In recent months and years, the current health insurance controversy has played a big role in political discourse throughout the country. The subjects of medical insurance coverage, health insurance premiums and the government's involvement in both have been the crux of much heated debate, from the White House to the neighborhood pub. There are a couple of very distinct and very different viewpoints in this overall debate.

One side of the health insurance controversy believes that because America is a capitalistic society that has a business paradigm and insurance companies are big businesses, the government should not be allowed to regulate profits or costs beyond any business laws that they already regulate for other businesses. Proponents of this argument also feel that a government mandated or government run health insurance program would feature medical services, medical professionals and medical facilities of a less than superior quality.

The reasoning behind this argument is that, in a capitalistic society, money not altruism drives the market and the value of commerce. More gifted doctors and researchers will be attracted to jobs that pay more than others and the private sector of the health industry will be able to offer them considerably more pay than a government sponsored program.

The other side of the health insurance controversy is virtually the opposite. Proponents of this argument say that there should be no private sector in the health industry at all and that insurance companies should not be allowed to profit but only charge health insurance premiums that cover their overhead costs of operations.

Also argued from this vantage point is that many modern, Westernized countries such as Japan, Sweden, Canada and France all follow this same paradigm of a not for profit health insurance company and a government run health care program. All of these countries have achieved great success with their approach to the health care industry. Proponents of this argument would adamantly argue that no person should be forced to live without medical coverage because they cannot afford expensive health insurance premiums that are designed to allow a huge profit margin for insurance companies.

They would also argue that if quality were at stake and there was no private sector at all, medical professionals would have no option to go to a higher paying company and would do their work, still at a very high wage, for the government run health care program.

Regardless of where your opinion falls in the health insurance controversy, several laws have already been passed which will change this industry. It appears that for now, lawmakers are trying to appease both sides with laws that do not favor one camp much over the other.