For all of the passion that employers, lawmakers, media outlets, presidential candidates and consumers infuse into the national debate on health care - and rightfully so - I still can't help but wonder why there isn't a similar hue and cry about Americans' lack of retirement readiness.

Senators Clinton and Obama haven't rolled out plans to put the nation's families on a secure path to their golden years. Governors Romney and Huckabee aren't stumping on a platform of retirement plan reform.

Every evening, Americans watch the nightly news and can see stories featuring their fellow citizens who are either uninsured or fighting health insurance companies to cover needed care, but hardly a whisper about how savings rates nationwide are at their lowest point since the Depression era. And filmmaker Michael Moore directed a documentary called "SiCKO," not "BrOKE."

Please don't mistake my intentions in raising this issue. I believe that every U.S. resident has a right to accessible, affordable health care, a belief I know most Americans hold. I also believe our federal government has a large responsibility in making sure residents can lay claim to that right.

At the same time, though, I'm struck that it seems far fewer of us believe that every American also has the right to a secure retirement - to the point that the government should be involved in helping them get there.

True, retirement saving is more an area of personal responsibility than entitlement. Many of us would say that if employees don't save early or adequately, they must reap what they sow - essentially, making do with less.

At the same time, we might also say a lifelong smoker who develops lung cancer still should have access to health care, although the decision to smoke is just as much about personal responsibility as the decision to save money.

However, effectively managing a retirement portfolio, sometimes with multiple accounts, is a difficult undertaking. It's much more difficult than, say, eating healthfully, exercising regularly and not smoking. Yet, as a society, it seems we'd rather allow nonsavers or uneducated savers to be poor than allow the willfully unhealthy to remain sick. Why is that?

I pose the question because columnists Jane White and Rick Meigs outline an Australian law requiring employers to contribute 9% of salary to employees' retirement accounts, up to a ceiling of $145,880. In addition, lawmakers regularly adjust incentives to further encourage workers to save on their own, including catch-up contributions that allow employees over age 50 to save up to $100,000 per year.

For all the talk of mandates on the state and federal level regarding health care, there is no similar discussion about retirement. White and Meigs offer their proposals to change that, and I'd like to hear what you think. Should U.S. employers be required to contribute to employees' 401(k)s?

Currently, the Society for Human Resource Management reports that 83% of U.S. employers offer employees a defined contribution retirement plan, and 74% provide matching contributions. Is your company among them? If not, how would you feel about being forced to do so? Would government involvement in this issue do more harm than good?

I look forward to an ongoing dialogue with EBN readers on this topic, as well as bringing you our coverage throughout the year on strategies and successes in improving employees' retirement saving habits.

Visit http://ebn.podhoster.com for a "Five Minutes With ..." podcast of this editorial, featuring more from White and industry experts on whether the Australian retirement system could/should be transferred to the United States. Send letters, queries and story ideas to Editor in Chief Kelley Butler at kelley.butler@sourcemedia.com.