President Obama's health care approach has been described as "socialist," a buzz term intended to elicit fear.

Critics suggest a public option will drive private insurance companies out of business. If you believe the U.S. Postal Service has driven UPS and FedEx out of business, the fear is justified.

Critics berate government-supported systems in other countries, conveniently ignoring basic facts. According to a CTV poll, 91 percent of Canadians prefer their system over the U.S. private system. In France, 65 percent are satisfied with their system compared to just 40 percent in the U.S.

Wait time?

A Commonwealth Fund survey finds that 60 percent of Dutch patients receive same-day care compared to just 26 percent in the U.S.

In every system, services are denied for questionable reasons.

My grandson needs a sensor to supplement his insulin pump to better control his diabetes, but in spite of his physician's efforts to demonstrate need, his insurance company has denied coverage.

In a public option, there will be administrative people between you and your physician, but if you have private health insurance, there are also middle people whose job is to protect the company's profit margin.

We need a system that provides health care for our most vulnerable. It must be fiscally viable and offer meaningful choices.

We spend 16 percent of our GDP on health care, more than any other nation. The net result? We rank 50th out of 224 countries in life expectancy, 46th in infant mortality. We can do better.

Lloyd M. Hulit

Normal