1st Uzma Ahmad 
2nd Jenny
Rubin
3rd Valerie Das
The health care system of the United States contains many paradoxes. The United States is the only industrialized nation, except for South Africa, to not have a national health care system, yet Americans spend more on health care than any other nation in the world. Medical technology in this nation, whether it be laser surgery or genetic research, is on the "cutting-edge," yet one out of nine Americans has no health insurance to cover the costs of even the most basic medical treatment. The most alarming paradox seems to be that as Americans become more conscious of the inefficiency and incongruities of the system, the costs of medical care continue to rise: at the current pace, the United States' medical bill will be about $1.6 trillion in just ten years. Obviously, the present system has failed the United States and it is time for change. The crucial decision is whether the governments should simply institute stiffer regulations in the medical field, provide money to streamline the current system, or create a new national health care system.
There are those who believe that the current system works and that only slightly stiffer regulation are required to make the system more efficient. In one sense, the United States' health care system is on of the best in the world: it is well-known that people come from Great Britain and other nations to receive organ transplants and other high-technology care. At the same time, our health care system's great failing is not the quality of care that is received, but the costs of and delivery system for this care. There are many segments of society, including the poor, elderly, and infants, who have fallen through the cracks in the present system. Joining this group today are middle-class, employed individuals who can not afford the soaring costs of health insurance.
Although new regulation alone might not address the needs of all people, it must definitely be part of any plan that is accepted. The government must increasingly become a policeman of the medical world and insure that patients do not receive unnecessary tests, that no billing fraud occurs on the part of hospitals and doctors, and that medical fees become more standardized across certain geographic areas. Fraud, alone, may cost the United States as much as $75 billion. Thus, the role of regulator or policeman is an important one for the federal government.
Many feel that the American government should recognize health care as an emerging national priority and spare almost no cost in order to streamline the system and help individuals cope with health care costs. Various proposals along these lines have included giving Americans, especially the middle-class, a tax break to help with high medical costs and requiring all people to heave health insurance, in much the same way that auto insurance is mandatory in Illinois. The tax break can only be seen as a "band-aid" measure; it might provide some temporary relief to some people, but it has no long-term effects. Requiring all people to have health insurance is an admirable goal, but also a highly unrealistic one. Others have suggested expanding the Medicare program to help a wider range of people, especially the sector of the middle-class who can no loner afford health care costs and health insurance. The Medicare program is, however, a very costly program and trying to expand the scope of a program which began 26 years ago to help the elderly would only increase inefficiency and health care costs.
Having basically eliminated most other options, it becomes evident that some type of nationalized health care system is necessary. The question is whether to nationalize the medical establishment, including doctors and hospitals, or to nationalize health care insurance. Nationalizing medicine allows all people in a nation to receive low-cost or free medical care because doctors fare salaried and hospitals are no loner private. The costs of setting up such a system and keeping it running smoothly would probably be covered by higher taxes. The plan is in opposition to some basic American ideas: as little government as possible in the private sector and competition. A nationalized health care system would reduce competition among doctors, as well as patient choice when it came to selecting a doctor and more expensive courses of treatment. Nationalized medicine might be too radical of a step for the United States.
A similar, but more appealing plan is nationalizing health care insurance. Currently, the United States has more than 1,500 different health insurance programs. The varied programs make it hard for the government to monitor and regular doctor's charges, wasteful spending and fraud. In addition, having so many different programs breeds inefficiency within the system. doctors must deal with many insurance forms and most often provide unnecessary documentation. One national health insurance plan would cut red-tape and reduce costs.
Of course, to initiate such a plan would require a large initial expenditure on the part of the federal government or the private sector. With the federal debt now near $4 trillion, the best route for the nation would be the so-called "play or pay" plan. Under this plan, employers with a certain number of employes would be required to provide health coverage for their employees. Those companies which did not do so would have to pay into a federal fund to allow the government to provide health coverage. The government would subsidize health care for the elderly and unemployed. This plan has been criticized as too heavy of a burden for business to carry; however, many businesses already provide employees with health insurance and with one national health insurance plan, the costs of insurance would be reduced. It is vital to spend some money now, in order to divert the predicted $1.6 trillion bill.
The United States has com to an important juncture in the history of health care. The best route from here would be to stabilize costs through increased regulation. One national health care plan and employer-provided insurance will lower medical costs and keep people from falling through the cracks in the current medical system.