Sara Warzecka Columnist

University Medical Center has taken a big and humane step in raising its level of patient care. UMC has begun to cut the cost of health care for people who don't have coverage. According to the Arizona Daily Star, one of six Arizonans went without health insurance in 2002. Most Americans who only have to worry about co-pays don't understand how large a hospital bill can be. In contrast, Canadians never have anything to worry about when it comes to health care.

The Canadian government provides a national health care program for all its citizens. There is no co-pay for medications, doctor's appointments or hospital visits. It's just quality, free health care. After all, if the work force isn't healthy, it can't contribute to the economy and the overall betterment of the nation.

Free health care gets rid of many HMOs and health conglomerates. It takes away from competition.

But better yet, it takes away from the worry of parents who have no health insurance and are waiting for the bill from their child's illness.

Most people in the Southwest aren't necessarily experts on Canada, but just looking at the country's absence from the current news filled with the horrors of death, violence and war, the country seems like a sort of uneventful modern utopia. Canadians have to pay higher taxes for the government to be able to afford free health care. Although most people cringe at higher taxes, it would be worth the extra money to know that every person could depend on the system to actually take care of their individual needs.

If this system works so well in Canada, why hasn't it been enacted in America? Unfortunately, politicians aren't the shining beams of moral light one might hope for. Health care providers carry a lot of financial weight in the government and most politicians care about two things above all: money and re-election.

In the way of a national health care program are the fat cats at the top of health care corporations. They sit on the board of directors and line their pockets while the common man cannot afford all of his prescriptions. They maintain a kind of control over the government so no one can have any "crazy ideas" about government standardized health care.

Often employers provide health insurance for their employees. Health insurance can be purchased separately if not provided. However, many people live in poverty and can hardly afford their electricity, let alone health coverage.

The unemployed and blue-collar workers still deserve quality health care. Everyone needs to know that when they are sick they will be adequately taken care of.

Eliminating current health care companies brings the question of what would happen to these companies' employees. The expectation might be that a national health care program would create a high level of unemployment. As of yet, scientists have been unable to create androids, so the national program would still need employees. There could be an even greater wealth of employment because a government-run health care program could accomplish what private companies could not. Cities could afford to have more than one trauma center. Right now, many cities have a hard time affording one (as was recently a problem in Tucson). More hospitals, clinics, urgent care centers and specialized facilities could be paid for, all needing staff. While health insurance sales would no longer be a valid career, the people currently in this occupation could pursue more worthwhile and less despised medical endeavors. More professionals could work on creating better medicines with fewer side effects and finding the cure for cancer. There would be a greater capacity for overall service and satisfaction. Imagine not having to wait an hour for an appointment!

In the end, people are too selfish to realize the need for a national health care system. Citizens don't want to pay higher taxes. HMOs don't want to go out of business or convert to a single provider without shareholders drooling over profit. Politicians care more about their own re-election and less important matters from their constituents than standing up for programs that would change the way Americans live. Of course, the situation is much more complicated, but it's always much easier to attribute social problems to a lack of human generosity or any other failing of human character.

Perhaps many people are just too self-concerned and selfish to see that the uninsured deserve equal medical treatment even if it means everyone paying a little extra.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone only had to deal with tennis elbow?

Sara Warzecka can't wait to see Michael Moore's upcoming movie on the health care system. You can correct her economic ignorance by e-mailing letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.