America is at a crossroads. Either we fix the nation's broken health-care system or we let it continue to deteriorate, costing more and covering fewer people.

There will be people who argue that this is the wrong time to overhaul the health-care system. The Obama Administration has too much on its plate, they'll say, and major reform will be too expensive for a country in a severe financial crisis.

But what may seem like the worst possible timing could be the best opportunity we'll have for another decade. It's taken longer than that for the country to revisit the issue following Hillary Clinton's attempt. And the public wants change. Even health care's big players know this or they wouldn't have suddenly come forward with a proposal to "work together" to reduce costs.

The problem is, Americans aren't sold on how to fix health care. And many politicians are timid, concerned about everything from the cost of reform to their own financial support from health-care companies and being labeled "socialist."

Michigan Democrat John Conyers was in Rochester May 30 to talk about the health-care reform many of us think is essential: single-payer, universal coverage. Joining him at a standing-room-only forum at the Museum and Science Center's Eisenhart Auditorium were New York Representative Eric Massa, actress and activist Mimi Kennedy, and University of Rochester professor Theodore Brown. The event, sponsored by numerous local political, health-care, and faith-community groups, was part of a national dialogue on health-care reform involving 50 cities.

Conyers is the second-longest-serving Representative in Congress, and he's been working on health-care reform for more than a decade. Currently, he's promoting his universal, single-payer bill, HR 676, "The US National Healthcare Act." At the Eisenhart, he spoke with a sense of urgency: President Obama wants to sign a health-care bill before the end of the year. But he is unfortunately heading down the same path that Hillary Clinton did, Conyers said. He's listening to industry representatives, not medical practitioners and patients. Counting on Democrats in Congress is risky, too, Conyers said. Even though Democrats control all three branches of government, getting a bill through the House and Senate by December will be difficult, Conyers said.

He's right.

Conyers' bill, which basically expands Medicare to everyone, has 75 co-sponsors so far. Former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca and consumer advocate Ralph Nader - an odd couple if there ever was one - support HR 676, Conyers said. But Representative Louise Slaughter hasn't signed on. And Senator Chuck Schumer hasn't pushed for a companion bill in the Senate. Even someone as liberal as Representative Charlie Rangel, Conyers said, is trying to keep universal coverage off the table, apparently more comfortable tinkering around the edges of the current system.

Tinkering won't get us the system we need. As Conyers noted last week, the health-care crisis is hard-wired into the country's economic crisis, because our health-care system remains linked to employers. If we want to keep American businesses competitive, employers need relief. The current system doesn't reflect today's employment trends: people change jobs frequently. And even Americans who have health-care coverage know they could lose their job and their insurance at any time.

Only universal coverage addresses these concerns. Whether someone is employed at a high-paying professional job, working part-time, or has lost their job shouldn't matter. We would all benefit if everyone received quality health care. Minor changes to the current system will pass on the true costs of the uninsured to the taxpayer. We're all footing the bill, and the tab is getting higher.

Worse, millions of Americans suffer and thousands die each year because they don't have adequate health care.

The question of universal coverage is really a moral one. And Democrats, including Obama, must be held accountable, since they promised to take the higher ground.