The health care system in the United States is ailing and needs reform, say economists, patients, and politicians unanimously.

Americans spend more on medical help than any other nation in the world, but without visible results. There are many arguments that speak for universal access to health care. Let's begin with a comparison on a global scale.

The analysis conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), gathering data from the 30 richest countries, indicates that our health care system is among the least effective. Americans are to be found at the tail end of industrialized countries when it comes to the average life span of citizens, but are heading the line when it comes to expenses on health care.

The second argument for the reform is the cost of health care in the United States. They disagree that private care will always be cheaper than the public. The average yearly cost of health care in OECD countries is $3,000 per person. In the United States it is more than $7,000 per person – 2 trillion dollars a year for the whole nation.

The conclusion?

Among the developed nations, the health care system in the United States is the only one that does not guarantee universal access to health care and functions less effectively than the European health care delivery systems.

It is not possible to sustain the drastically rising costs of medical treatment. Americans pay more and more for medical assistance. Currently 18.5 cents from each dollar earned in the United States goes to health care, followed by France, which spends 12 cents a dollar. By contrast, in 1970 Americans spent 7 percent of the GDP on health care. In a couple of years, it will be 25 percent. No economy can withstand such a burden.

The third argument is the humanitarian obligation to provide health care to those most in need. It is estimated that 46 to 48 million people in the United States do not have health insurance. Equal numbers of Americans consider themselves under-insured if confronted with a serious condition or long-term illness, when they either have to pay significant amounts out of pocket or go bankrupt because their health insurance will not cover the entire treatment.

Dental insurance is becoming a luxury too.

Providing health coverage for the whole nation may not only save many lives, but, in the long run, may also bring measurable savings. Universal access to health insurance will allow for the expansion of preventive care practices, which, as we know, are the least expensive way of preventing illnesses.

It is easy to evoke fear that somebody else – the government in this case – will be making decisions regarding our medical treatment on our behalf. Those who want to think that one's health is a private matter between them and the doctor are forgetting that there is a third party in that relationship – the health care provider. The argument raised by opponents of the reform that once the "public option" or a similar solution is introduced, Americans will lose the freedom to choose, seems ridiculous. Most of us lost the freedom a long time ago. It is not us, but insurance companies that decide who is going to be our medical care provider. The rising costs of insurance force employers to purchase cheaper health coverage that does not cover all services. 

Surely, in these times of deep recession the path to reform is a lot more difficult than in 1993, when the first Bill Clinton administration quickly wasted political support for the only, until then, health care reform bill that had a chance to be passed by the Congress.

Once again, the nation gives the mandate to reform the system. Ninety percent of opinion polls agree that the health care system requires changes. More than half of the American nation is ready to pay higher taxes in order to finance the reform.

Republicans are trying to create the impression that the disagreement concerns fundamental systemic transformations that may change America. What needs to be remembered here is that none of the projects of the reform include (and never have) a full transition to a system of health coverage controlled by the state. Even if Congress were to pass some form of "public option" – which is still an option – the reformed system would still rest primarily on the private sector; however, creating an alternative to private health care will force improvement of services and lowering the costs of medical treatment. That's why we should all keep our fingers crossed that the reform passes.