Most people routinely ask for a Band-Aid in the event of a cut, scratch or otherwise bloody gap in the outer layers of the skin for the purpose of concealing the wound lest it become infected. Others may decide something more extreme is in order - perhaps gauze or stitches.
Usually, based upon the severity of the injury, the correct surface treatment will guarantee a speedy recovery. However, when a person calls for a Band-Aid to place over a gaping wound, others may consider that person unrealistic or confused about the situation at hand.
Herein we may see an important parallel: In 2003, Congress passed legislation referred to by President George W. Bush as the "the greatest advance in health-care coverage for America's seniors since the founding of Medicare."
Starting in December 2005, seniors were allowed to pre-register for the program, which now offers drug coverage to Medicare's 42 million beneficiaries through subsidized private insurance policies.
This Medicare Prescription Drug Plan finally went into effect on Jan. 1, 2006 to much acclaim - and confusion.
The primary grievance of many seniors has been the implementation of the program.
The private insurance plan selection process is considered by many to be confusing and tedious. It requires hours of study and consultation with family and medical specialists to choose the plan most beneficial to the recipient.
To make matters worse, phone lines set up to field calls from confused seniors have been understaffed and regularly give out incorrect or misleading information. In many circumstances, patients have also been charged more for their medications than is appropriate according to their insurance plans.
The burden of the transition between the old and new Medicare systems is also felt by pharmacists, who are responsible for contacting the patients' insurance companies to secure repayment of the dispensed medication. Nearly two dozen states have created temporary programs to ensure that pharmacies are compensated for dispensed medications for which insurance companies, in confusion, do not provide payment.
Though this new program may have its initial faults, such as low consumer satisfaction and mass confusion, many beneficiaries are content with their new coverage because it saves them a significant amount of money compared with the old system.
After a year, or merely a few more months, it's likely that the system will straighten itself out into a model of health care reform, leaving dissenters such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (who is credited with saying, according to Bloomberg.com, "the bill has to be replaced; seniors are quite angry about the legislation") to feel foolish and inadequate.
Even with this reform, however, America's health care system remains the costliest in the world, with 16 percent of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) spent on health. Granted, America's health care system is perhaps the most flexible and innovative in the world, but such innovation does not justify the fact that the percentage of the U.S.'s GDP that is spent on health is double that of other rich countries.
Analysts suggest that unnecessary tests, procedures or prescriptions mean that close to 30 percent of the amount of money spent on healthcare in the U.S. is wasted.
Keep in mind also that this percentage does not include the 46 million Americans that go without health coverage by choice.
This last point is notable, considering that hospitals are not allowed to turn away patients in need of care even if they are unable to pay for services.
While many European countries, such as Switzerland, have socialist health care programs paid for directly by the government out of national taxes, the government of the U.S. pays for 60 percent of all health care expenses through the subsidization of the health care industry.
President Bush supports these subsidies of health insurance firms and even seeks to increase them for the purpose of equating the costs to consumers and the costs to health insurance firms.
He fails to recognize, however, that such a path would lead many to the conclusion that health costs do not matter.
Ultimately, this would lead consumers to spend more money on health, increasing the percentage of money wasted on unnecessary health services.
Those costs would be covered by health insurance firms that then would pass the cost on to the government through subsidies.
In short, Bush's plan to increase subsidies would have the effect of increasing the national deficit while providing little improvement of the current situation.
Perhaps the only logical and realistic step in reforming America's health care industry is a move towards a slightly more socialist system, similar to those that operate rather efficiently in Europe (though hopefully without the burden of a 60 percent income tax).
A good proposal would also regulate private insurance firms so as to encourage a "pay-for-performance" system in which the quality of health care is greatly improved.
Other reforms, such as making health insurance more portable and limiting medical litigation claims, would also make the system more appealing and efficient.
While such reforms obviously require less partisan bickering and animosity (note that many Democrats rudely applauded Bush when he referenced the failure to pass Social Security reform during the State of the Union), the current trend of passing legislation that reforms relatively small problems in the larger health-insurance nightmare is much too conservative.
Though the Prescription Drug Plan will likely be a success in reforming the part of the health insurance industry that is Medicare, it unfortunately appears akin to placing a Band-Aid over a large, bloody gash.
