<$BlogRSDUrl$>

21 July 2009

Redefining Defense

In the Executive Summary of the recent publication of the National Defense University, “Civilian Surge: Key to Complex Operations,” the editors (Hans Binnendijk and Patrick M. Cronin) list four alternatives for reorganizing the U.S. government’s approach to the integration of the civilian and military tasks required for responding to modern challenges to the international (and domestic) security of the country. These include doing nothing, letting the armed forces take the lead and increasing reliance on civilian contractors. The recommended solution is to create new civilian agency capabilities for taking charge of the social, non-martial aspects of establishing and maintaining order in regional communities.

A different approach would be to redefine the mission of the Department of Defense away from protecting the national borders against attacks by foreign governments to preserving order in the global community that we participate in. Threats to America’s national security today more commonly involve combinations of challenges—cyber disruptions, natural disasters, terrorism, to name a few, in addition to geopolitical pressure. The need to innovate security strategies that complement military tactics with civilian ones is demanded because of the sclerotic organization of our national resources. It still reflects an antiquated world view that did not anticipate the power of virtual states in the conduct of human affairs.

The Obama Administration is faced with many challenges--health care, economic recovery, environmental change, etc. But that should not obscure the fact that it leads a country whose strategic field contains many significant players who are not members of the United Nations. The real mission of national defense on our virtually borderless planet is to achieve effective regulation of political, economic, human rights, and a host of other behaviors so as to allow peaceful coexistence among all those players.

06 July 2009

Charging Those with Hereditary Diseases

The issue raised by Scott Harrington in his op-ed article in the June 29, 2009, Wall Street Journal, “Reform Needs Healthy Life Incentives,” will not be resolved with monetary incentives to those who are lucky enough or smart enough to lead lives that avoid chronic diseases. If we want to establish an equitable universal health care system that does not discriminate against those whose genes, religions, sport enthusiasms, etc. make their health care costs higher than average, we must educate the public to the advantages of adopting healthier lifestyles.

The cost of delivering better universal health education will be lower than the cost of delivering universal extraordinary medicine.

02 July 2009

Congress's Confusion over Health Care

The survey Congresswoman Nita Lowey sent to her constituents on July 2, 2009, is biased in favor of a government plan. What is needed is (1) more vigilance by consumers about the cost of their personal health care plans and (2) increased responsibility by doctors and other health care providers for the cost of the services they supply. Rewarding both parties for reducing costs and for achieving better results should be an essential element of our national health care structure, whether it be publicly or privately insured.

The government should pay for the cost of educating our doctors and consumers; insurers (public or private) should reward consumers and providers for successful health care results. I suspect that the combination of the two would achieve lower costs overall than our current fee for service model.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?