U.S. chooses free market over adequate health care

Editor,

Of those who live in the U.S., 18 percent are without health insurance. But I'm willing to bet that the number of legislators who have health insurance probably averages out to about, say, 100 percent?

Just a guess. Sure, you can say our economy couldn't afford it, or that it would universally bring down the quality of health care for everybody. But various surveys speak otherwise. Did you know that of the 13 of the world's leading developed nations, the U.S. ranks 12? Japan, the U.K. and Canada rank first, second and third, respectively.

You'll probably hear otherwise, but the fact is that America leads only in emergency health care. That means individuals in the working class, who obviously earn less, have poorer diets, deal with more physical stress and are more prone to disease - meaning that visits to the hospital are limited primarily to emergencies, which is more costly, and the fees are passed on to taxpayers when the bills can't be paid.

For the sake of preserving our free-market society, we've fallen behind in providing close to 40 million Americans with adequate health care. It won't take away the first-class health care that those of us with money can afford, but at least it won't deny those who need it the most.

Sean Debuck

UNM student