Some problems are too important and too technical for mere politicians to solve.
Ezra sits with Nevada's Harry Reid, who suggests that the right political maneuver is just to recognize that some sort of technocratic set-up is a good way to ... keep politicians focused on the prize and their hand out of the technocratic till.
Going further, Reid:
I think we've got to realize that there are not one but three categories of health problems: access, quality and cost. All three have to be dealt with, and all three have different constituencies. And so we have to address the constituencies where the political problems lie. With the doctors, it's going to be malpractice. With patients, it should be quality and cost. With businesses, it's going to be cost. So we've got to go right to the heart of what is the core concern for these core constituencies and try to address it.
Third, we've got to have a lot more transparency. We have to break the myth, we have to put opponents of change on the defensive. In the past, it's been proponents of change who've been on the defensive. We have to turn the tables.
I'm not sure it is transparency. Part of motivating change is building confidence in a solution, not just identifying the problem. People want to know in advance that solutions work (even if sometimes, they cannot). They want to see a proof of concept, to lower their anxiety level.
In fact, if half the inertia is due to those who will say "there is no problem, really" the other half of the critique is that there is no solution better than the current wealth-based healthcare allocation schemes; and that half-solutions, to improve coverage, quality, or cost, ultimately will be a boon to opponents, who will sit them out until they fail so they can say, "I told you so".
