I'm still a little behind on some of my news podcasts.  But today I made it to the White House press briefings from last week, and one of the major topics was the painfully slow evolution of Obama's promised health care reform. To be sure, for pretty much anything that is going to cost a lot of money, I prefer a slow evolution of plans.  Double that when it is legislation that will set a standard of living, because it will be nearly impossible to get rid of once started. 

Here is a terrific article that explains pretty well some of the sticking points that ought to draw the most criticism and start new discussions. The biggest point she makes is that, while the reforms are being touted as affordable, nothing the government can do under the rhetoric posed by Obama will make the situation better or more cost effective.  The government will simply not be able to control costs while mandating that everyone purchase health care but stay uninvolved in the standard of care given.  Especially when this same government has failed so miserably at cutting costs in the general budget.

I still think that a hybrid health care system of sorts could offer some advantages.  Granted I have no idea how much it would cost, but I'd take a hit in the pocket on my taxes if I were getting something out of it.  My problem is that right now I, for example, am supporting my family as the only one working.  I have three small children and we've done the math.  There is no way that Leeanne can go to work and make enough to pay for the daycare for the children.  As it is, I can't afford insurance for myself.  I would love to be able to purchase, say, Blue Advantage, but for now, I just have to gamble that I'm not going to get critically sick, or that if I get hurt, it will be in a car accident and my auto insurance will pay most of the bills.

There has to be something somewhere in the middle of "government pays all healthcare and taxes people to afford it" and "government tells everyone they must purchase something from the open market" but doesn't control what's available to us or how much it costs. There has to be a way to cover 60%, 70%, or 80% of medical procedures or routines or whatever.  Freakin Canada does it.  And then we can be responsible to purchase personal insurance for the other 20%, 30%, or 40%.  Kinda like a used car warranty.  You get coverage on the powertrain, sometimes entire drivetrain, and even more rarely on electrical, but almost never on cosmetic damage or damage you do to the car from abuse or lack of maintenance.  The government could cover checkups, flus, broken bones, lacerations, or whatever, but maybe not cancer or diabetes.  And about the broken bones, well, if you're a stuntman, the government doesn't have to cover you at all. You're responsible for your own care.

I think that maybe breaking it down by type is also good because of the skill level required to perform certain surgeries and might lend itself to specialization in a different kind of way.  For example, it's not terribly difficult to suture a cut.  Clean it out, sterilize the area, numb it if you can, and start stitching.  I've put a few stitches in my own arm before and it turned out quite well.  That doesn't mean that I think I can stop internal bleeding.  After all, there are doctors who do most of their work in clinics and may never even see a gunshot wound.

I'm not quite sure where I was going with all this, but I think I lost track of it.  If this jogs any thoughts for you, please drop a comment, and maybe we can sort it out together.  Because I definately need help to understand it.