A Tale Of Two Visions: Can We Bring The Two Camps Together?

I've been watching with interest the ongoing debate about healthcare reform that is being driven, in part, by the presidential election.  Although I believe that this election cycle has started too early, it has had one benefit: people are talking -- in substantive ways -- about our healthcare system.  This morning, I read two items in the Wall Street Journal that made me realize (once again) that people are very far apart when it comes to reform.  The first item I came across was an editorial (registration required to view) written by 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel.  He said: 

"In Michael Moore's movie "Sicko," a widow named Julie Pierce tells a tearful story: Her husband died of kidney cancer after their health-insurance company denied payment for a bone-marrow transplant that might have saved his life. Ms. Pierce's rage is palpable as she repeats the word her insurers used in response to her husband's request. 'They denied it,' she sneers. 'Said it was 'experimental.' . . .

Viewers of the documentary are meant to understand that 'experimental' is health-insurance code for 'expensive,' and that Ms. Pierce's husband was left to die for the sake of profit.  [Moore] argues that, profit-making health-insurance companies should be abolished [and] our health-care dollars turned over to the government . . . When government is in charge of health care, the result is not that everyone gets access to experimental treatments, but that people get less of the care that is absolutely necessary."

On the opposite side of the spectrum is Senator Hillary Clinton, who helped to drive the last push for comprehensive health reform back in the 1990s.  In an online Democratic debate she said that she is ready to try again and warned that insurance companies won't like her solutions:  "You know, nobody is going to be surprised when I unroll my coverage plan that I intend to dramatically rein in the influence of insurance companies, because frankly I think that they have worked to the detriment of our economy and of our healthcare system."  

So, the debate comes back to a zero-sum game.  Government can't do anything right and will keep people from accessing the best care. Or, the private sector is so profit-oriented that it will do anything to earn an extra buck.  Let's face it folks, nothing in life is that simple. 

I believe that by gleefully working in the shades of grey that we can come up with solutions to our healthcare problems by integrating the best ideas -- no matter where they may come from.  In some cases, government is not doing that bad of a job.  And -- gasp -- the private sector actually has developed some innovations that are helping patients and providers get and use the information they need to make better decisions.  Isn't it time to move past the sound bites and on to hashing out the issues?

Your comments are welcome.