Editing Tom Daschle (section)

===Health policy===
Daschle co-wrote the 2008 book ''Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis'' {{ISBN|9780312383015}}.<ref>Tom Daschle, Scott S. Greenberger, and Jeanne M. Lambrew, ''Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis'', Thomas Dunne, 2008. {{ISBN|978-0-312-38301-5}}</ref> He and his co-authors point out that "most of the world’s highest-ranking health-care systems employ some kind of [[Single payer|'single-payer']] strategy – that is, the government, directly or through insurers, is responsible for paying doctors, hospitals, and other health-care providers." They argue that a single-payer approach is simple, equitable, provides everyone with the same benefits, and saves billions of dollars through economies of scale and simplified administration. They concede that implementing a single-payer system in the United States would be "politically problematic" even though some polls show more satisfaction with the single-payer [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]] system than [[Private Option|private insurance]].<ref name=davis>Karen Davis, Cathy Schoen, Michelle Doty, and Katie Tenney "[http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w2.311v1/DC1 Medicare Versus Private Insurance: Rhetoric And Reality]", ''Health Affairs'', October 9, 2002. (Accessed June 18, 2009.)</ref>

A key element of the single-payer plan that Daschle and his co-authors propose in the book is a new "Federal Health Board" that would establish the framework and fill in the details. The board would somehow be simultaneously "insulated from political pressure" and "accountable to elected officials and the American people." The board would "promote 'high-value' medical care by recommending coverage of those drugs and procedures backed by solid evidence."<ref>{{cite web|last=McCanne |first=Don |url=http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2008/12/08/sen-daschles-critical/ |title=Sen. Daschle's "Critical," |publisher=Physicians for a National Health Program |date=December 8, 2008 |access-date=October 26, 2011}}</ref> This proposal has been criticized by conservatives and [[Libertarianism|libertarians]] who argue that such a board will lead to rationing of health care,<ref name=cannon>Michael F. Cannon, "[https://archive.today/20130129164456/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTE1YWYwZTgzOTIyOWQwNTEzZTg4N2U1MTc2NTE4YTI Daschle Care", National Review Online, January 30, 2009. (Accessed January 30, 2009.)]</ref><ref name=capretta>James C. Capretta, "[http://www.thenewatlantis.com/blog/diagnosis/obamas-health-care-czar Obama's Health Care Czar]", ''New Atlantis: Diagnosis'', December 12, 2008. (Accessed January 30, 2009.)</ref> and by [[Progressivism in the United States|progressives]] who believe the board will, as one writer put it, "get defanged by lobbyists immediately."<ref name=holt>Matthew Holt, "[http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/12/critical-of-cri.html Critical of ''Critical''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090203224239/http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/12/critical-of-cri.html |date=February 3, 2009 }}", December 31, 2008. (Accessed January 30, 2009.)</ref>

One of Daschle's co-authors, [[Jeanne Lambrew]], had been slated before his withdrawal to serve as his deputy in the White House Office of Health Reform.<ref name=capretta />

Daschle also served as a panelist on the [[Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense]], a body that recommended changes to U.S. policy to strengthen national biodefense.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.biodefensestudy.org/|title=Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense|website=www.biodefensestudy.org|access-date=2017-03-07}}</ref> In order to address biological threats facing the nation, the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense created a 33 step initiative for the U.S. Government to implement. Headed by former senator Joe Lieberman and former governor [[Tom Ridge]], the Study Panel assembled in Washington, D.C., for four meetings concerning current biodefense programs. The Study Panel concluded that the federal government had little to no defense mechanisms in case of a biological event. The Study Panel's final report, ''The National Blueprint for Biodefense'', proposes a string of solutions and recommendations for the U.S. Government to take, including items such as giving the vice president authority over biodefense responsibilities and merging the entire biodefense budget. These solutions represent the Panel's call to action in order to increase awareness and activity for pandemic related issues.