Perhaps I can blame it on the heat, or presidential campaign overload, which has settled in about nine months earlier than usual, but … I feel a rant coming on.

I think it started percolating during the second, or third, or maybe fifty-second presidential debate this summer, when each candidate stressed the need to fix our broken healthcare system. The most oft-cited evidence was that 50 million Americans-give or take a few million-are without adequate health care

But does that mean our healthcare system is broken? I guess that depends on whom you ask. In Pittsburgh, we are awaiting the completion of the new Children's Hospital, which has an estimated price tag greater than $700 million. I'll take a leap here and say that the new hospital will likely be state-of-the-art and able to offer the absolute best care available anywhere in the world.

But what if someone doesn't live within a reasonable distance of Pittsburgh? Simple logic tells me that person-and his children-will receive less than the absolute best care possible.

I keep hearing about universal health coverage. On the surface, who can argue with the idea of making sure everyone in America has access at least to adequate care when needed? Yet, I've heard the argument made that, given the number of not-for-profit facilities sprinkled throughout the country, in theory, everyone who needs treatment can get it. Maybe we're not talking free liposuction or the option to choose which surgeon you'd like to perform your surgery, but adequate treatment is available.

But that's the problem with dealing with the theoretical, isn't it? Our uninsured and under-insured are at risk, and that's just not acceptable. But wait-what about those fellow Americans who don't have adequate health insurance by choice, because they opted to gamble with their family's wellbeing by not purchasing enough coverage.

And what of those who buy adequate insurance, but can't afford the copays? Do they scrape together the money … or feed their families … or renege on their obligation?

One of the best things about a good rant is that it doesn't have to offer any solutions, just raise an issue and so that, at the very least, any hypocrites responsible for the situation are duly exposed. Problem is, such exposure doesn't matter anymore; rather than running from the glare of truth, most guilty parties today bask in it like George Hamilton in a tanning booth.

That's why we have elected officials who refuse to admit that our public school system, especially in the inner city, isn't working choosing to send their kids to private schools. That's why we have wealthy individuals who retire still insisting they receive their Social Security benefits simply because they're entitled to them. That's why we have executives in private and public companies giving sweetheart deals to each other while their organizations, their employees, and the publics they serve suffer. That's why we have teachers' unions, to note just one example, negotiating contracts that allow members to retire at ridiculously young ages with an obscene package of benefits while the effectiveness of our public education system continues to deteriorate.

As I see it, those who would follow George W. Bush into the White House can offer all the new legislation they want to solve our crisis in education, or health care, or immigration, or whatever the issue du jour is, but it wouldn't make much of a difference except in the size of the tax bite we endure.

The only way to truly change society for the better is to start from the inside of each of us. That will happen when we quit worrying so much about whose ox is being gored and more about just doing the right thing.

Problem is, I'm note sure we are even capable of agreeing on what the right thing is anymore. Or, if we are, we are too blinded by our own greed to recognize it.

Harvey Kart