By Lee Graczyk
MnSF issues director

Access to affordable health care is our nation’s leading domestic issue, according recent polls. However, the only universal consensus in the health care debate seems to be that the present system is in the grips of a medical “code blue.” Drastic treatment is called for and it looks like some sort universal plan is inevitable.

Universal single payer and universal coverage are not the same; one puts its faith in economies of scale with a government entity picking up the tab and the other places its faith in the private sector with multiple payment schemes. But should the issue be how the treatment is going to be paid for?

Any universal plan must answer three basic questions: Will the remedy be incremental or require sweeping change? What role will government play? What will be covered?

Part of the first question seems to have already been answered by the 104th Congress because it does not seem prepared to take on any certain form of treatment during its current session, though they claim next year they’re going to embrace a tough cure.

At present the answer to the second question seems to be that Congress will develop a hybrid relying on both the public and private sectors.

The question on what should be covered is perhaps least addressed. While there is agreement about doctor visits, hospital stays, promotion of healthy lifestyles and preventive care, discussion then gets esoteric with concepts like outcome-based medicine, consumer-driven and fundamental benefits.

To restore “health” to our health system we cannot hope for a silver bullet. It is going to be necessary to muster every weapon in our arsenal and even invent a few. But as the “universal” ideas are put forth remember to judge each on these three questions: Will it follow an incremental course or require sweeping change? What role will government play? And what does it cover?