Giving Compass' Take:

· Although there is a general consensus favoring greater access, affordability, and quality in healthcare, John J. DiIulio explains that this means nothing when administration takes no action.

· Can the federal government actually do what the public desires and provide greater access, affordability and quality in healthcare? 

· Check out this selection of article to learn more about healthcare reform in America

Federal health care reform, whatever form it finally takes, is once again an irresistible political force. But when an irresistible political force meets an immovable administrative object, bet on the object.

If you probe the health care stuff on presidential and congressional candidate websites, peruse partisan talking points and fund-raising letters, and parse actual or pending policy proposals, you find that each and every plan now in rhetorical or legislative play for reforming the federal role in health care lays claim to the same trinity of health care reform goals: access, affordability, and quality. To be sure, some plans are more motivated and focused on increasing coverage (access) relative to containing costs (affordability), but the disagreements nonetheless center on how best to achieve greater access, affordability, and quality.

Right, you scoff, and all the candidates are also all for “peace and prosperity,” too. Actually, they’re not all for “peace;” and, before you shrug off or yawn past the fundamental agreement on what we value most when it comes to health care, recognize that as little as a quarter-century ago there was no such agreement.

In the early 1990’s, nearly a dozen major health care reform plans were discussed and debated, including (as only federal health care reform trivia buffs may recall) McDermott-Wellstone, Michael-Lott, Cooper-Breaux, Thomas-Chafee, and, of course, the Clinton administration’s plan for regional “health alliances” and a “national health board” to set premium targets for each “health alliance.” During the debates over those and other plans, accessibility was still closer than not to being an ideologically charged policy preference that divided Democrats and Republicans.

Read the full article about healthcare reform by John J. DiIulio at The Brookings Institution.