French Health Care

I agree with your reader's positive description of the healthcare system in France. A recent commentator in Le Monde argued that, despite the US's anxieties about "socialized medicine," our healthcare system actually shows more evidence of "socialization" than theirs does. As the commentator points out, countless French physicians operate independently out of their own offices, whereas most US physicians, because of the burdens of paperwork, have to work in groups or in hospitals. French citizens have far more liberty in choosing the doctors they would like than most US citizens do.

I was treated for the same minor health problem in France and in the U.S. In France, I walked into the French hospital, spoke with a doctor in a few minutes, received treatment, and was charged $25. In the U.S., I was subjected to a barrage of bureaucracy before I could ever speak with anyone, and I left $600 poorer (after health insurance), on my graduate student's salary. In France, a visiting friend hurt her foot, so we stopped by a hospital. An internist examined her and told her what the problem was. When we tried to pay, she shrugged and said that there would be no bill, as we were from "le pays de la liberté." (This was admittedly before the Bush presidency.) If only U.S. physicians could function with the efficiency, common sense, and independence of their French equivalents.

Sullivan is soliciting annecdotal info.

Again, the idea to start socialized medicine in the US isn't to suddenly put physicians on some kind of regular salary. It's to change the way the administration of the insurance works. Then we can look at ways to improve the provider side.

I don't post that to insist that the French have some gloriously perfect system. I'm just dubious of the idea that because the US is the only western democracy that doesn't have socialized medicine, all the other systems are crap. It's easy to just paint it all as some communist plot, where the narrative becomes an obstacle to improve the situation, which is really quite awful, here.

I'm also dubious of this claim that somehow the US has the most superior standard of care. It's hard to find info on the topic on the net. However, I'm still going to insist that we already have a socialized program in the way that providers are paid. The vast majority is contracted. That's not to say that it includes every provider. Obviously, an insurance company isn't going to cover a boob job, and plastic surgeons charge what they charge. That's not going to change in a single payer system, because the insurance still won't cover it.

It's also important to note that because some other systems are not as effective as they could be, and ya, I've read that there are long queues for routine treatment in England, that doesn't mean we couldn't do it better. But the important note, for the reading impaired, is that wouldn't change in the US when nothing on the provider side changes by implementing a single payer system.

/edit

Also wanted to comment on the cost issues. When you take the administrative waste, and insurance company profits, out of the equation, we actually would pay less in a tax increase then it currently costs because of high premiums. It doesn't even have to be paid via an incrase in the income tax. There's lots of other things that can be taxed to pay for it.

Put simply, if my employer pays $5000 a year for my health insurance (which I think is pretty close to the right number), then an arbitrary cost in taxes that has to be paid would be substantially less then the $5000. That's the whole point.