Michael Goldfarb serves as a GlobalPost correspondent in the United Kingdom, where this article first appeared.

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.

Good luck.

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. (See related GlobalPost story “Why French doctors still make house calls.”)

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 accessibility 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.

Other health links from GlobalPost:

Winter in the time of swine flu

Coming home from school with strawberry condoms

(Pictured above: Healthcare reform supporters rally outside U.S. Senator Sam Brownback’s office in Overland Park, Kansas, July 9, 2009. REUTERS/Carey Gillam)

– Brian Lee Crowley is the founding president of Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), a public policy think tank in Canada (pictured left) and Valentin Petkantchin is director of research at the Paris-and Brussels-based Institut économique Molinari. The views expressed are their own. –

President Barack Obama’s package of heathcare reforms – mandatory health insurance, public health option and increased federal government financing – is being sold as preserving independent high quality care and choice for patients while keeping down costs. Taxpayers and patients in both Canada and France know better.

Unfortunately, our experience is that once the government gets its nose in the healthcare tent, not only is spending not contained, but health care professionals lose their freedom to practice. Left with few choices, patients face shortages and waiting lists.

Washington’s proposed new public health insurance option, while not imposing Canadian-style single-payer monopolistic public health insurance immediately, will almost certainly lead to that result in the end.

One of two things will happen. If doctors prove reluctant to accept patients covered by the public option and it is thus unable to compete successfully with private insurers, the politicians will not stand idly by.

Physicians’ freedom to practice outside the public option will become increasingly hedged with restrictions, perhaps ultimately ending up, as in Canada, with doctors in the public system being prohibited from taking private patients.

Or, more plausibly, in the short term at least, private insurers will gradually withdraw from the business, incapable of winning against a government-subsidized “competitor.”

In both cases, competition in the health insurance sector will progressively vanish and the U.S. will wake up with a monopolistic-style health insurance system, à la France or Canada.

Consider yourself warned.

Our respective health care systems have proven incapable of reining in rising costs. Health spending in France, while lower than the U.S., is among the highest in the world, whatever the indicator, despite decades of mandatory, subsidized health insurance. After 1988, the public health care system has regularly been in the red, with deficits numbered in the billions of euros. The forecast deficit for 2009 alone: 9.4 billion euros (over US$13 billion).

French officials are scrambling to take more control of the system to bring these costs down, but Canada, where government controls all “medically necessary care,” shows that this is no solution at all. A growing share of Canadian provincial budgets is also swallowed by the health care system, going in 20 years (1983-2003) from 32% to 41% and on the way to 50% in a few short years. As a portion of GDP, and adjusting for population age, Canadian health care spending even ranked ahead of France’s in 2005.

But the oxymoron of government cost containment is not the only problem. In the name of restraining costs – so fashionable currently in Washington – governments are adding further inefficiencies by piling on more bureaucracy.

Since 1996, there is a cap on national health care spending in France and growing pressure on health care professionals in the public system to cut costs. In 2004, patients’ choice of physician and specialist was also severely limited.

Independent private medicine – once one of the main pillars guaranteeing quality and timely care in the French system – is being slowly strangled. At the end of 2008, nurses lost their freedom to practice where they please, while a new law will do the same for physicians by imposing an annual financial penalty if they refuse to practice where the government tells them to. Specialists’ fees are increasingly regulated. The last pillars of competition among providers, and choice for French patients, are thus undermined.

Canada again is a good example of where the logic of such policies will lead the French and the Americans in the future.

North of the border, decades of total government control over health care have led to chronic doctor shortages and waiting lists. Roughly 1.7 million Canadians were unable to find a family doctor in 2007 and have to queue in impersonal clinics where they exist. Yet only a physician can order tests or get a patient in to see a specialist.

Despite continual infusions of fresh tax dollars, waiting times for hospital treatment went from an average of 7.3 weeks in 1993 to 17.3 weeks in 2008, although there was a minuscule decline last year as a result of massive political pressure. The problem is so severe that the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged in a historical 2005 ruling that patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.

Finally, coverage of new drugs is delayed by a year or more for patients relying on the public system. Even with this delay, by October 2007 less than half of new drugs launched between 2004 and 2006 had been listed for payment.

Based on experience in both our countries, government health insurance and government financing inescapably lead to a crackdown on health care providers and bureaucratization of the entire health care system. Americans should look carefully at our experiences before going any further down the slippery slope of state-controlled health care.