Health Care - A Values Question

Today in the NYTimes, David Brooks refers to the health care debate as a values question. Do we wish the security of a blanket of coverage for all or do we want the dynamic possibilites of unfettered national wealth? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/opinion/24brooks.html)

I always thought the fundamental goal of universal coverage would cost the rest of us more than we are currently paying. I accepted that as a consequence of the obvious moral imperative.

As the final votes approach, it is clear that very little will be done to control costs. Finding a way to reduce malpractice costs through tort reform, reducing defensive medicine, changing the fee-for-service billing pattern, research on effective practices, a public option to create competition, interstate insurance are all ideas that are shot down by ideology of one sort or another. The end of it is that we will all be paying a hefty increase. Quite possibly, it will be enough to overwhelm some of us.

Much of the problem has to do with politicians posturing for advantage for themselves, their party or just for ideology so that little of meaningful accomplishment can get done.

David Brooks is right to say this is a values choice, but the cost of the moral choice may be a far more bitter pill than it needed to be.


Melvyn Polatchek