health-care.

The World Health Organization ranking of the World's health-care systems, by nation, placed the U.S. at #37 out 190. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) This is contrary to what many people, particularly Republicans, are recently saying concerning health-care reform. Rush Limbaugh stated in a FoxNews interview that "...we have the greatest health-care system on the planet...". (http://www.thefoxnation.com/rush-limbaugh/2009/07/23/exclusive-rush-unleashed-obama-has-chip-his-shoulder) But, obviously, the facts show otherwise. I guess he was just off by one, or two... or thirty-seven.

The nation with the best health-care system in the world, according to the year 2000 (which not much has really changed in the health-care system since then) is France. France's health-care system could be seen as socialistic, or is at least, progressive. Expenses related to the health-care system in France represented 10.5% of the country's GDP and 15.4% of its public expenditures. Jean De Kervasdoué, a health economist, believes that French medicine is of great quality and is "the only credible alternative to the Americanization of world medicine." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_healthcare_system)

Now, concerning what we're concerned with - American health-care reform, this just goes to show that. For one thing, we're not what Republicans are saying we are. Our health-care system is flawed, it isn't perfect, and to criticize our government is what having a government is all about. There is nothing wrong with that, that's how things get done, and change, for the better. Also, a 'universal' health-care plan, such as the one used by the French, is not unsuccessful! In fact, it's very successful! The U.S. wastes so much money, hence why we're #37, right under Costa Rica. And the Republicans can't say that this study was false or some part of some 'higher propaganda scheme' to try and make Americans THINK we don't have the best healthcare, because it was published in 2000, two terms before President Barack Obama was elected.

Many Americans are concerned that our proposed health-care system would reflect Canadian health-care, or at least negative qualities of it. The fact is, is that just isn't true. Once again, Republicans tend to stick to lies for the foundation of their arguments. Obama has indicated time and time again that our health-care system (like most everything American) would be different than any other nation's, and have our own unique qualities, and aspects.

The argument has been proposed by Republicans that a 'socialized', 'mandatory' health-care system would restrict you (the citizen) from being able to choose your own doctor, choose your health-care plan, etc. For one thing, that's already true. If you had StateFarm, and broke your leg, they would most likely pay for it. But, if you wanted Lasik surgery, would they? If you wanted breast implants, would they? No, of course not! If you broke your leg, and would only accept treatment from the greatest, and most distinguished physician in the world, would they pay for it? No! As with most everything in life, there are always (and already) limitations imposed on us, our current health-care system is no different.

However, Obama has indicated time, and time again that under his health-care plan, you would be able to keep your doctor, and even keep your private plan, if you want. (http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse?blend=1&ob=4#play/search/32/zHCQc-wwzDQ) The fact is, is the health-care insurance industry is largely not competed with, this causes the risk of them being able to raise prices, deductibles and premiums however they please. A public option (not mandate) that is regulated would give them something to compete with.

Many Americans are concerned with the funding for such a monumental, and unprecedented program. The Obama Administration's proposed health-care plan, would basically fund itself. The U.S. wastes so much money in health-care currently, that 2/3 of the program would be funded by money that the new system would be saving us, and the other 1/3 would be funded by projected profits. Obviously, they can't exactly estimate how much those profits would be, but economists estimate that it would be large.

Also, something else that they're not telling you on the news. Obviously, the health-care plan has passed the House, and is now in the Senate for vote. This is what the bill's survival depends on. Three committees have been created to review, study, and approve or disapprove of the bill, and two out of the three, already have. It's this last committee that people are referring to in the news.

The reason Republicans and Conservative Democrats (Corporate Democrats) are against this bill, is because obviously, if this new health-care system is to be passed, who would suffer? Insurance companies, who deny coverage to try and make more money. Insurance companies, are merely that-companies. They're out to make a profit, and protect shareholders. When an industry has interests to look out for like, like this, they send lobbyists to Washington D.C. to have dinners with politicians, with Senators, to buy them things, or 'gifts', and other bribery tactics to try and make sure that their interests are protected, not the interests of Americans.

I hope that this bill passes, not because I'm liberal. Not because I hate, with a passion, corporate greed. As Barack Obama said, "This isn't about me, this isn't about politics." This is about every American getting what they deserve, and the U.S. being the best nation that it can be. It's about helping people. That's all that anybody really wants to do, is to help people. And this can be done in a way that is economically, morally, and politically better than what we have now. The U.S. the only Western, industrialized nation that doesn't offer free, universal health coverage. Sickness, illness, disease, these things don't know political boundaries. They surpass race, party, and nation. They effect us all. Let's do what we can to help people.

-C

Further Sources & Links:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/348/26/2635

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/89