Even President George W. Bush has noticed that something is wrong with the American health care system. In his State of the Union speech last week, he said that “for many people, health care costs too much – and many have no coverage at all.” However, he said, “these problems will not be solved with a nationalized health care system that dictates coverage and rations care.”
His dismissal of that approach fits his ideology, but it doesn’t square with the statistics from countries that have nationalized health care systems which dictate coverage and ration care.
Those numbers show that Americans pay more and get less. In 2004, we spent 16 percent of our Gross Domestic Product – $1.9 trillion – on health care. On average, advanced industrial nations with nationalized health-care systems spend 9 percent. Japan and Great Britain each spend about 7.5 percent.
Are we twice as healthy because we spend twice as much of our resources on health care?
Not even close. The two common measures of public health are life expectancy at birth and the infant mortality rate, expressed as the number of babies, per 1,000 live births, who do not live to their first birthday. Our life expectancy was 77.3 years in 2001. Britain’s was 77.8 and Japan’s was 80.8. Our infant mortality rate was 6.8. Britain’s was 5.5 and Japan’s was 3.9.
Great Britain and Japan aren’t exceptions. Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain – they all spend less and get more than we do. So there’s no rational economic argument in favor of the current American health care system, which is expensive and inefficient.
There may be a political argument in favor of our system (perhaps that it enriches lobbies which make campaign contributions), but if so, it’s an argument that never leaves our shores. That is, have you ever heard of a French or Spanish politician promising “to provide an American-style health care system if elected”?
I can’t say I follow foreign elections all that closely, but I’ve never read of such a campaign promise. I suspect it would be political suicide in any civilized country. You’d think that if our system were all that good, some other nation would want to emulate it, but even the conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did not attempt to replace Britain’s socialized health care system with something along the American lines.
Further, note the hypocrisy in the president’s statement. He gets medical care from the federal government, which “dictates care” for him. Why is that bad for us if it’s good enough for him?
Also, he says a national system would “ration care.” So does our current system. It “rations care” with money. If you have money, you can buy health care, regardless of actual medical need. Why do you think we see all those horrible televised commercials urging one to “ask your doctor to prescribe Cozinal,” even if “side effects may include respiratory failure, pulmonary collapse, cardiac arrest, nausea, diarrhea, sexual dysfunction and boils”?
But for some reason, we’re scared to do what other countries do and set up a system that costs less and provides more. President Harry Truman tried and failed, as did President Bill Clinton.
So perhaps we should try the other approach. Get government out of health care altogether, and go to a free market. If my aches trouble me some morning, I should be free to consult an acupuncturist, phrenologist, faith healer, publican or shaman. Or to self-medicate with some plant from my garden. Why is it any business of the government’s?
The White House wants to move to a more consumer-driven health care system, in the belief that it will improve care and reduce costs. If that’s true, then why stop at half measures? Get the government totally out of the system and see what happens.
Or go with what we know works, and provide national health care like other industrial democracies. Either would have to be an improvement on the current system.
Ed Quillen of Salida is a former newspaper editor whose column appears Tuesday and Sunday.
