Millions of Americans either have inadequate health insurance or no health insurance at all. Some people believe that the United States should implement universal health insurance as a solution.

While public health insurance was implemented on a limited scale in the United States, the program has many theoretical and proven flaws. Besides universal health insurance, other proposals also exist. While health care coverage needs help, there are better alternatives to universal public health insurance.

From my understanding, universal health insurance is government administered, all- purpose health insurance that would cover all U.S. citizens. The idea sounds great in theory, but that type of insurance could also produce significant problems.

With universal health insurance, the choice of doctor and type of medical care could be restricted — a problem that already exists with private HMOs. According to the Web site (www.whitehouse.gov), Medicare cost more than $220 billion last year. Universal health insurance would be even more expensive. While these possibilities are theoretical, an example of a flawed universal health insurance already exists.

The U.S. Armed Forces currently uses a health insurance program called TriCare. Active-duty members are required to enroll in one out of three versions of the program.

When the government originally implemented it, I remember soldiers and their families complaining about TriCare problems. Regular medical appointments, such as annual physicals or other exams, sometimes took weeks to schedule. TriCare would not initially pay if a soldier used an unauthorized medical provider, even during an emergency.

Many civilian doctors would not accept TriCare because they would either be reimbursed late or at lower-than-desired rates.

After service members lodged numerous complaints, the government finally instituted reform efforts for TriCare. While the TriCare reform efforts are admirable, I personally believe private solutions would be better than TriCare or similar universal health insurance.

One such proposal is medical savings accounts. In this proposal, people would receive inexpensive “catastrophic” health insurance and the savings would be put into an IRA-type account. Health insurance would pay for a medical emergency, and the account money would pay for medical non-emergencies.

Forbes, Inc., has implemented this type of health coverage for its employees, and seen positive results. Insurance premium costs have dropped because most employees use account money to pay for routine medical care. The “catastrophic” insurance is still available to cover medical emergencies if they arise. For Forbes employees, this solution provides quality health care at an economical cost.

Along with this proposal, other solutions with limited government involvement might work.

One such solution is health insurance tax credits. In this proposition, tax credits would be given to lower-income people or small businesses to help defray the costs for private health insurance. My aunt, Rose Chu, co-wrote a study for the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration that showed small businesses pay proportionally more for employee health insurance despite their smaller size.

Health insurance tax credits could help small businesses provide better private health insurance to employees without the problems from universal public insurance. At less government expense, tax credits could help lower income people afford their own choice of a private plan.

Limited government solutions and the preservation of private health insurance may help solve some of the problems with health care.

Admittedly, health insurance and health care in the United States need reform. However, while reforming health care, one should remember the Hippocratic oath: “… First do no harm.”

Eugene Chu is a junior political science major from Arlington.