Virtually all of the guests on this show agree that among the vital elements of healthcare in the future will be patient involvement and prevention (e.g. changing lifestyles). This brings up a whole host of ancillary issues, but few of these are ever discussed on the conventional public forum, in politics, on popular media, etc. These are issues that need to come front and center, before we spend trillions on an approach that is fundamentally based on a very different perspective. My opinion, at least...

In a very general sense, I agree with you, Jim. However, looking at your suggestion from a more generic perspective, the way I'd present it is that by appealing to the broader populations' value systems (i.e. presuming we're uniformly motivated by financial rewards as a priority), we can compel people to behave more consistently within a desired set of guidelines. That may indeed have an impact. Another approach, however, would be to take a more "upstream" position and try to influence our collective social value systems. That can happen in a number of ways, not the least of which include public education, media advocacy, and inspirational leadership. In other words, while it may sound a bit polyannaish, we ought to at least consider getting people to want to be healthier...to value health more so than they do their sedentary, junkfood-eating, cigarette-smoking lifestyles. If we rely solely on monetary incentives, we may be substituting one problem for another, to some degree. I'm not saying we shouldn't explore that option, but there's something about "just throwing money" at a problem (and I'm not suggesting that's necessarily what you are advocating here) that has always made me think twice.

The perspective I'm approaching this issue (and your response) with is an essential element of how I view innovation, conceptually. This is the core value proposition of my business practice, and my pending book, "Redefining Innovation." Forgive the shameless plug; but I mention this here primarily to let you know where my point of view originates, and that I'm profoundly committed to its rationale.

Most important in your observation is the idea that the sustainability of humanity is within the control of each (indeed all) of us. I couldn't agree more, and your coining of the term "human sustainability" (not to mention the replication of a successful analog) is wonderful example of innovation in and of itself. I certainly applaud that approach.

Jim, Human Sustainability struk me as the key in this discussion. Now how do we promote something that "should" come naturally to us. Thinking logically, one would imagine that Sustainability should be (to some extent it is) on top of our priority list, whereas, the facts and stats paint a different scene.

Education is one of the top contenders in this scene, but the point made earlier is tough i.e. how do you beat the marketing budgets of "sugar, salt, fat & sloth" producers. Granted, its a supply and demand question, but it would not be out of the framwork of Healthcare (redefinition) if we address the role of the (s,f,s & s) producers.

I believe the best education starts at home. Moms and Dads can make a huge difference between healthy and unhealthy generation. Yes, we are talking about a generation (atleast) for any "redefinition" to take effect.

Meanwhile, I'm going to throw in the "T" word. Why not endorse a big T i.e. TAX on s,f, s & s producers. The intent here is to clearly discriminate against items that are at the root cause of health issues i.e fatty & processed foods. I do not mean to say that all issues are related to food only but it is one of many other items. This would also open several discussions on the monitoring of producers and taxing authority. Definition (or redefinition) of Health Food and taxing of the rest may show us light at the end of the tunnel.