All European nations have health-care systems that cover all citizens with the government paying most (or all) of the bill. Using most objective measurements these systems work better than the private American-style health-care system. Using standards such as the rate of satisfaction among patients, measured outcomes of treatment, and in Britain the doctors still make house calls. The effect of this on males is as follows:

Country Netherlands France Sweden UK US

% cost GDP 8.5 9.4 8.0 6.7 13.0

Gov. paid 70% 77% 84% 84% 45%

Life expect. 75 75 77 75 73

Even such left wing liberals such as Tony Blair has said the "the National Health Service is a national treasure." Oh, right, Blair is a conservative isn't he? Granted the services are different, this doesn't mean they are less effective. One example is that NHS is reluctant to do anything near the tests and x-rays that an American patient is used to. A large part of this is that American doctors overtest to prepare their defense for malpractise suits, and NHS doctors don't have this pressure. Cost effectiveness determines many of the tests not done in Europe. PSA's are not done on a routine basis there even though they might be able to catch a cancer early enough for effective treatment. Yet the longevity figures show the patients are clearly not suffering as a result of the NHS determining what is cost-effective. Are there flaws in the social model of health care? You betcha! Are there flaws in the American private system of health care? Well just look at the 45 million uninsured in this country. Oh, and you might look at the American manufacturers that are struggling with the cost of production that includes health-care benefits that European manufactures don't have to bear.

We have elections coming up, and this might be a good time to get the debate started as to how to handle our national health care system.

Publius