Re: Rising Health Care Costs

Actually, Michael Pollan's logic fits perfectly into the health-reform argument, at the same time as it endorses another pet liberal project (reforming food subsidies) -- no mean feat!

The logic goes something like this: if we spend as much as we do on health care as we do now -- one-sixth the economy, and all that -- we're not spending as much as we should on, say, fighting pollution or funding playgrounds for kids to play in and work off all that fat. David Goldhill made the point best in his much-cited Atlantic article:

From 2000 to 2008, the U.S. economy grew by $4.4 trillion; of that growth, roughly one out of every four dollars was spent on health care. Household expenditures on health care already exceed those on housing. And health care’s share is growing.

By what mechanism does society determine that an extra, say, $100 billion for health care will make us healthier than even $10 billion for cleaner air or water, or $25 billion for better nutrition, or $5 billion for parks, or $10 billion for recreation, or $50 billion in additional vacation time—or all of those alternatives combined?

The answer is, no mechanism at all. Health care simply keeps gobbling up national resources, seemingly without regard to other societal needs; it’s treated as an island that doesn’t touch or affect the rest of the economy.

Also, note Pollan's reference to "preventable chronic diseases." The current bills on the table would require all insurance companies to pay for routine check-ups and, yes, diabetes tests.