While we always want to make some call girl jokes when talking about former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, we also remember that the man has a formidable background in politics and issues surrounding certain topics. And while we never quite heard this before, apparently one of those topics is health care, easily the most debated issue in Congress today.

But for some, like Spitzer, the issue isn't just about the uninsured. It's also about the wealth disparities.

In a guest column for the online magazine Slate.com, Spitzer writes:

The debate about bank bailouts and health care is missing a critical piece of context: The American economy hasn't been working for the working- and middle class for decades. It is impossible to determine who should pay for what or whether it is "fair" to ask the wealthy to contribute more to the health care of those who are uninsured, without better understanding the winners and losers in the U.S. economy over the past several decades.

The case Spitzer argues is that in order to help create a better health system that addresses our true needs and - rather importantly - how to pay for that sort of health system, we need to look at issues surrounding health disparity.

He uses quite a bit of space with data that shows how the distribution of wealth has shifted in the last 40 years. Citing the creation of a middle class in the late 1940s, Spitzer says that many in that class has either risen to high economic ranks or sunk to the low end of the quintile, a descent that began in the late 1960s. One statistic he quotes is: "The top 1 percent of all income earners garnered 21.8 percent of all income in 2005, up from 8.9 percent in 1976."

Because this gap has widen to Grand Canyon-esque proportions, Spitzer argues this disparity should be addressed when discussing national health care plans, especially when debating who will foot the bill.

Spitzer writes:

But the significance of this 40-year cycle of income distribution may be playing out most clearly in the context of health care. One of the current debates is how to pay for the costs of expanded access to health insurance. A restructuring of the system will save some money, but more will be needed, and one proposal is to get it from a higher tax on the upper strata of income earners. Given income distribution trends over the past four decades, it is difficult not to support asking wealthier Americans for some help in closing the gap in our effort to give all Americans health insurance.

Regardless of whether you're a yay or nay on this idea, be ready for the calls of socialism when you read the comments for this editorial (or when and if you ever present these ideas to your friends at the next cocktail party). And be prepared for some math. Brother comes equipped with some statistics. Read the rest of his editorial here.