The United States is the richest, most powerful country in the world. It has become even wealthier over the past decade, as unprecedented economic growth combined with fiscal prudence have yielded a huge budgetary surplus. Despite the nation's great wealth, despite the ideal of equality treasured by so many Americans, 40 million people -- a huge segment of the population -- remain without any sort of medical insurance.


Forty million people can't automatically go to the doctor when they feel kind of sick, and instead wait it out to see if it gets better. If it gets worse, a lot worse, they go to the hospital, for treatment much more drastic than, say, a dose of penicillin. Not to mention much more expensive. Americans spend more on health care, in terms of a percentage of GDP, than any other developed nation. Yet, Americans born today can expect to be outlived by their counterparts in Japan, France, or Canada, among others.


This is not to say that national life expectancy, which depends on so many factors, is the sole indicator of quality of life, and that of available health care in a country. Some of the very best medical technology and care in the world can be found in the United States. However, it comes at a steep price --- one out of the reach of many Americans.


Why is the United States the only industrialized nation without any sort of a national health plan, for all members of society, regardless of age or income? What makes this possible? It would appear to be a few beliefs that are prevalent among a broad cross section of American society, combining to result in something quite different. Many of these beliefs have been crucial to making this country what it is today. However, they are being erroneously applied.


Consider that most American of credoes -- work hard, make money and you reap the benefits of your work. Nothing at all wrong with that. It also implies that you do not receive benefits that others have worked for. It rewards you fully for what you have done. However, many people do work hard, but just at low-paying jobs. It is un-American to receive something you haven't earned. They cannot afford to pay for quality medical care, and are essentially punished by this inability.


In the current system, it's not like people don't pay for the medical care of others. All that happens is no one wants to pay for an uninsured person to visit a doctor to report initial symptoms. However, when the person gets quite ill, he goes to the hospital and gets treatment which he cannot pay for. The bill -- probably much higher than it would have been had the person got preventive care -- then goes to the taxpayer, who might just ending up paying more than they would have in a system where the person who was ill had insurance.


There are many ways that countries go about ensuring decent access to health care for everyone. A common system is one where health care for every single person is paid for by the government. They all have equal access to the facilities, regardless (in theory) of wealth, etc. This system is not without its difficulties -- a lack of user fees often leads to people crowding hospital emergency rooms literally for getting basic first aid. An overburdened health care system might mean long waiting lines for specialized tests, treatment or other forms of care.


For instance, the government of Quebec, a Canadian province, recently had to pay for cancer patients there to be taken to the United States and treated. However, it does ensure that all people can get equally good care. The downside is that it can also be equally bad -- and it's the government's duty to make sure, its finances allowing, that the quality of care remains at the highest standard.


Another system is a system where those who can afford to pay for whatever medical insurance they want do so, and the government has a health insurance plan for those who can not. Given the political culture of the U.S., this may be more feasible here, possibly along with offering some partial tax break to those not on the government plan to purchase support.


The danger with this sort of system is that the best doctors and treatment might become available only to those who can pay money for their services, leaving the rest of the system undermanned and, in all probability, overworked and underfunded. However, some of those problems could be avoided with proper funding and regulation.


Opponents of universal health care often rant and rave about how it would deny choice to consumers. It's not as if the government would be ordering people to go to a certain doctor; it's just that they'd be paying for it. And the status quo denies at least 40 million people any choice at all about medical care.


Access to medical care must be available to all Americans. Indeed, I believe that not offering it everyone is against the Declaration of Independence itself -- it denies them an equal right to life and the pursuit of happiness.

Archived article by Trineesh Biswas