is independent of the ownership of the framework. The framework of the Medical Savings and loan could be owned by either group.

I believe we could bring more civility into the debate if people learned the difference between individually financed health care and pool financed health care. If we had the fundamental debate about the foundation of health care, we might have a more civil discussion.

Unfortunately, the powers that be are opposed to the fundamental debate and will continue to push the shrill debate about which group owns the pools that limits our access to our health care resources.

No comments: