Whats I referred to as ridiculous is that wisdom about running health care businesses is going to come from Washington bureaucrats.
I don't think running it from Washington is a good idea, either. But I don't see much of that in this proposal. There are a couple of useful things that Washington can often do. One is gathering data. I realize that there is cost in reporting. But you can't solve problems if you don't have data. Once the data is there, everyone can use it to solve problems. I recognize the impetus for the government to then regulate based on what is reported but that is not inevitable and the risk of it does not inherently negate the value of the data gathering.
What great new efficiency ideas have come out of Washington?
The idea of patient records didn't come from Washington, but Washington sure can expedite its implementation. It's in a unique position to do that particularly given the associated privacy and security issues.
Washington is essential in this process, too, for finding a way of dealing with scenarios where people get sick and lose their coverage. That is one piece that will never be able to be solved without Washington. There's no motivation in the private sector to deal with it.
Washington can also weigh in on the problem of state regulation that makes insurance so costly. There are a variety of ways of doing that, some of them very constructive, IMO. I thought the idea, can't bring the source to mind so early in the morning, of creating a demonstration regulatory structure for health care insurance across state lines, free from state regulation.
Brumar, I am wary of the federal program getting too full of itself, too, but there is a federal role that can be helpful and may be necessary. I don't think that knee-jerk rejection of anything and everything federal is helpful in solving what is a real problem. |
