The problem with international health care comparisons in campaign rhetoric is they take place at such a level of abstraction. Next time McCain goes off on the horrors of national health care, though, I'd love to see Barack Obama answer with something like, "what if I offered you a trade? I'll give you a system with lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, shorter wait times, the promise that no one will ever, ever, ever become uninsured, and I'll give every individual -- not family, but individual -- in America a check for $3,027. That's what the French health care system offers. If you don't want it to be French, then I can give you the German system, and I'll be able to increase the personal check to $3,114. Either way."That's the difference here, after all. Folks like to talk about Canada's wait times, but we spend $3,075 more per per person, per year, than they do. We spend almost $4,000 more, per person, per year, than Britain. So despite saving enough money to buy everyone in their country 3.5 ounces of solid gold every year, they still manage to cover everyone in their country while we leave 47 million of our fellow citizens uninsured and unprotected. Now, you can argue that that's a good thing. But I'd be interested to find out if most Americans would agree. Would they trade their current health care for French care -- health care that appears to help keep people healthier than our system does -- that came with an annual bonus of $3,000 in solid gold? In flat screen televisions? In vacations to places with beautiful beaches and topless sunbathers? In gift certificates to the gas station? My hunch is that most would. But the difference in spending needs to be made concrete. SOLID GOLD.
The problem with international health care comparisons in campaign rhetoric is they take place at such a level of abstraction. Next time McCain goes off on the horrors of national health care, though, I'd love to see Barack Obama answer with something like, "what if I offered you a trade? I'll give you a system with lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, shorter wait times, the promise that no one will ever, ever, ever become uninsured, and I'll give every individual -- not family, but individual -- in America a check for $3,027. That's what the French health care system offers. If you don't want it to be French, then I can give you the German system, and I'll be able to increase the personal check to $3,114. Either way."That's the difference here, after all. Folks like to talk about Canada's wait times, but we spend $3,075 more per per person, per year, than they do. We spend almost $4,000 more, per person, per year, than Britain. So despite saving enough money to buy everyone in their country 3.5 ounces of solid gold every year, they still manage to cover everyone in their country while we leave 47 million of our fellow citizens uninsured and unprotected. Now, you can argue that that's a good thing. But I'd be interested to find out if most Americans would agree. Would they trade their current health care for French care -- health care that appears to help keep people healthier than our system does -- that came with an annual bonus of $3,000 in solid gold? In flat screen televisions? In vacations to places with beautiful beaches and topless sunbathers? In gift certificates to the gas station? My hunch is that most would. But the difference in spending needs to be made concrete. 
