Obama v. Jeb on Health Care
Does protecting the health of Americans suggest that everything possible should be done for each individual? Having access to healthcare is essential for human beings and for the citizens of the United States, but today’s dilemma roots not from that concept, but from its implementation. Obamacare’s inefficiency and government-centric policies endanger the initial goals of the plan and complicate the system by making affordable and effective healthcare even more inaccessible. But does Jeb Bush’s recent proposal legitimately solve the corruption in today’s system, and what are the legislative differences between the two plans?
For decades, the United States has been spending more money on healthcare than any other nation in the world, and yet our system continues to lag behind other countries, as more and more bureaucratic interests flood the social arena. In fact, one-third to one-half of what we spend does nothing to promote our health, and mortality rates coupled with other statistical models confirm that we, Americans, are simply not getting what we pay for. With too much money spent on non-clinical resources and too much complexity between the governmental and private sectors of the so-called “healthcare machine,” Obamacare has turned health into a more mechanical, less personal process. But will repealing Obamacare, as Jeb Bush proposes, have a net positive effect on the healthcare system? Regardless of the foundational concepts of Bush’s plan, overhauling a system that affects a myriad of private and public sector enterprises promises a perceptible strain on taxpayers’ money and could inevitably lead to a more disorganized and inflexible system. Perhaps we must consider building upon the current quagmire: giving patients more “room to breathe,” making the system less focused on overhead interests and more complacent to patients’ concerns and needs.
Jeb Bush hopes to foster medical technologies and sharpen the quality of healthcare services. Making this a priority advances healthcare and furthers our position as a global leader in medicine. Even more, in placing emphasis on the quality of the system, Bush’s approach can potentially restore the importance of physicians and trained medical professionals, something that the current system has failed to nurture. The federal government has thwarted the purpose of quality in healthcare by introducing programs and mandates and placing pressure on the private healthcare market, which caters more to personal preferences and improves the infrastructure of healthcare services. By allowing insurance companies to claim responsibility over the health system and control the pieces as they want to, the current system has diminished the role of the doctor as an important player in a patient’s health. Preauthorization requests, inadequate denials of treatments, employer mandates and the need to fill out paperwork repeatedly have collided with and slowed the provision of healthcare. Experts point to the short working life, high educational debt, long training times and dwindling job satisfaction among doctors. In other words, the government must make the medical environment more conducive to doctors’ needs and decentralize its grip on the flow of information between patient, physician and insurer.
Furthermore, Bush wants to terminate the meaningful use program and therefore incentivize the health care business sector. In a data model showing the interactions resulting from a single routine patient visit, Dr. Douglas A. Perednia confirms that no less than nine transactions can result from a regular check-up, with billing offices, insurers and other entities involved. Considering the unnecessary time many providers spend on documenting performance as opposed to taking care of patients and the extreme fragmentation of the healthcare system, Bush’s proposal to mitigate the adverse consequences of those parts is an essential step to a more simplified and, consequently, more patient-friendly American healthcare system. Perhaps we can view the dilemma from a different perspective: the current system treats the meaningful use program—government-approved electronic health records—as a final goal, or rather a defining characteristic, of healthcare. To undo this trend, we must treat this innovation as a means, as a way of promoting health, and not as a way of complicating the system.
Though it points to various methods, Jeb Bush’s plan fails to specify precisely how to facilitate the transition of more than seventeen million people from Obamacare to his agenda. This lack of specificity promises a confrontation in Congress and evades a constant in the “healthcare” equation: universal coverage is mandatory for a transparent and efficient system. Even more, universal coverage expands the size of the market by spreading healthcare and medical innovation over a broad economic spectrum.
We can think of Obamacare as a complex machine, with many dysfunctional gears, parts and machinery that prevent the device from working effectively. If we could only make healthcare more simplified, with more attention to detail, with more emphasis on consumer demand and with less energy spent on unnecessary materials (gears and machinery), we can put our nation’s healthcare back on track. I believe the wisdom essential to make the first move forward lies in one of Leonardo da Vinci’s quotations: “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”