Year after year the system is decried as unacceptable. Experts struggle to understand its intricacies, laymen suffer under its implications, and all but a chosen few voice opinionated outrage over its perceived injustices. And as bad as the BCS bowl methodology is, I'm actually talking about health care.

Patently, the stakes surrounding it are unspeakably higher than the consequences of who plays for roses on New Year's Day; unfortunately, the confusion surrounding it is worse. Voices across the political spectrum-from "Sicko" to Hannity-flood Americans with information and potential answers. Truth is ultimately found in the moderate middle ground, a part of which is the undeniable fact that the current system has serious flaws.

A common query from the political left is how the nation will pay for its rapidly increasing health care costs. A more appropriate starting point is an inquiry into why the costs are so astronomical to begin with. Legal regulations are driving administrative costs to dizzying heights while rampant lawsuits launch malpractice insurance rates to obscene record levels. Additional problems include a general lack of information available to consumers and health care providers alike; further, significant limitations exist on the portability of consumers' insurance plans. Even the problem of misread prescriptions, as simple as it may seem, costs tens of millions of dollars every year. Each one of these problems is fixable; none require the implementation of universal health care.

Those in favor of universal health care often point to the fact that its average costs are slightly lower. This is true - though the reason is not an intrinsic or magical effect of the government taxing its people and spending for them. Rather, universal health care systems throughout the world have simply found ways to resolve many of the problems noted above (for example, Canada has very low lawsuit limits). It follows then that a proper public policy could secure the benefits of reduced costs and more equitable care while avoiding the pathologies of a universal structure.

Doing so becomes critical in light of the extremely positive elements already at work within our current system. U.S. pharmaceutical companies and medical research institutions lead the world in innovation. Talented foreign doctors routinely leave their home countries to practice in ours as universal health care results in lower pay for medical professionals. American patients generally receive timely care, whereas patients elsewhere frequently await treatment for years (a powerful illustration of the difference between universal health care and universal health coverage). Any push toward universal reform threatens to destroy these positive aspects of American health care. As citizens, we would do well to consider our system's advantages with greater optimism and its drawbacks with heightened realism.

Finally, it is important to address the false notion that to take a conservative stance on health care is to ignore the needs of the poor and disadvantaged. In this we may profitably borrow an insight from former Gov. Mitt Romney, who points out that uninsured Americans are already receiving medical care. A hospital would never - thank goodness - deny assistance to an individual having a heart attack just because he or she was uninsured.

Unfortunately, treatment for the uninsured is typically expensive emergency room care for problems that often could have been avoided by preventative measures at a much smaller cost. The high price of this emergency care is covered by the taxes and steep premiums of the citizens already insured. By restructuring the system, private insurance can become more affordable for all citizens, and the high cost of covering the uninsured in emergency situations can be mitigated.

Universal health care is the answer to this issue in the same way that peace is the answer to war: it looks slick in print and makes for great sound bytes. But as America addresses this critical matter, it is imperative that she not abandon the practical economic principles of competition and free market that have helped position her as a world leader in medical care, research, and innovation. "Conservative principles," observes Mr. Romney, "have the answers for health care."

Seth Ensign is from Sandy and is an international relations major.

Copyright Brigham Young University 3 Dec 2007