Universal healthcare is not the only solution

Yes, everyone is talking about "universal healthcare" asking that in a nation as rich as ours, why can't we provide affordable health insurance to everyone in this country?

However, if you really think about it, this is only part of the solution. As the private health insurance premiums increase each year, more and more people will have to switch to government assisted health programs which would in turn place more burden on the federal budget for which we will have to pay for with our taxes (in other words, higher taxes). Why are the premiums increasing so much? One reason (among so many others) is the escalating medical spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office, healthcare costs are projected to take up 12% of our country's GDP by the year 2030 (as opposed to the nearly 4% it takes up now).

According to the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, the treatment you receive depends heavily on where you live. For example, if you live in Idaho Falls, Idaho, you are 20 times more likely to receive a lumbar fusion than if you lived in say, Bangor, Me – to alleviate the same type of back pain. "The Dartmouth researchers adjust the numbers to take into account age, race and sex, which is another way of saying that there is no good explanation for the huge variations they find." (New York Times)

Why this waste? After the surgery, the patient will more than likely have to take medications. And what about the high cost of prescriptions drugs? Perhaps it's about time our government stops helping the pharma companies with their profits and starts helping us (and themselves) by allowing the government to negotiate for lower drug prices and perhaps even allow the importation of medications from overseas.