America is engaged in an unpleasant shouting match over whether and how to change our broken national healthcare system. Here's the current situation: 47 million Americans have no health insurance, though we spend $7,000 per American on healthcare. Every other developed nation has universal health care, spending half as much - $3,500 per capita. Our population is aging. New medical procedures appear regularly. Without change, future costs will rise. David Walker, former US Controller General, and head of the Peterson (economic) Foundation, calculates US unfunded healthcare liabilities at $35 TRILLION, absent any system change. Relying on employers to provide healthcare is inefficient - the citizen pays for this indirectly, through higher prices and jobs lost to overseas competitors. Employees insured under company plans lose coverage when they lose or change jobs. Catastrophic illness not covered by insurance is a major cause of personal bankruptcies. Our present system is unsustainable, both economically and morally, but most Americans - those with coverage and without an expensive medical condition - are generally satisfied. The long term national moral and financial implications seem of little concern to this large group. How are RED and BLUE addressing healthcare? BLUE concentrates on the uninsured and on catastrophic expenses and bankruptcies, the moral side of the equation. To help finance mandated universal coverage, BLUE proposes undemonstrated "efficiencies" and higher taxes on the "rich." RED calls BLUE's proposed mandated wider coverage "socialistic." RED is rightly concerned about adding to the national debt, but RED uses scare tactics and misinformation, hoping BLUE will fail to fix the problem. Assessing the ethics and patriotism of this negative strategy is left to the reader. What does a PURPLE observer suggest? First, lower your voices. Americans all have a stake in a crafting a better, cheaper system. RED and BLUE are each half right; financially, we must have a less costly system; morally, we need universal coverage. How do we achieve these seemingly incompatible goals? Any health program must first prevent illness. Obesity is a major American problem; think "education" about a healthy diet and exercise. Poor air quality, toxic chemicals, and addictive substances are other health hazards. Research may find the causes of cancer, autism and Alzheimer's disease, facilitating prevention. But people will still get sick, needing healthcare - doctors, nurses, hospitals, medications, medical procedures. Why is our present system more expensive than Canada's, Japan's or Germany's? Some reasons: Our system lacks incentives to discourage excessive treatment. Doctors and hospitals are paid per procedure, and fear mal-practice litigation, both incentives to over-prescribe. Patients can demand extra treatments at no personal cost. Uninsured people end up in costly-to-operate hospital emergency rooms. Insurance companies compete through low premiums, made possible by denying coverage to policy holders who are high risk. The normal economic "brakes" of cost vs. benefit are missing, and the profit motive interferes with coverage of high risk patients. We need to consider how other nations have addressed these problems. Finally, after investing in prevention, and correcting the system's excesses, to be morally comfortable we need some form of universal coverage. Here, RED screams "socialized medicine." But Medicare and Medicaid are already government-run, as are our fire and police departments. Would RED recommend turning those over to private contractors? Relying on employers to provide healthcare is inefficient - the citizen pays for this indirectly, through higher prices and jobs lost to overseas competitors. Raising the retirement age, and the salary limits on payroll charges to support Medicare are options, but bypass the self-employed. Finally, who should pay for healthcare? Here, RED and BLUE have been too silent. The only source of health-care funds is, directly or indirectly, the US citizen - you and me. How we pay is important, but that we pay less is essential to our national financial survival. But any savings will impact those now profiting from the current system. They will make change politically difficult. Finally, we face a question of national character: Are those who are currently healthy willing to pay for the illnesses of those who are not, recognizing that "there but for the grace of God go I?" Or will they close their eyes to the needs of those less fortunate? Most other developed societies have gone the former, moral route, at less cost than our broken system imposes. Shouldn't we work to emulate them, rather than continuing our shouting match? Isn't this a great chance to meet across party lines to design a cost-effective, moral system worthy of America, for which both RED and BLUE can take credit?