In the United States of America, the land of opportunity, where everything is possible, many people cannot afford necessary health care. How can we say that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights when people's life expectancy is shortened due to this lack of medical care. Fact: The U.S. ranks 12th in life expectancy. Working families in the U.S. do not have health insurance. Fact: Health care is presently digesting 12% of our Gross National Product, with an expected increase to 15% by the year 2000. What these facts equate to is a national crisis in health care.

The solution to this crisis cannot be found in a paper by a 17 year old high school student nor can it be found in the few hundred words President Bush gave the issue in his State of the Union address. The problem is far too advanced for their to be an easy answer. Although Bush's proposal to provide tax credits to low-income families for health care and to spend more on preventive medicine is a step in the right direction, it doesn't even come close to controlling the skyrocketing cost of health care or providing health care to all those in need of it. With medical costs increasing at a rate of 8% annually (3% above inflation), we cannot put off major changes any longer--we need them now. Although the government acknowledges the problem they do not agree with the immediacy of it. In a rare and near unanimous consensus, Congress and the Bush administration have agreed on two things about the nation's health care system: it's a disastrous failure, and nothing much will be don about it at least through next year. The problem is that the health care issue isn't just a question of votes, it's a question of lives, and we can' tell people to put off the cancer treatment they can't afford election after election--it just doesn't work that way.

What it boils down to is a need for a revamping of the health care system; in my min that means government intervention including national health insurance that promotes preventive care, a government mandated ceiling on medical costs, and a national health and fitness education program. Although there is not a solution existing that will "fix" the entire system I think it will help a lot more than tax credits.

Most importantly, I support what is widely referred to as a universal health plan. Every employed U.S. citizen would pay a percentage of his or her income to a regional health maintenance organization. These organizations would offer a number of health plans ranging from basic preventive care packages to packages that included nonbasic medical needs such as plastic surgery. As the "benefits" in the packages increased, the prices would increase, in terms of percentage of income. Since a number of health plans would be offered, the free enterprise system would still be operating and different health plans would still have to compete. Yet excessive paperwork would be eliminated because the health maintenance organizations would only require a standardized form he completed when health care is given, no matter which health plan is chosen. The standardized form alone would save $65 billion, "the cost of administration," claims handling and insurance company bureaucracy.

Variations of this system exist in Canada and throughout Europe. Although the system has its drawbacks, such as long waits for elective surgery, I believe it is still the best choice. I would rather see people on a long waiting list than watch them go without necessary health care. In fact, 66% of Americans agreed with my view in a recent poll, saying their would rather have a system like Canada's. As a person who has lived in England, I have viewed this kind of system firsthand, and even with its bad points I consider it a step forward. Secondly, I support full coverage of preventive medicine and a national health and fitness education program. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This isn't just a trite cliche; it has been proven effective time and time again. When Blue Shield offered "HEALTHTRAC," a program that focuses on healthy behavior, they saved an average of $166 per person. A program at Bank of America aimed at advising the company's retirees on weight loss and other health matters saved $6 for every $1 it cost. Putting this theory to work for the U.S.A. would save us millions of dollars every year.

Third, I support a government mandated ceiling on medical costs and a fair limit to the amount that people can sue for, for such things as mental anguish. California placed a limit on awards for pain and suffering in 1975, and malpractice insurance costs in the state are near the bottom on the national scale. Lower costs for malpractice insurance translates to lower costs for patients and that is something we need.

I am not offering this as a solution to the health care crisis. I don't think a solution exists. The only thing I do know is that we need government interven- tion in our health care system soon. If ours is truly a government of the people, by the people and for the people, our politicians can't put off the reforms a majority of American voters want because the American Medical Association, insurance companies, and other large political campaign contributors don't want to lose the profits they're raking in.

Our politicians have to look toward the public good not towards special interest groups, insurance lobbies, and the A.M.A.'s special agenda. Americans aren't happy with the health care system; they want change, and to many that means government intervention.

BACK