Health Reform "Should Be" Game

If you give the matter any thought at all, you will realize health reform in general and ObamaCare in particular is a should be game.

Who should control health care?

Should it be government based in Washington, relying on voters dependent on government subsidies and taxpayer dollars?

Should it be market-place forces, appealing to consumers with innovative and convenient services?

Should it be who pays and in what amount for health care, taxpayers, employers, or consumers themselves?

Should it be insurers, in league with government, who determines what and how and when services are to be distributed?

Should it be physicians and hospitals, who account for 54% of health care spending, who deliver the services and who know most about health and disease and who are closest to the site of delivery?

Should it be integrated health care organizations, in control of insurance, hospital, and physician functions?

Should it be consumers, spending more of their precious dollar and tied to the Internet and social media, who make informed decisions based on choice, convenience and personal needs?

Should it be employers, who currently pay a King’s ransom for covering more half the American population?

Should it be carried out with the massive data input of computer-based algorithms, dictating what it to be done and what is to be paid for?

Should it be a fight for political control since history shows that the party that controls health care sets the tone for the nation’s agenda?

Or should it be all of the above. What "should be" in the minds of various advocates, is not what "shall be".

There’s a huge gulf between what "should be" and what "shall be". And that’s the way it should to be in a democratic society seeking compromise and middle ground.