TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
30.05.2008
Earth to McCain: Universal Health Care Actually Works

If you've heard John McCain talk about health care lately, then you've heard him suggest that Democratic plans for universal health insurance would lead to long waits, higher costs, inferior care, etc.--since that's what they get in Europe.

As I've mentioned before, one of the many, many flaws with this argument is that the people in those countries don't seem to agree. Their systems have problems--some more than others--but overall people in the larger, more advanced European countries seem more content with their health insurance arrangements than most Americans are with theirs.

Today's news brings yet more evidence of this. On behalf of the International Herald Tribune and France 24 television, Harris Interactive surveyed people in the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. The findings? Four out of five Americans say the system needs fundamental changes or a complete overhaul--the highest of all the countries surveyed.

Just to be clear, the number of dissatisfied people was pretty high in most of the countries. But in the other countries, it's more people calling for "fundamental changes" rather than a "complete rebuilding." And, having just spent some time in these countries, I suspect a lot of that is concern over long-term financing. They want to sustain what they have--and are worried that, given medical care's escalating costs, they will have trouble doing so in the future. It's a valid concern but, of course, one that only makes their systems look even better relative to ours, since they already spend far less than we do.

In any event, the citizens of one country actually did seem pretty satisfied with their health care system. That country is France. But this is hardly surprising. People who follow health care closely--like Ezra Klein, Victor Rodwin, and, yes, me--have been talking up the French system for a while. French national health insurance offers convenience, a high level of services, plus universal coverage--again, all at a significantly lower price tag than in the U.S. The system is far from perfect, but, overall, it seems like a far better deal than what we give our citizens.

--Jonathan Cohn 

Posted: Friday, May 30, 2008 10:51 AM with 5 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

dylanposer said:

I don't understand why Republican campaigns feel the need to point to Europe as case studies for how scenerios would play out in America.  He could score just as many points with his base by directing attention to how Massachusetts (those liberal, Kennedy-fearing freaks) operates with their mandatory health care law, a state where long waits for doctors exists.   Of course, he'd  be undercutting Romney, who oversaw the implementation of Massachsetts's health care law.  

Is it possible that John McCain is still weighing Romney as his heir?

May 30, 2008 11:53 AM

liberal reformer said:

John McCain is using that old warhorse of an argument in an attempt to scare people. This line has long been a favorite of the right. Besides France, and though it is not in Europe, Taiwan has a very good health care system after they revamped it about a decade ago. You have written eloquently of their triumph.

May 30, 2008 12:04 PM

ironyroad said:

"Doesn't work" is just a kind of creepy Republican code for "we don't want universal health care as it will take the corporate profit element out."

May 30, 2008 12:12 PM

dpinkert said:

I don't see how any of the plans on the table for the United States would "take the corporate profit element out."  What am I missing?

Another question:  To the extent that individual mandates are in play in this country, do any of the foreign systems provide useful information?  It just doesn't cut it to talk about "universal coverage" as though the same economic principles apply to any system based upon that objective.  

May 30, 2008 1:13 PM

ironyroad said:

I agree that a public health insurance company doesn't seem to be on the cards at the moment, but still, "universal coverage" generally means just that -- so even if the system still works through private plans, profitability can't be secured by refusal of membership in a plan or refusal of specific coverage.  And we may actually see not-for-profit models emerging with time.

But it just occurred to me:  if the private/corporate dimension is going to be retained in any foreseeable reform, as you suggest, why is the Republican obsession with "socialized medicine" still howling away?

May 30, 2008 2:30 PM