Health Care Goes Critical

Now that health care legislation has become the law of the land, now it is time for an evaluative technique called, "the critical method."

The debate up to the bill's passage has been a differential between practical models: pluralist and elitist; public and private.

Democrats clearly favor a public-sector elitist model with reliance on authoritative influence and large economies of scale to control both costs and incentives. Republicans favor a private-sector model with reliance on large economies of scale that control costs and incentives with authoritative influence.

What's the difference?

Supposedly, Republicans favor a free-market pluralism, but their sentiments are with economic growth into economies of scale that control costs and incentives not by empowering free-market consumers, but empowering a consolidated corporate body. The model is decidedly elitist. It is not a pluralistic decisional model that favors a democratic decisional process. Just because it abides in the private sector does not make it a free market.

We see, then, how the differential is driven into a false, bivariate critique. It is a bivariation that, instead of simplifying the critique, renders it more complex.

If the new health care bill is modified or repealed, what is the simple and easily verifiable alternative?

The best critique going forward is both a simple and effective, bivariate differential with an easily verifiable coefficient like income (the ability to spend with discretion).

Instead of agonizing over complex evaluative measures of always debatable verifiability, the critique can be effectively reduced to whether the practical, operational modeling is pluralist or elitist in either the general or particular case with a simple and easily verifiable coefficiency right down to the individual.

The question (the problem to be solved) then becomes: are you deciding, or is someone else deciding for you?