BRANDON SACK, Guest Columnist
Despite the fact there are about 47 million Americans without health insurance, half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are the result of medical bills, we currently spend 16 percent of our gross domestic product on health care and health care is consistently a top concern among voters, I have yet to see an intelligent debate on health care in the mainstream media or among our esteemed presidential candidates. A key reason for this is the perpetuation of several myths that make it taboo to wander outside the same hackneyed health care reforms that have been failing for the past 40 years.
The first myth would be the U.S. has the best health care in the world. Don't get me wrong, we certainly have some of the finest doctors and facilities, but they don't do us any good if the vast majority of people can't use them. It's like having a Maserati with no keys.
Perhaps the most telling gauge of our medical prowess comes from a study published earlier this year that ranked the U.S. at No. 19 out of 19 industrialized countries for the treatment of amenable diseases like cancer, heart disease and complications from surgery. Who came in at No. 1? France, with their "socialist nightmare" of a health care system.
Another barrier to intelligent conversation on this important issue is the contention that a national health care program would cost too much.
A 2005 study from the National Coalition on Health Care dispelled this myth. The study looked at four different scenarios of health reform, including plans similar to those of the current presidential candidates as well as a publicly financed national health insurance program. After 10 years, the other plans would save about $350 billion each. That's after a 5-year period of increased costs. By comparison, the public plan would save over $1 trillion in 10 years, with no period of increased costs.
But anytime someone mentions national health insurance, images of long waiting lines and grandmas dying in the streets due to lack of access are instantly conjured up.
The reality is, however, that even in Canada - the most underfunded country with universal health care - less than 1 percent are on a waiting list, and only 10 percent of those on a waiting list wait for more than four months.
Then why do so many Canadians come over here to get health care? Well, they don't. A 2002 study showed that 0.11 percent of Canadians came to the U.S. for health care. In 2003 though, Americans spent $695 million on prescription drugs from the land of maple and hockey.
Last but not least, there's the notion that for-profit free-market models of health insurance encourage efficiency and provide the best possible coverage.
The best argument against this is history. From 1929 to 1965, the health care market was totally unregulated and it remains hollowly regulated today. In 1965, Medicare was created because - surprise - instead of pushing for more efficiency and greater standards of care, insurance companies simply chased profits by excluding the sick, poor and elderly.
Today, Medicare and Medicaid operate with administrative costs of around 3 percent, while private industry spends 16 to 26 percent of its money on non-medical costs like marketing, CEO salaries and shareholder dividends - so much for efficiency.
Are there problems with publicly funded government-run health care? Yes. But we can overcome them by learning from the mistakes and successes of our neighbors in the world community.
We ought to have a health care system that addresses the needs of every American, especially our grandmas.
