Arrogance

The Juan Williams' firing underscores everything that is wrong with traditional main stream media. Eight million Americans have lost their jobs over the past 2 years--the vast majority lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Juan Williams was fired for cause--I think that the cause was pretty weak but the only opinion that matters is his boss's opinion.

As an independent, I watch PBS, FOX, CNN as well as other news sources. I liked that Juan Williams appeared on many venues--he had a nice, moderate, sensible take on current events. He balanced the extreme views of the right and the left quite nicely....until he played the race card and claimed that he was fired because he didn't play the role of the lackey black man (that was expected of him). What a waste. Why do the talking heads think that they do not play by the same rules as the rest of Americans....that they can be fired, demoted or used as needed by their employers?

At 61 years old, I have joined the young and look to Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) for more meaningful news than the traditional sources. NO ONE gets a free pass on his show. He exposes the hypocritical attitudes of not only the politicians but also (and most vehemently) the pundits who cover them. The public has become less and less tolerant of the slow intimate dirty dance going on between politics and media.President Obama, an astute politician, decided to appear on The Daily Show for good reasons.

Mr. Williams was awarded a $2 million dollar contract from FOX within 48 hours of his firing--way more money than a brain surgeon makes...and political commentary is not brain surgery. Perhaps big money is as big a problem in the media as it is in politics.

Several commentators have complained that Obama's appearance on the Daily Show, for a 30 minute interview, demeaned the office of the Presidency. This is sour grapes...they wish that they had scored the interview. Maybe if they were a little more relevant and a little less arrogant, shrewd politicians (as Obama certainly is) would sit with them for thirty minutes. It is simultaneously ironic and sad that we have to turn to the Comedy Channel for serious dialog.

Look forward...plan back

Recent data shows that the United States now spends 17% of GDP on health care. This is just over one dollar out of six. Other advanced countries, with similar or better quality indicators, spend 8-12%. Some experts suggest that this expense could reach 25%--one dollar out of four--by the end of the new decade. Ouch....

A number of factors are contributing to this spiraling cost. The baby-boomer generation is approaching age 65--this tsunami of demographic statistical significance will flood the available resources. New procedures, drugs and treatments march ever forward. The Dartmouth Atlas reveals wide variation in the appropriate use of common medical procedures. Medical practice is increasingly fragmented into smaller and smaller quanta; today, it takes a village of practitioners to take care of patients. Surgeons sub-specialize not only into fields (say Orthopedics) but also into one specialty procedure (such as arthroscopic surgery on the shoulder). An endocrinologist will manage your diabetes but wants nothing to do with your blood pressure or cholesterol. This fragmentation improves the treatment of individual problems while ignoring the patient's overall well-being; your care is being deconstructed. It also maximizes total revenue.

American Corporations face increasing headwinds in global competition. Two striking ones are corporate taxes (nearly the highest in the world) and the highest health care costs in the world. Not only do companies in other developed countries pay lower corporate income taxes, most pay NO health care costs as they are underwritten by the state. If health care costs spike to 25% by 2020, how will American companies be able to compete with foreign companies who do not face these costs? Would it surprise you if they invested their profits overseas?

Health care experts agree that the trifecta of health care reform would address three issues: access, quality and cost. Obamacare seriously addressed only one..access. Access to our existing dysfunctional system has been expanded; quality will probably stagnate and costs will continue their upward spiral.

Game Theory tells us to look forward and plan back. What will be the public policy response when health care costs hit 25%? No doubt, the system will be capped and any new additional medical expense will have to be balanced by a reduction in some other medical area. Politicians call this pay-as-you-go. Economists call it a closed system.

Well then, if we know that we are hurtling toward a cap, why don't we start initiating a cap now with a pay-as-we-go program? If we eased into a flexible cap now, we would have time to work out the kinks before we hit that brick wall down the road.

Some sort of cap would FORCE us to develop programs with more bang for the buck than what we are getting now. Health care cannot be an open ended commitment to everything...we simply cannot afford it. Unfortunately, the politicians would pick winners and losers...those who are politically astute would be favored; the dis-enfranchised would suffer. These groups already know who they are. It will take time to develop a more equitable balance; that time is only available if we start seeking out ways to get more value for our health care dollars now--not when we hit that brick wall of 25%(which is not far off). Starting a flexible cap now would give us time to work out the political problems: the recent furor over mammograms is an excellent example of the resistance that will accompany any radical change to the status quo.

We spend 2.5 trillion dollars a year on health care; we deserve to get more for that expense than we are currently receiving. We need to cull unnecessary treatments and use the savings to develop newer treatments that are even more effective. It is not rocket science figuring out what works...it just takes political will. I am not optimistic.