Since the days when our forefathers founded this nation, and when the fever of "Manifest Destiny" set in, Americans have been obsessed with attaining a better life. And, presently, when good health is of great importance, it seems fitting that our nation's health care system would seem to come to a stall. There are so many different issues concerning health care presently that it is impossible to solve them all. But maybe that is where the solution lies. Instead of attempting to solve every little problem, maybe we should consider isolating specific issues, resolve them, and only then, move on. The only problem then is figuring out where to start. The answer seems clearly obvious. By reducing straight costs, addressing government funding, and considering the private sector, the chances for coming up with a feasible health care plan would be greatly increased.

To start, the cost of health care could be astronomically reduced if complete and total litigation reform took place. The fear of litigation pushes most doctors to practice "defensive medicine": ordering a multitude of tests that may be only marginally useful, but will look good in case of a malpractice suit, raises costs by tens of billions of dollars annually. Malpractice claims could be judged by a board of retired physicians and judges, with a fair compensation paid to those deserving it, without the need to relinquish 30% to 50% to attorneys. If an anti-litigation law was on the books, a greatly needed "volunteer health care" program could be installed. Physicians who have retired and would gladly give a few hours per week to a health-care center could help those without insurance. But presently, a plan like this is unthinkable because of the state of malpractice insurance. All states should adopt a "Good Samaritan" liability exemption so that doctors who wish to volunteer at a free clinic may do so without fear of litigation against personal wealth.

Another alternative to lowering health care costs would be to emphasize universal preventative-care programs. If the attitudes doctors acquire in medical school (namely, that health patients don't pay the bills, and that a salary only comes from treatment, not prevention) were abandoned, many problems would extinguish themselves. And, on the prevention note, if "wellness" tax breaks for low to middle income people who pass voluntary drug tests, maintain a good weight, and refrain from smoking, were given, our nation's health care needs could be drastically reduced. We need to be more personally responsible. spending more money isn't the key, spending smarter is.

By addressing a national or socialistic policy of health insurance for everybody, a few problems could also be solved. It is shameful that in a country as wealthy as ours, health insurance is so inaccessible to a large segment of the population because of poverty or pre-existing medical conditions. If nationalization occurred, making health insurance available to everyone, increasing federal income taxes by a flat percentage would cover the cost in a manner fair to all; simultaneously, payment would be demanded by the patient, scaled according to their income. Those with a minimum income would pay only a token fee. Another national single-payer system, similar to Canada's, in which the government takes over payment of health are bids while allowing patients to choose their own providers, could be an alternative method. This system would require higher taxes, but would eliminate many other costs that now inflate the system. However, currently, any national health insurance policy is simply unrealistic--we generally don't trust government anymore.

Yet another feasible fresh start for health care insurance--including catastrophic, long-term, and nursing home care for everyone--is through the private sector. Reputable private sector health care insurance companies can be engaged by a federally sponsored management consortium to develop actuarily sound coverage and to service policies. Everyone would be eligible for coverage regardless of any pre-existing medical conditions they may have. Eligibility would be based on a filed and current federal income tax return. Insurance premiums would be based on ability to pay according to vouchers issued by the IRS. This way, instead of placing control in the government's hands, the federal tax policy would change to create incentives for employers to contribute to high risk pools, which would cover people who are medically uninsurable or who aren't employed.

These general solution are just a few Congress and the President can choose from in the next months. One thing is certain: The American public knows that complicated problems are not solved by easy solutions, and politicians will serve no one by embracing a quick fix to America's health care problems. The one problem an accepted health care plan presents, and which looms over any solution, is that of money. Will we ever have enough to solve our problems? Where will it come from? And, if we do finally acquire a surplus, will we use it wisely?

Only the future holds the answer to those questions. But, if we could only start to address such issues as costs of health care, the government's role, and private funding--one at a time, we could for once plan ahead, preventing such problems before they arise. Even taking in any new suggestions may seem futile at this point, but a start is a start, and by building now, the uncertain road to the future of health care straightens out and becomes more like an exciting trek into history.

BACK