This article was originally distributed by American Forum, a nonprofit op-ed syndication service.

Despite the acrimonious debate, there is actually consensus on both
sides of the political aisle — our current health care system is
seriously flawed, dysfunctional and requires major change.

As
Congress prepares for a final reconciliation, we are bombarded with
messages containing language designed to either persuade or frighten us.

In
a country as diverse as ours, we need to find common ground for deeply
held beliefs and values. Values held by most Americans are quality,
affordable, choice and American. Surveys consistently find that over
two thirds of Americans favor health care access for all Americans,
even if it means a major government role. The words government health
care had a negative response, yet the same people wanted a choice of
private and public plans.

Recent messages from politicians say
they favor a uniquely American solution. Unfortunately, we already have
a unique system. Our system costs twice as much as those of most other
wealthy nations and fails to cover almost 50 million of us. Since World
War II, our health system has relied on employer-based coverage
purchased from private for-profit health insurers.

Our uniquely
American employer-based private health insurance solution is
unraveling. Any employer-based system is particularly vulnerable to
economic downturns. Since the current recession began, tens of millions
of Americans have lost their jobs and therefore their coverage. Even
before the recession, the percentage of employers offering health
benefits was falling. Only the expansion of public insurance like
Medicaid and SCHIP prevented an even worse epidemic of lost coverage.

Health
care costs have continued to soar at twice the rate of the Gross
Domestic Product. Employers have responded by asking employees to pay a
greater portion of insurance premiums and larger co-pays and
deductibles.

Over a million American families fall into
bankruptcy each year partly due to large health care bills. Even those
with employer-based insurance are at risk since over 70 percent had
insurance at the start of the bankrupting illness. Consumer Reports
National Research Center released a January 2009 survey of over 2,000
Americans who regularly take medications. It shows that 22 percent have
delayed a doctor visit, 18 percent put off a recommended procedure, 17
percent declined a test, 16 percent delayed filling a prescription and
another 16 percent stopped taking a medication due to costs.

Other
wealthy countries cover all of their citizens for about half of what we
spend. Some are entirely public programs. Others like Germany and
Switzerland allow private companies to offer insurance products, but
they do not allow them to operate for profit. In these countries,
universal coverage creates a large stable risk pool which combined with
government run insurance or strictly regulated not-for-profit private
insurers results in lower costs, better health outcomes and no
bankruptcy from medical debt. These countries have covered everyone
with high quality care at a more affordable price.

The House
proposal retains many of our uniquely American flaws: preserving a
for-profit system and relying on private insurance competition to bring
down premiums. The proposal does contain new regulations that require
insurers to take all applicants regardless of gender or health status,
and guarantees the renewal of existing policies.

However, the
much debated public option, originally conceived to ensure real
competition, is at risk. In order to avoid a government takeover of
health care, the proposal dictates the creation of a new bureaucracy —
the Health Insurance Exchange — to help bewildered consumers choose an
insurance plan. Our tax dollars will be spent on subsidies for low wage
earners who cannot afford insurance but will be required to purchase
private or public insurance.

Wouldn’t it be simpler and more
efficient to allow people to buy into Medicare and set the premium at a
level that covers costs? This “uniquely American” solution serves our
seniors well. Medicare has proven to be a durable and reliable
insurance program that has controlled health care costs better than
private insurance exchanges. We know Medicare works. Medicare, unlike
private insurance, allows you to choose any doctor or use any hospital.
However, the insurance industry asserts that competing with Medicare is
not a choice they will allow; calling it unfair and not on a level
playing field.

We must continue to ask tough questions. For
example, in a year during which private insurance companies are posting record
profits, why is the taxpayer being asked to subsidize them in order to
cover the uninsured? Why isn’t a public option like Medicare a choice
for everyone? Real reform must cover everyone and controls costs.