Health care reform? An American obsession with prescriptive incrementalism.

A rounded evaluation of the national health insurance proposals that now seem to be taken seriously by political elites requires conceptual organization. This article adopts a typology that describes each major proposal as a social, mixed or a private insurance scheme depending on the source(s) of funding, method of compensating hospitals and physicians, the unit of payment, and mechanism for financing capital. Not surprisingly, the analysis suggests that the social insurance model, closely resembling the Canadian system, is more likely to control inflation and redress distributional inequities than are other approaches. Why, then, has this approach not been adopted? The answer may be found in the widespread acceptance of disjointed incrementalism as a valid description of the policy process which yields an ideological orientation that can be termed "prescriptive incrementalism." This orientation is closely related to a belief in an "American exceptionalism," a belief that is not warranted by a cross-sectional examination of the political culture infusing issues about the proper role of government in health care financing and delivery. Unfortunately for advocates, the truly exceptional factor restricting the United States' ability to effect national health reform is a quite delberately obstruction-oriented political structure.