I am certainly no expert in the medical sciences--other than having more cuts and stitches than most. Yes, I think that something needs to be done to control healthcare costs and provide some sort of healthcare to the 20% or so of Americans who have none. But I surely don't have a comprehensive proposal to accomplish those objectives.

But the Bloomberg op-ed piece does remind me of an article I read that was published by the AMA recommending exactly the type of medical records system described in the article and presumably the current stimulus legislation. As I recall, the AMA ascribes considerable savings to the healthcare system, and substantial improvements in the quality of healthcare as the result of having a national diagnostic data base.

The problem that the AMA said needed to be overcome was the cost of the system for the individual doctor. As I remember the article, they estimated that it would cost each doctor a little less than $100,000 to set the system up in his/her office, and then about $12,000 a year to maintain it. The AMA survey showed that an overwhelming percentage of doctors--almost 90% as I recall--said they couldn't afford those costs, regardless of the benefit, and would not plan on participating. If I understand the description of the proposed legislation, the government is proposing to pick up the tab for this system.

If the program described in the article and in the legislation provides for this type of diagnostic data base, there may be a positive flip side to the story. In my wildest dreams I can't imagine that the primary purpose of such a program is for the government to "...monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate", as asserted by the Bloomberg op-ed writer.

On the other hand, with healthcare costs escalating at a rate that is a multiple of inflation, something needs to be done to reign in those costs. To me a better approach would be medical tort reform, thereby reducing medical insurance premiums and almost certainly all the CYA tests and procedures prescribed by doctors and hospitals. But we all know the chances of getting a bunch of lawyers elected to Congress to limit the income of the legal profession, don't we?

I don't know for sure, but maybe this newly proposed system is the best "second choice" to control healthcare costs.

The author of the Bloomberg op-ed piece doesn't mention any of the advantages of the system. This article reminds me of all those who claim to know what will happen if we build more nuclear reactors. They claim to know exactly what will happen if new reactors are built and do everything they can to slow or stop the process concentrating only on the negatives, however remote they may be. As they beat the tambourines about "more Chernobyls," as mainstream environmental groups hem and haw about how they support nuclear in principle but not in this particular instance, as the public remains confused about whether a reactor really can blow up or become the target of a terrorist attack, completion of a single reactor is unlikely, however valuable they might be in accomplishing energy independence. The Bloomberg article seems to beat the same drums regarding a proposal to reduce healthcare cost and improve quality.

Why are there always so many more naysayers than those with ideas on how to solve problems? Those thoughts are probably easier to derive, I suppose.