One New Year’s Eve, a friend of a friend was telling me a story about his fishing trip to Canada. During the trip, a hook was plunged through his hand and he had to go to the hospital to have it removed. During his stay he received immediate care and was given an MRI to ensure that no nerves would be damaged during the removal. When the time for payment came, he was told his insurance was no good in Canada and he would have to pay out-of-pocket. Total charge: $35.

Another friend was admitted to a U.S. emergency room complaining of a rapid pulse and chest pains following the prescription of a new medication. A nurse took his pulse and blood pressure. A doctor reviewed his case history. He was told to stop taking the medication and sent home. Total charge: $250.

In terms of quality, the United States has some of the best health care in the world. The problem is not the quality of American health care, the problem is paying for it.

The United States spends more per capita on health care than any other nation, representing 15 percent of our GDP. When compared with 29 other industrialized nations, our per capita health care costs are more than twice the median, more than $4,000 per person as compared to about $1,800. Regarding costs, a single-payer universal coverage system seems to be the answer, but not without reservation.

Opponents of universal health care note that health care is not a right. It is no more the responsibility of government to pay for our medical expenses than it is to pay for our housing or clothing. Also, it is unfair to make people pay for the irresponsible behavior of others; people who live healthy, active lifestyles should not have to pay for a smoker’s lung transplant, an over-eater’s heart surgery or an alcoholic’s cirrhosis treatment.

In addition, universal coverage does not mean universal access. The United States has one of the most responsive health care systems in the world, while the elderly patients in other nations claim they have more trouble attaining health care than their American counterparts. In fact, New Zealand’s guidelines for treatment of end state renal failure state that “in usual circumstances, people over 75 should not be accepted.” It should also be noted that there are no private dialysis centers in New Zealand.

Nations with universal health care plans often have long waiting lists for services. Even if someone wanted to pay for a service from their own insurance plan, places like Canada do not even allow their citizens to carry private health insurance for services its health care system already provides.

Supporters of universal health care point out that it is not the same as socialized medicine. Health care professionals would still be in private practice and not be government employees. Private industry would still provide the medicines, equipment and vaccines necessary for our health care system to run. As such, people would still have as much power to choose their own doctor, if not more, considering we are presently limited to choosing from our insurer’s approved list of providers. In addition, under a single-payer, universal health care system, administrative costs incurred by the enormous patchwork of private insurers would be cut dramatically.

Business would benefit as well. Health insurance is often provided as a tax-exempt benefit to attract workers, but with health care costs becoming so high in the United States, American companies are having difficulty providing health insurance and staying competitive in the global marketplace. In nations where universal health care is provided, industry is not forced to pass the costs of medical coverage on to the consumer and is better able to stay competitive.

Employees would benefit since U.S. companies would be better able to keep jobs in the United States and foreign companies would be more likely to build their plants here if health insurance was not one of the extra business expenses they had to deal with. Employees would also benefit from the freedom to move from one job to another without losing health insurance. In addition, low income Americans would be more likely to get off welfare and back to work if they did not have to worry about losing health insurance for themselves and their children.

Let me be the first to admit that I have strong reservations about a universal health care system in the United States. Drawbacks such as service shortages, waiting lines and access to care are serious concerns. But the supporters of universal health care, many of whom are captains of industry, drive a hard bargain.

The best option may be a hybrid system, where emergency and preventive care services are provided under a single-payer plan and long-term, chronic ailments are still covered by private insurers. In either case, the United States must address the increasing difficulty in attaining quality medical care.

Upon closer examination, universal health care is not the socialist bogeyman it is made out to be and may go a long way toward reducing health care costs – and improving medical care – in the United States.

Jeremy Oehlert is a senior in psychology and genetics from Osceola.