In his 1981 First Inaugural Address, President Ronald Reagan
argued ?Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the
problem.? These famous political words highlight the frequent knee-jerk
reactions members of both major U.S. political parties have concerning the role of
government. Seeing this impulse in action, specifically on the issue of health
care, reveals a simpler and more nuanced approach to the topic of domestic
government intervention: More or less government can further empower or burden
our lives.

You all know our health care system?s problems. Health care
inflation is soaring. Health insurance is unaffordable for millions of
Americans who are also not eligible for government coverage. With rising health
care costs and more people entering government coverage programs, budgets are
exploding with entitlement spending. The system does not adequately promote
preventive medicine, contributing further to costs. Insurance companies compete
by denying claims, not offering quality care. The good news: Those who get care
receive access to the best quality health care in the world.

To fix this mess, the leading Republican and Democratic
Party candidates for president offer many sensible fixes, but reveal an
unfortunate partisan reality in our nation?s leadership. In order to solve a
problem as immense as our health care system, presidential candidates should
offer every worthy solution available. Instead, the Democrats mention primarily
solutions requiring more government; the Republicans, less government.

What we do not see is as wide a mention of market solutions
like health savings accounts, interstate insurance markets and tax deductions
or credits for purchasing insurance individually.

Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama mention a few
market proposals here and there that Republicans do not, including allowing
safe drug imports and a vague mention by Mr. Obama about wanting more insurance
market competition, but these proposals are not the meat of their plans.

The leading Republicans? plans have the opposite problem.
Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mike Huckabee offer most of the above market
solutions as their plans? bases, but offer no government interventions beyond
funding and grants for health information technology.

Additionally, the Republicans and Democrats offer to pay for
these programs differently: Republicans through spending cuts and efficiency
gains, Democrats through increasing taxes and efficiency gains.

The candidates could address this issue and others through a
smart combination of government and markets, so why is it largely not
happening?

It seems the leading Democrats choose to ignore when markets
can work, and leading Republicans choose to ignore when government can work. It
is a choice probably made from ideological and political considerations.
Regardless, ignoring opportunities for the government or the market to improve
our lives it is not good for the future of this country.

Thankfully, there is a third way between these two partisan
extremes: focusing on what measures empower the individual.

This criterion requires admitting that less government, if
you are liberal, or more government, if you are conservative, are not always
evil concepts. I am a big fan of Ronald Reagan, but even his record accepts
this philosophy to a certain degree, despite his famous anti-government catch
phrases,. His administration oversaw the largest decrease in domestic
discretionary spending since World War II, but it also signed into law the
largest increase in entitlement spending since President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Our future political leaders need to utilize the policy
flexibility allowed by trusting both smart government and market solutions.
There are too many problems in our country today not to adopt this complete
policy toolbox. If you believe 2008 should be the year of ?change?, then start
giving government and markets a fair hearing. Things will not improve unless we
are more honest about their successes and failures, and in Reagan?s words: ?If
not us, who? And if not now, when??

David Lapidus ([email protected]) is a junior
majoring in economics and mathematics.

A minor correction was made on Jan. 22, 2007.