I read this article today by Joshua Flake, read it too if you wish it's good.

Viewpoint: Health scare. Obama’s health care plan is only half of what we need.

By Joshua Flake

- Wed, 07/08/2009 - 20:37

What good is another opinion about health care? We’re tired of talking about it; we’re tired of hearing about it. Anyone who wants national health care is labeled a socialist. Anyone opposed is accused of being unsympathetic to the plight of millions of Americans who can’t afford health insurance. No one wants to compromise, and any attempt at making a compromise only results in amplifying the inefficiencies of both systems and alienating everyone.

That’s not completely accurate. There is one person who is determined to compromise and to please as many people as possible. President Barack Obama is so doggedly focused on putting out some form of legislation on health care, in fact, he’s willing to cut corners and push through some half-baked attempt at a public health plan that will waste taxpayers’ money and trample an already mostly efficient system. It feels an awful lot like change for the sake of change, and that’s never a good reason to do something, much less speedball a bill through Congress.

No, the current system is not perfect, but after years and years of practice, it is at least an efficient one. We pay insurance companies a modest monthly fee. Insurance companies invest our money and pay hospitals the higher costs of health care we couldn’t otherwise afford. Hospitals provide us with superior services because they have more money for innovation and quality. The idea of scrapping that whole system in favor of something entirely new is a little scary.

The problem is that the current system excludes a lot of people and gives the illusion that doctors only exist to serve people who can afford them. Not everyone can afford health insurance on their own, especially if their employers don’t offer cheap health insurance as a work incentive. Likewise, not everyone can afford to buy every book they want to read, so we have libraries. I doubt there is anyone who believes libraries are more necessary than hospitals, yet libraries are a free public service and health care is not.

Frankly, I’m just as unwilling to compromise as the rest of them. Health care shouldn’t be a luxury. If we as a society are capable of organizing health care for some, it shouldn’t be too difficult for us to provide it for all. Is life itself not one of our natural rights? And I don’t believe we have to lower the quality of medicine in order to provide for everyone either. I’m more than willing to pay more taxes for the comfort of waltzing into a hospital and never worrying about a bill instead of paying insurance companies premiums, deductibles and copayment fees, etc., and still wondering whether I’m fully covered. But you give the government power over our health care, and you know what that means — socialism.

Because the idea of national health care is so “socialist,” let’s just scrap it. Let’s scrap every other public service that resembles socialism too, starting with public libraries. We’ll then move to privatizing police forces and fire departments, and the next time your house catches fire, you can haggle with the firemen as your house turns to ash. The government can quit being a service government altogether and be filled with professional politicians and bureaucrats. You might believe handing out health care as a public service is inefficient and costly, but stop calling it socialism in order to scare people into thinking the United States is turning into the next USSR.

But I understand there is a lot of fear in making such drastic changes to our health care system, especially when the president is so resolute in making any change at all, however unbalanced, uninspired or insignificant it will be. Perhaps it would be no less terrifying if he simply employed the Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate — something he probably won’t have after 2010 — instead of trying to bring Republicans on board, but I think it would be better in the long run to set up a system that was universal in its coverage. Setting up an optional public health plan will muscle out most insurance companies anyway, so we might as well get it over with in one fell swoop.

National health care is not going to be the end of western advancement in medicine. We have learned to accept only the best things, and universal coverage is not going to make our doctors any less qualified or our hospitals any less high-tech. I think it’s worth it to our fellow citizens to try it out instead of worrying about the losses to insurance companies. Americans need to come together on universal health care, not be separated by it.

http://universe.byu.edu/node/898