CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Despite vast resources related to medical science, the United States remains one of the few industrialized countries in the world without universal health coverage for its citizens.

Health-care quality outcomes such as life expectancy, obesity and infant mortality rates reflect the system of health-care delivery. Namely, the United States ranks 37th among nations of the world according to a World Health Organization year 2000 report, despite spending twice what most other industrialized countries spend on health care.

Here in West Virginia, life expectancies are some of the lowest in the nation. A Harvard University study from 2008 revealed that life expectancies in West Virginian counties are lower than the national average, and life expectancy in Mingo, Logan and McDowell counties are in the lowest 1 percent. Nearly 17 percent of West Virginians are uninsured. Studies demonstrate that the uninsured do not have adequate access to health care and therefore die sooner than their insured counterparts.

At the heart of the health-care debacle lie corporate interests. Corporate structure is, by definition, at odds with providing affordable, quality health care. Although not necessarily for profit, the vast majority of corporations involved in medical insurance, pharmaceuticals and health-care delivery are designed with and defined by one primary goal: to provide a return for their shareholders. Corporations also hold limited liability as a central tenant. As such, they are empowered to make decisions encouraging profit at the sacrifice of quality without full liability.

In a sense, physicians assume some of the liability for the corporations, despite having less control over their patients' access to diagnostic testing or treatment. Ultimately, neither patients nor health-care providers are best served by the current health-care system.

Unless there is a shift in power from the corporations controlling access and administration of health care to the people who need it and their physicians, patient wellness will decline while the profits of the health-care corporations grow. More money for less coverage and less coverage for those who need it most is the result.

Sen. John McCain's health-care plan emphasizes a shift from the employer-provided model to one of the individual competing in the health-care marketplace. Although he supports vouchers to defray costs, health-care benefits would then be taxed, erasing the benefits an employer would have to provide health insurance to an employee.

For an average family, the $5,000 voucher McCain would provide would not even cover one-half of the $12,000 average annual cost of health care for families. Individuals would have to compete in the free market searching for affordable health insurance. In this model, those who are the most expensive to take care of, such as people with chronic debilitating diseases, cancer and traumatic injury, would be unable to afford health insurance, as is often the case now. The burden of their care would shift even further to taxpayers. Ultimately, only the wealthy and the healthy would be able to afford private insurance.

This situation is not at all hard to imagine, as it is only slightly worse than the state of health care in the United States at present. Health care availability would grow worse with McCain. Recent nonpartisan studies estimate that the McCain plan would result in an additional 20 million people uninsured nationwide.

For decades, meaningful change in health care has been actively campaigned against with misleading propaganda and fear mongering. During the first presidential debate, McCain implied that Sen. Barack Obama's health-care plan would be "handing the health care system over to the federal government."

The statement was short, but it was meant to reintroduce the fear of "socialized medicine."

"Socialized medicine" has been equated to fascism, and numerous health-care lobbies have used the expression to defeat health-care reforms that threaten corporate profits. Despite the fact that our educational system is "socialized," that our highway systems and roads are "socialized," and that every other industrialized democracy has a system of universal health care that could be described as "socialized," the technique has been effective.

Neither McCain nor Sarah Palin has attempted to sell their woeful health-care plan, as it is a hard pill to swallow. Instead, they have attacked the Obama plan describing it as handing health care over to the federal government. This is simply not true.

Obama's plan is not true "universal" health care. It is, however, achievable. It is a dramatic step toward affordable health care for all.

Under his plan, no American could be denied coverage. A health care "exchange," which amounts to a governmental watchdog of private industry, would ensure that health care is available and affordable. The private insurance industry would be prevented from shifting costs to taxpayers, and ingenuity regarding efficiency, disease prevention/wellness and health-care delivery would be encouraged. The Obama plan puts the health care of everyday Americans first, while the McCain plan is designed to protect the health and record profits of the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations and their executives.

This November, citizens of the United States, and we as West Virginians, are being asked a simple question. Do we vote to protect the ever-increasing profits of the corporations that control our health-care system, or do we vote to improve the health and lives of Americans?

Dr. Curtis is a primary care doctor in Fayette County who is board certified in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology. He is a National Health Service Corp Scholar and a graduate of the Marshall University School of Medicine.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Despite vast resources related to medical science, the United States remains one of the few industrialized countries in the world without universal health coverage for its citizens.

Health-care quality outcomes such as life expectancy, obesity and infant mortality rates reflect the system of health-care delivery. Namely, the United States ranks 37th among nations of the world according to a World Health Organization year 2000 report, despite spending twice what most other industrialized countries spend on health care.

Here in West Virginia, life expectancies are some of the lowest in the nation. A Harvard University study from 2008 revealed that life expectancies in West Virginian counties are lower than the national average, and life expectancy in Mingo, Logan and McDowell counties are in the lowest 1 percent. Nearly 17 percent of West Virginians are uninsured. Studies demonstrate that the uninsured do not have adequate access to health care and therefore die sooner than their insured counterparts.

At the heart of the health-care debacle lie corporate interests. Corporate structure is, by definition, at odds with providing affordable, quality health care. Although not necessarily for profit, the vast majority of corporations involved in medical insurance, pharmaceuticals and health-care delivery are designed with and defined by one primary goal: to provide a return for their shareholders. Corporations also hold limited liability as a central tenant. As such, they are empowered to make decisions encouraging profit at the sacrifice of quality without full liability.

In a sense, physicians assume some of the liability for the corporations, despite having less control over their patients' access to diagnostic testing or treatment. Ultimately, neither patients nor health-care providers are best served by the current health-care system.

Unless there is a shift in power from the corporations controlling access and administration of health care to the people who need it and their physicians, patient wellness will decline while the profits of the health-care corporations grow. More money for less coverage and less coverage for those who need it most is the result.

Sen. John McCain's health-care plan emphasizes a shift from the employer-provided model to one of the individual competing in the health-care marketplace. Although he supports vouchers to defray costs, health-care benefits would then be taxed, erasing the benefits an employer would have to provide health insurance to an employee.

For an average family, the $5,000 voucher McCain would provide would not even cover one-half of the $12,000 average annual cost of health care for families. Individuals would have to compete in the free market searching for affordable health insurance. In this model, those who are the most expensive to take care of, such as people with chronic debilitating diseases, cancer and traumatic injury, would be unable to afford health insurance, as is often the case now. The burden of their care would shift even further to taxpayers. Ultimately, only the wealthy and the healthy would be able to afford private insurance.

This situation is not at all hard to imagine, as it is only slightly worse than the state of health care in the United States at present. Health care availability would grow worse with McCain. Recent nonpartisan studies estimate that the McCain plan would result in an additional 20 million people uninsured nationwide.

For decades, meaningful change in health care has been actively campaigned against with misleading propaganda and fear mongering. During the first presidential debate, McCain implied that Sen. Barack Obama's health-care plan would be "handing the health care system over to the federal government."

The statement was short, but it was meant to reintroduce the fear of "socialized medicine."

"Socialized medicine" has been equated to fascism, and numerous health-care lobbies have used the expression to defeat health-care reforms that threaten corporate profits. Despite the fact that our educational system is "socialized," that our highway systems and roads are "socialized," and that every other industrialized democracy has a system of universal health care that could be described as "socialized," the technique has been effective.

Neither McCain nor Sarah Palin has attempted to sell their woeful health-care plan, as it is a hard pill to swallow. Instead, they have attacked the Obama plan describing it as handing health care over to the federal government. This is simply not true.

Obama's plan is not true "universal" health care. It is, however, achievable. It is a dramatic step toward affordable health care for all.

Under his plan, no American could be denied coverage. A health care "exchange," which amounts to a governmental watchdog of private industry, would ensure that health care is available and affordable. The private insurance industry would be prevented from shifting costs to taxpayers, and ingenuity regarding efficiency, disease prevention/wellness and health-care delivery would be encouraged. The Obama plan puts the health care of everyday Americans first, while the McCain plan is designed to protect the health and record profits of the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations and their executives.

This November, citizens of the United States, and we as West Virginians, are being asked a simple question. Do we vote to protect the ever-increasing profits of the corporations that control our health-care system, or do we vote to improve the health and lives of Americans?

Dr. Curtis is a primary care doctor in Fayette County who is board certified in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology. He is a National Health Service Corp Scholar and a graduate of the Marshall University School of Medicine.