When it comes to debates surrounding the budget deficit and the rising costs of health care, there have been no easy or adequate answers.
There are essentially three ways to lower the cost of health care — two of which get all the attention. The first option, supported by many liberals, is bureaucratic rationing of care. The second option, supported by many conservatives, involves cuts in overall spending, plus the use of market forces, to control costs. The first two options are perpetually in conflict, and so far, at least, the two options seem to be fighting to a stalemate. But there is a third option for conservatives, which builds on the free-market/limited government model — and which offers the hope for a political breakthrough.
And that third option — currently being championed by Rep. Michele Bachmann — is to actually cure diseases.
Bachmann’s argument, which she first sounded on “Fox News Sunday” on May 1, is that [Paul] Ryan-type fiscal rigor needs to be linked to pro-medical science vigor. As she told Fox’s Chris Wallace, “We should focus on…cures — cures for things like Alzheimer’s, cures for things like diabetes. It’s very expensive to just cover the care for sickness. I’d prefer to see money that we have at the federal level go for cures.”
It is an interesting, albeit seemingly obvious, point — a cure is cheaper than care. But actually, it’s not so obvious. The idea of curing diseases as a health care strategy — as opposed to financing the care for those diseases — seems to have faded from the political discourse in recent years. Whether it’s Ryancare or Obamacare, both parties have chosen to focus on the mechanisms of health care finance, as opposed to health itself. The immediate question comes back: Are cures even possible?
And Bachmann has an answer to that, too, pointing back to past successes for a can-do America; as she told Wallace: “Probably one of the best examples is polio. If you look in the 1950s, polio was a huge issue. And government was forecasting at that point that we might be looking at $100 billion in costs. Today, polio costs us really virtually nothing. Why? A private charity, March of Dimes, put money in to finding a cure. We all have the little vaccines that Jonas Salk came up with. Thank God. I would like to see that with Alzheimer’s and diabetes and others.”
In other words, a President Bachmann might propose a crash project to cure these diseases. And as Bachmann noted, a private charity could spearhead the effort — with a little leadership from Washington.
To be sure, Bachmann is a strong supporter of the Ryan plan; she even voted for the Republican Study Committee plan, which suggested even sharper cuts than Ryan. But at the same time, Bachmann put forth a plan for making those “In the midst of all the talk about facts and figures and insurance policies,” Bachmann said on “Fox & Friends,” on Tuesday, “we can’t forget humanity. I want to see us focus on finding cures as well. Cures for Alzheimer’s, cures for diseases that particularly deal with senior citizens, diabetes, for instance, that’s what we need to do.”
Bachmann has a point. Regardless of ideology, most Americans are compassionate enough to want everyone to receive the best health care available — but are we smart enough to actually cure diseases in the first place?
It’s a provocative argument that already has supporters. “How did we make caring for those stricken with bubonic plague, or smallpox, or polio cheaper?” — asks Jim Pinkerton, a former domestic policy aide to Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who focuses on health care issues. “We didn’t provide the victims with insurance — we eliminated the disease.”
One can imagine curing Alzheimer’s would be both a good thing to do, from the point of view of individual self-interest and societal compassion — but it could also be the cost-effective thing to do. Senior citizens who require round-the-clock care are expensive, no matter who might be footing the bill, public or private. If instead, the minds of older Americans could be saved from the ravages of Alzheimer’s, they could remain as contributing members of society. “If we could make progress on curing, or even pushing back, the onset of Alzheimer’s,” says Pinkerton, “we could link that medical advance to a raising of the retirement age. Then the entitlement crisis would disappear.”
One can imagine a Bachmann presidency might likely pursue some sort of “Moon shot” summoning of Americans to accept the challenge to cure Alzheimer’s. What would it take? Pinkerton points to a dramatic curtailing of the tort bar, a massive overhaul of the FDA, and creative ways to bring in new capital from around the world. “The Chinese and Indians,” he notes, “have a much larger future senior population than we do. We are all in the same boat–and so we can all be healthy, or we can all be sick.”
America, of course, should be the place for this effort. After all, it was the U.S. that spearheaded the effort to eradicate smallpox and develop the polio vaccine.
A hypothetical President Bachmann — or any other leader who thinks the same way — might consider elevating someone — the surgeon general, head of HHS or NIH — someone — to equal status with the national security adviser. This wouldn’t require creating a new bureaucracy, but it would demonstrate a commitment to this cause, as well as the president’s imprimatur.
From a political standpoint, by proposing such bold solutions, Bachmann might be expanding her brand and, perhaps, seizing some of the ground occupied by Newt Gingrich, who has made a career out of offering ideas and solutions. To be sure, some conservatives will see this as a call for more big government, but it’s really a call for effective government. Aside from cutting the cost of health care, surely conservatives ought to agree there’s also a larger social value in curing disease.