I am safe in the boat, but you have to swim with the sharks.

I have added some colorful language to my intended title. I trust this statement best reflects the feeling of opponents of healthcare reform. This sense might be better described as the Politics of the Unlucky. The Republican party has no desire for domestic policy. This is evident by the birther movement and behavior during the healthcare reform town hall meetings. All we are left is a question, what is the morally right thing to do with healthcare?

Before getting into the argument lets look at the stats driving the debate. The World Health Organization ranks the United States 37th in healthcare provided to its citizens. Half of Americans this year will have minimal (cost under $1,000) this year. 20% of our country's population will incur 80% of our nation's healthcare costs. 1% of the population will have costs totally $150,000. To complicate the problem, the US has an over-reliance on private health insurance. This over-reliance creates a situation in which at any one time 15% of the population is uninsured. Consequently, this changes our question to is it morally right to have 15% of the population uninsured and without healthcare?

The answer is no, it is not morally right and I am embarrassed to say the party of values do not see it the same way. Why are people scared of healthcare reform? Are they intend scared of healthcare reform or the man that won the Presidency? I add that last statement because part of these healthcare town hall meetings are turning into McCain/Palin rallies.

The solution to the American healthcare debate is socialized insurance, not socialized medicine. If you do not understand the difference in the two, then in my opinion, you have forfeited your right to debate this issue. We spend twice as much as France and Germany for healthcare as Canada and Germany. The number compared to the United Kingdom is 2.5 times the costs. America spends more but gets less in terms of number of days in the hospital, number of office visits, and number of prescribed drugs. In addition, these countries wait less for emergency services and voluntarily procedures.

Dwight Schrute: In the wild, there is no health care. In the wild, health care is, 'Ow, I hurt my leg. I can't run. A lion eats me. I'm dead.' Well, I'm not dead. I'm the lion. You're dead.

What's the specific problem with a system in which we pay more and get less? The American healthcare system is rife with inefficiencies and malaise. Large sums of money are spent on denying healthcare coverage to people. How do I know this? Well private insurances do not make money on paying for healthcare. They make money on collecting premiums and not paying healthcare. The correct term used by insurance companies to pay for healthcare is medical loses. None of this happens in a socialized insurance system.

A recent study on administration costs of private insurance companies show that 15% of healthcare funds are spent of administrative operations. Anyone know what Medicare's admin costs are? The answer is 2%. The total monetary amount is approximately $84 billion. Another problem is the prescription drug problem. Americans spend approximately $100 billion for drugs and receive far less when compared to other industrialized countries.

We have been down this road before. We have add the statistics on the side of healthcare reform. We have the morality to reform a bundled system so why have we not. The first reason is Rightwing ideologues. In 1993, William Kristol, an conservative political analyst and commentator and founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard, issued a policy statement that encoruaged GOP Representatives and Senators to kill healthcare reform because it would guarantee Federal government intrusion and lead to a New New Deal. Funny how Mr. Kristol had to throw in the New Deal. The insurance industry was a seriors thorn in the backside of reform in 1993. Remember the Harry and Lousie commericals. This fact is also funny because the Clinton-Gore plan provided a great opportunity for private insurances to regulate the healthcare system. Looks like we will be having the same types of fights this time around. But this is not the purpose of this blog.

So what really needs to get accomplished in this time around. Here are some very crucial elements of healthcare reform:
1.Reduce the cost of administrative costs.
2.Elinate rish selection.
3.Use the econmy of scale and reform the prescribtion drug system.
4.Invest in preventive care.

By focusing on four general goals, healthcare reform would have a greater chance of passing this year. The Obama Administration needs to be out every day touting these four goals and some objectives under each goal. The objective for administrative cost reduction could be the Medicare standard. Risk selection has everything to do with preexisting conditions. Preexisting conditions should be defined and after all private health insurance have been exhausted, these people should be transferred to a private-public partnership where regional premiums are established. For people employed by companies providing insurance coverage to its employees, the average of those premiums would be applied to this private-public partnership. The federal government should use its buying power to purchase in bulk prescription drugs and other durable medical equipment. And finally, the most important is preventive care. America has higher rates of diabetes and hypertension. Private and public healthcare coverage should focus on healthy living standards, active life styles, and weight loss.

So there it is. My simple four point plan to win the healthcare reform debate.