Now, I'm aware that we're blessed with excellent doctors and an exceptional employer-provided health insurance plan. It's no surprise I'm among the 70 percent of Americans who are overwhelmingly happy with my access to health care. (By the way, among the 46 million Americans without health insurance, the same 70 percent say they do receive health care and are happy with their care, too. Hmmmm).
Yet, I'm also aware that many of my family's encounters with the health care system could have been more cost-efficient. The fact is there's no reason to forgo an expensive, precautionary test when you're not paying for it, even if you're convinced it's unnecessary. And there's no reason not to recommend such a test when the person to whom you're recommending it won't write the check to cover it.
That sort of blind consumption allows for excessive spending and reduces consumer participation to contain health care costs. Yet the current push for universal coverage is a push to expand this practice even more broadly.
A system that relies on the informed decisions of individuals and that offers incentives to keep costs down actually would represent meaningful reform, but the solutions to the health care dilemma that include competition and incentives don't get much attention, supposedly because they might jeopardize quality care.
Tell that to Scotty the dog. He's feeling just fine.