One of the largest and most covered issues of the 2008 presidential elections is the issue… One of the largest and most covered issues of the 2008 presidential elections is the issue of health care and health care reform in America. In a recent poll conducted by Time Magazine, 90 percent of respondents said the American health care system needs a change.

With such an overwhelming portion of the population wanting reform, candidates of both parties are trying to come up with a solution to deal with not only the rising costs of health care premiums, co-pays and prescription drugs, but also how to do deal with the 47 million uninsured Americans the US Census Bureau estimates exist.

One common solution offered is some rendition of a single-payer universal health care plan with the federal government as the single payer in which everyone is guaranteed medical insurance. Surprisingly, in the same Time poll, 64 percent of respondents believed the government should guarantee medical coverage for citizens.

With such a large backing, it might seem strange that some sort of universal health care was not initiated earlier. The reasons it hasn’t are quite simple: cost and quality. When asked if the government should guarantee health care at a higher cost to taxpayers, support falls to 48 percent. Americans may be open to the idea of universal health care, but they are far from sold on it.

It is not a secret that the cost of starting, maintaining and operating a universal health care plan is phenomenal. John Edwards, the first Democrat to outline a specific plan, openly acknowledges that his plan would cost up to $120 billion dollars a year. He believes that this cost could be covered by simply undoing the Bush tax cuts, a move that could dampen economic growth.

Because a universal health care initiative of this size has never been undertaken in America, the exact costs and structure of such a program are not known. However, several states have decided to start universal health care programs – which are usually funded by raising taxes, cutting current spending on other things like infrastructure or creating new taxes.

Other countries have enacted universal health care at a national level. Just over the border, Canada has a national health care system that is free for all its citizens. Over the Atlantic, Great Britain has a universal system along with several other European countries. But what do the people of these countries get for their money?

Presently, there are 875,000 Canadians on waiting lists for specialists, and 900,000 British people are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, according to a report by the Los Angeles Times. In Sweden you could wait 25 weeks for heart surgery and more than a year for hip replacement surgery. In Canada you wait 40 weeks on average for orthopedic surgery.

Some Canadian provinces allow for private doctors to provide MRIs and other services for a fee while others forbid any non-government treatment. According to CBS News, in Canada, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 10,000 women who had to wait eight weeks for breast cancer treatment.

One woman, Johanne Lavoie, traveled four hours with her 5-year-old son to Vermont on a bus to receiver her treatment. When a wealthy Canadian businessman needs an MRI, orthopedic surgery or hip replacement, where does he go?

He doesn’t wait a couple months on a waiting list; he flies or drives to the United States and pays out of pocket for faster and higher quality treatment. The poor and middle class citizens wait on lists while the rich get what they want when they want it. Don’t believe me? Just look at the numerous health care providers lined up at the U.S.-Canada border.

The answer to the health care reform question is not simple. Besides universal health care, another possible solution is to create tax-free accounts that allow people to save money tax-free for future unexpected health care costs.

A second solution is to provide working Americans with tax breaks if they purchase their own insurance. The most realistic approach is some sort of hybrid system that allows for personal choice and responsibility, but is subsidized by the government.

Health care reform is overdue in America. It is unacceptable for almost 50 million people in the wealthiest country in the world to be without the means to receive non-emergency medical treatment. However, universal health care, as being discussed today, is not a feasible option. If the money required to pay for universal health care comes from raising taxes on corporations and citizens, we risk becoming less competitive with foreign firms. Health care reform is needed in America, but not at the price of American jobs and national security.

Does Joe have the right idea? E-mail him at