Skip to main content

The health care reality conservatives ignore

By Paul Waldman
November 29, 2013 -- Updated 1803 GMT (0203 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Paul Waldman: Americans still optimistic Obamacare will be fixed; conservatives hope not
  • He says conservatives ignore that market solutions on health care have led to failed system
  • He says U.S.'s peer nations all have government control in their successful health systems
  • Waldman: Health care has been incredibly costly, exclusionary; conservatives say: "Whatever"

Editor's note: Paul Waldman is a contributing editor at The American Prospect and the author of "Being Right Is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success." Follow him on his blog and on Twitter.

(CNN) -- For all the difficulties of the Affordable Care Act's rollout, Americans are more patient than you might think: A new poll shows a majority expressing optimism that the problems are going to be ironed out.

Not only that, a majority continues to support the law or think it didn't go far enough. Nevertheless, the conservatives rooting for its demise have been expressing not just vindication, but triumph. "We could be looking at the collapse of American liberalism," said columnist Charles Krauthammer. "Liberalism is crumbling in front of our eyes," echoed Michele Bachmann.

Yes indeed, a glitchy website and people moving from junk insurance to real insurance prove once and for all that government should have as little to do with health care as possible, and the entire liberal project lies in tatters.

Paul Waldman
Paul Waldman

That's a little like proclaiming that your team will inevitably lose the World Series, then go bankrupt and disband because the other team scored a run in the first inning of Game 1. But the momentary political situation aside, conservatives still face a fundamental problem when they confront America's health care system. Their ideology dictates only one solution to all health care problems, and that solution -- less government, more free market -- is exactly what gave us our dysfunctional health care system in the first place.

Let's step back a moment to consider why we needed the Affordable Care Act and what it says about the health care market. The basic conservative position is that the more you let market forces operate, the better the outcome will be. "More markets" is the answer to everything: Let people buy insurance across state lines. Make it virtually impossible to sue for medical malpractice. Create more health savings accounts.

But where do you think the problems of America's health care system came from? It wasn't government that gave us nearly 50 million uninsured Americans and denials for pre-existing conditions. It wasn't government that gave us the yearly and lifetime caps on insurance coverage that have sent so many people into bankruptcy when they've faced a serious illness or accident. It wasn't government that gave us "rescissions," where your insurance company cancels your policy if you get sick.

It wasn't government that gave us a system in which the gap between what we spend and what we get is so enormous.

It was the free market.

The conservatives who profess to love markets so dearly seem unable to grasp that the market for health care isn't like the market for shoes or cars. Other developed countries understand this. Every one of our peer nations has a system with more government control than ours, ranging from almost completely socialized systems like Great Britain's to ones like those in Switzerland and the Netherlands, which resemble Obamacare but with tighter regulation.

New Obamacare setbacks
Insurers fear more Obamacare trouble

We don't have to wonder whether a health care system built on capitalist profit-seeking is more efficient and less expensive than those in which the government exercises more control. There has been a test running for decades, with many developed countries doing it one way, and the United States doing it the other. The results couldn't be clearer.

On almost any criterion you can come up with, the government-controlled systems work better. They cover everyone, while spending far less than we do. Their health outcomes are as good or better than ours. A recent Bloomberg News analysis rated America's as the world's 46th most efficient health system, right above Serbia and right below Iran. Among the developed countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. ranks first (by a mile) in health spending per capita, but 26th in life expectancy.

There are some, however, who love the American health care system. American doctors make far higher salaries than their counterparts in other countries. American insurance companies do very well. As a recent New York Times investigation revealed, makers of devices like artificial hips mark up their prices double, triple, or even more when they sell to American hospitals as they do when they sell the same devices to European hospitals. The same is true of a hundred other devices and procedures. Why? Because in Europe, Japan, and other places with highly regulated health care, government rules keep the costs low.

In the American system, there are multiple points where companies do the rational thing: Extract as much money as possible from the system. That's why an MRI costs three times as much in the U.S. as it does in France or Holland.

But people living under the oppression of those other governments' systems must hate them, right? Wrong. The Commonwealth Fund recently released a study of health systems in 10 developed countries around the world which included a survey of satisfaction. America's health system was the least popular, with only 25% of Americans saying it works well and the other 75% saying it should be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt.

The most popular was the most socialized, Great Britain's, with 63% saying it works well. You may remember that the opening ceremonies of the 2012 summer Olympics in London included a tribute to the National Health Service, so proud are Britons of their health system.

Despite all the problems created by America's private health care market, we do have versions of big-government, socialized insurance. They're called Medicare and Medicaid. They are far more efficient than private insurance, and Medicare recipients in particular love their coverage. It's no accident that in every election, Republicans -- who fought against the creation of Medicare and would love to privatize it -- try to pretend to voters that they're the program's greatest defenders. The champions of free-market capitalism decide they can't get elected without supporting a single-payer insurance program.

In all their glee about the troubled rollout of the Affordable Care Act, most Republicans are barely bothering to offer an alternative, other than a return to the way things used to be. It isn't surprising, because to be brutally frank, they never much cared about the spectacular human suffering created by free-market health care.

For decades, liberals have been working to devise policy solutions and create the political conditions for health care reform that would achieve secure, universal coverage. On the other hand, in the face of millions who can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions and millions more who just can't afford it, the conservative response was always, "Whatever." The market spoke, and you lost. Too bad for you.

The Affordable Care Act can certainly be improved. But in health care -- to paraphrase Ronald Reagan -- the free market isn't the answer to our problems. It is the problem.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Paul Waldman.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 2134 GMT (0534 HKT)
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1951 GMT (0351 HKT)
Jeff Yang says the film industry's surrender will have lasting implications.
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 2113 GMT (0513 HKT)
Newt Gingrich: No one should underestimate the historic importance of the collapse of American defenses in the Sony Pictures attack.
December 10, 2014 -- Updated 1255 GMT (2055 HKT)
Dean Obeidallah asks how the genuine Stephen Colbert will do, compared to "Stephen Colbert"
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1734 GMT (0134 HKT)
Some GOP politicians want drug tests for welfare recipients; Eric Liu says bailed-out execs should get equal treatment
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1342 GMT (2142 HKT)
Louis Perez: Obama introduced a long-absent element of lucidity into U.S. policy on Cuba.
December 16, 2014 -- Updated 1740 GMT (0140 HKT)
The slaughter of more than 130 children by the Pakistani Taliban may prove as pivotal to Pakistan's security policy as the 9/11 attacks were for the U.S., says Peter Bergen.
December 17, 2014 -- Updated 1600 GMT (0000 HKT)
The Internet is an online extension of our own neighborhoods. It's time for us to take their protection just as seriously, says Arun Vishwanath.
December 16, 2014 -- Updated 2154 GMT (0554 HKT)
Gayle Lemmon says we must speak out for the right of children to education -- and peace
December 17, 2014 -- Updated 1023 GMT (1823 HKT)
Russia's economic woes just seem to be getting worse. How will President Vladimir Putin respond? Frida Ghitis gives her take.
December 17, 2014 -- Updated 0639 GMT (1439 HKT)
Australia has generally seen itself as detached from the threat of terrorism. The hostage incident this week may change that, writes Max Barry.
December 12, 2014 -- Updated 2020 GMT (0420 HKT)
Thomas Maier says the trove of letters the Kennedy family has tried to guard from public view gives insight into the Kennedy legacy and the history of era.
December 15, 2014 -- Updated 1456 GMT (2256 HKT)
Will Congress reform the CIA? It's probably best not to expect much from Washington. This is not the 1970s, and the chances for substantive reform are not good.
December 15, 2014 -- Updated 2101 GMT (0501 HKT)
From superstorms to droughts, not a week goes by without a major disruption somewhere in the U.S. But with the right planning, natural disasters don't have to be devastating.
December 15, 2014 -- Updated 1453 GMT (2253 HKT)
Would you rather be sexy or smart? Carol Costello says she hates this dumb question.
December 14, 2014 -- Updated 2253 GMT (0653 HKT)
A story about Pope Francis allegedly saying animals can go to heaven went viral late last week. The problem is that it wasn't true. Heidi Schlumpf looks at the discussion.
December 14, 2014 -- Updated 1550 GMT (2350 HKT)
Democratic leaders should wake up to the reality that the party's path to electoral power runs through the streets, where part of the party's base has been marching for months, says Errol Louis
December 13, 2014 -- Updated 2123 GMT (0523 HKT)
David Gergen: John Brennan deserves a national salute for his efforts to put the report about the CIA in perspective
December 12, 2014 -- Updated 1426 GMT (2226 HKT)
Anwar Sanders says that in some ways, cops and protesters are on the same side
December 11, 2014 -- Updated 1439 GMT (2239 HKT)
A view by Samir Naji, a Yemeni who was accused of serving in Osama bin Laden's security detail and imprisoned for nearly 13 years without charge in Guantanamo Bay
December 14, 2014 -- Updated 1738 GMT (0138 HKT)
S.E. Cupp asks: How much reality do you really want in your escapist TV fare?
December 11, 2014 -- Updated 1828 GMT (0228 HKT)
Rip Rapson says the city's 'Grand Bargain' saved pensions and a world class art collection by pulling varied stakeholders together, setting civic priorities and thinking outside the box
December 13, 2014 -- Updated 2310 GMT (0710 HKT)
Glenn Schwartz says the airing of the company's embarrassing emails might wake us up to the usefulness of talking in-person instead of electronically
December 12, 2014 -- Updated 2233 GMT (0633 HKT)
The computer glitch that disrupted air traffic over the U.K. on Friday was a nuisance, but not dangerous, says Les Abend
ADVERTISEMENT