The American Health Care system prides itself on providing high quality services to citizens who normally cannot afford them. It's been in place for years and until now has done a fairly decent job. The problem today is money; the cost of hospital services and physician fees are rising faster than ever before. Government has been trying to come up with a new plan even though strong opposition against the idea of a new Health Care system exists.

There are arguments to be made for both sides of the aisle, but money seems to be the common concern. Both sides want to save money, but in different ways. The movement for change believes that there is a need because the system was not designed to face the problems it does today. Every month, 2 million Americans lose their insurance. One out of four or 63 million Americans, will lose their health insurance coverage for some period during the next two years. 37 million Americans have no insurance and another 22 million have inadequate coverage.

Losing or changing a job often means losing insurance. Becoming ill or living with a chronic medical condition can mean losing insurance coverage or not being able to obtain it. Long-term care coverage is inadequate. Many elderly and disabled Americans enter nursing homes and other institutions when they would prefer to remain at home. Families exhaust their savings trying to provide for disabled relatives. Many Americans in inner cities and rural areas do not have access to quality care, due to either poor distribution of physicians, nurses, hospitals, clinics and/or support services. Public health services are not well integrated and coordinated with the personal care delivery system. Many serious health problems -- such as lead poisoning and drug-resistant tuberculosis -- are handled inefficiently or not at all.

Perception of family physicians is another leading problem in health care. Under our current system, specialists can take any patient they want without a referral (assuming insurance/payment is guaranteed), further, that specialist can provide a patient with primary care in addition to their own specialty.

The reduction in the number of primary care physicians has resulted in specialists taking on some of the workload left behind. But the question remains, are they truly the best qualified to provide primary level care? One could argue that since a cardiologist has had some training as an internist before their fellowship, that they are qualified as general practitioners. Conversely, a physician trained specifically in primary care cannot legally, ethically, or morally provide cardiology based services. But is the cardiologist really suited to handling a patient's primary care needs?

The more a specialist sees patients for primary care purposes (and they do, because economically, it adds to their practice) the less time they have to pursue knowledge and research in their respective field. In the United States, the whole idea of having specialists is having "the best and brightest in their field."

If a new crop of primary care physicians could be cultivated, they could focus more on community health and expand practices (in general, not just a few) to house calls, free clinics, and off-hours clinics. In this way health care could be made more accessible and affordable to those who typically need it most: the low-income, elderly, uninsured or underinsured.