LONDON — In America, the health care debate is about to come to a boil. President Barack Obama has put pressure on both houses of Congress to pass versions of his flagship domestic legislative program prior to their August recess.
Opponents are filling the airwaves with the usual litany of lies, damned lies and statistics about socialized medicine and the twin nightmare of bureaucratically rationed health care and high taxes amongst allies like Britain, France and Germany.
So here is a brief overview of health care in some of Europe's biggest economies :
Britain's National Health Service is paid for out of a social security tax. Services are free at the point of provision. No co-pay, no reimbursement. The budget last year was 90 billion pounds (about $148 billion). That makes the average cost per person about 1,500 pounds ($2,463).
The NHS is big — huge, in fact. With 1.5 million employees it is one of the largest employers in the world. Only China's People's Liberation Army, India's state railways and good old Wal-Mart employ more folks. Sixty percent of the NHS budget goes toward salaries.
The French system is run on a compulsory purchase of insurance through the workplace. The insurance cost is based on how much a worker earns. Low-income workers pay nothing. The average contribution per person is about $4,000. The government sets fees for services and negotiates the price of drugs with pharmaceutical companies.
Service is not free at the point of provision. But reimbursement for costs is swift and in the case of catastrophic illness all fees are waived. People are free to purchase supplementary insurance from private companies.
With a compulsory insurance plan, as in France, German care is universal and equitable. Germans pay approximately 14.3 percent of their earnings to buy this insurance. As in France, people are free to buy supplementary private health insurance.
Each system is unique (as are all the systems around Europe) but they have two things in common that make them different from the United States: Coverage is universal and the cost of care as a percentage of GDP is significantly less.
For Europeans — even those who would label themselves conservatives — American attitudes to setting up a universal health care system with strong state participation and management seem bizarre. The peace of mind that comes from knowing that in an emergency you will be taken care of and you won't be financially ruined has no price. Why resist it?
Beccy Ashton, policy adviser at health care think tank The King's Fund, worked for more than half a decade in the U.S. She explains the difference this way: "In Europe healthcare is regarded as a human right. In America, people think of it as a commodity that you buy."
If you look at how the Big Three's health systems came into being you realize changing American attitudes may be difficult.
Britain and France created their systems out of the rubble of World War II. Pushed from below, the leaders of both nations sought to bring greater social equality to their societies. Social security systems were set up with equal access to health care given pride of place.
This wasn't done without facing down doctors and insurance companies, but politicians are never so bold as when the public will for something is clear. In 1945 in both Britain and France, there was no going back to the status quo before the war started.
Germany's system has the weight of history behind it. Its origins can be traced back to the first era of German unification when Chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the First Reich. In the 1880s he set up a system of compulsory health insurance by workers and employers and other forms of social security. He did not invent the system out of nothing. There had been a tradition among the German guilds going back to the Middle Ages of members making compulsory contributions to help their brothers in old age or if a colleague had to stop working because of injury.
Clearly, America at this moment in time has not recently experienced an epoch-shattering historical event like a World War and despite Obama's comparative popularity, he doesn't have the clout of an Iron Chancellor to simply decree what he wants and know that Congress will rubber stamp it.
Beccy Ashton points out, "The President must be aware of the fine line he has to walk. If he goes forward with a radical agenda, he knows you've lost before you've started."
So people in Europe continue to watch with bemusement as American legislators grapple with reforming a system that basically needs to be junked. Professionals like Ashton answer calls from reporters and try to refute right-wing misinformation that floats around the debate. Those damned lies and statistics.
The only statistics on health care systems that really matter are life expectancy and infant mortality. Both speak to accessability and affordability. If you want to know how the U.S., the wealthiest nation on earth, stacks up, here you go:
In life expectancy, the U.S. ranks 38th or 45th depending on whether one uses the United Nation's statistics or those compiled by the CIA. (In both cases, life expectancy in Cuba is higher!)
According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. has many more infant deaths than its EU counterparts or northern socialist (to right-wing ideologues) neighbor, Canada. While the U.S. has 6.26 deaths per live births, Canada had 5.04.
Britain, France and Germany? 4.85, 3.33 and 3.99, respectively.
More on health: