The process of negotiating requires compromise and concession by all of the involved parties if an agreement that satisfies all of the affected parties is to be reached. If, on the other hand, one party appears to have "won" at the expense of the other party, and the other party perceives that they have "lost", the final agreement becomes suboptimal. In fact in almost every case, when looked at objectively, the agreement will prove to be very costly in terms of time and money to everyone affected by the agreement. The net result may be that the party believing they ended up with the "short stick," so to speak, will spend all of their time and effort "getting even" rather than working to improve the outcome.
As originally envisioned, our political system was set up to provide checks and balances by keeping the power divided, and by forcing the parties to reach solutions through compromise. The operative word being compromise which is mutual concession -- the basis of any rational, fair and satisfactory negotiation.
Our political system seems to be morphing from what was envisioned by the founding fathers into a system that is taking us down a path to that leads us to less than the best solutions to fix problems. Following that path could bring us to a point where each suboptimal solution ends up becoming another weaker link in the chain as opposed to strengthening the chain by fixing or replacing the weak links.
Looking at where the system seems to have evolved today, it appears that money has become the driving force. In fact, it appears as though the system has reached a point where money now trumps reason and many other values. In today's system, money has become the main driver of compromise. The net result is that there are innumerable "compromises" included in each of the "Bills" being proposed and approved in Washington. In fact, there are so many "compromises" being included to satisfy each special interest that the original "Bill" itself becomes so compromised it becomes less than optimal. Continuing to follow this "system" of compromising to satisfy the contributors only will serve to take us down the path to lower and lower levels of quality in the final "Bills" approved by the government.
Let us use health care just as an example. We have no way of knowing how many, or which specific, special interest groups have provided money to influence the structure and the content of the Health Care Bill. Given its importance, and the potential impact on all of us, one would hope that our government representatives would have the best interests of the people in mind as they negotiate each provision. The likelihood is, however, that the drug companies, the health care providers, the insurance companies, the trial lawyers and many other groups all have influenced the content of the Health Care Bill through their "contributions."
As health care is being touted as one of the biggest challenges facing the US, how is it that under the new system, money is more likely to influence the outcome rather than the best interests of the people.? Have we reached a point that the political system and the campaigns to gain, and retain, political office require such extraordinary amounts of money, that the system has brought us to a new era of "solution through political prostitution" rather than "solution through negotiating for better outcomes?"
What do you think? Will the final Health Care Bill solve the existing flaws in healthcare as a result of effective negotiation or will it be a suboptimal solution resulting from another "chicken dance" down the money trail?
