Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

« Pavlov's Dog | Main | Au Contraire Newsweek Part I »


Nicholas Vakkur

Once again Tom, ever the sage, offers a salient, concise argument of tremendous importance to the world around us--all with tremendous aplomb. In an period where issues themselves now carry tremendous political intonation--I wish not to enter in the political fray. However, this same principle, in a way, seems to apply readily to the current debate over healthcare. While it would be quite an accomplishment--worthwhile in my view--to provide health insurance for all those who desire it (not everyone does), are added layers of bureacracy necessarily the solution? Perhaps some markets are so complex that some degree of bureacracy is required? I do not pretend to know the answer. However, I agree with Tom's initial assessment, and applying it a step further might infer that an effective option may be to remove the current barriers to care: allowing insurers to cross state lines promoting competition (a seeming no-brainer to those outside of Washington), alleviating the crushing burden imposed by trial lawyers through tort reform, and perhaps using existing agencies (e.g., Medicaid/Medi-Cal) to increase the rate of coverage. This may be potentially more effective than creating a complex, new bureacratic structure that will be virtually impossible to disentangle once created.

Please note, I personally disavow 'politics', per se, and therefore do not wish to make a 'political' argument. Rather, I welcome the opportunity to apply Tom's principles based approach to analyze the problems of the day. [Disclaimer: In adopting this approach, I do not imply that Tom would, or even should necessarily, agree with my basic inferences....but the exercise is interesting nonetheless!!].

The comments to this entry are closed.