According to the media, Europeans are bemused by public resistance to President Obama’s health care reforms because they consider a universal system to be a basic necessity.  The BBC’s Matt Frei wrote that, “The fact that 46 million Americans are uninsured and half as many under-insured is an outrage… that affects the lives of others.”  Le Monde described public opposition as “surreal”.  But this bemusement may have as much to do with the reporting of the issue as the issue itself.

Opposition to universal health care in America is deep-seated

Let’s consider the BBC’s line, which has been repeated on numerous occasions.  Some dispute the reliability of the 46 million figure but, even if it were accurate, over a quarter of this number is made up of people who are in the country illegally. 

France’s public system doesn’t cover illegal immigrants and there has been significant concern in the UK about immigrants in general being attracted to the nation’s welfare state.  So it is reasonable to deduct these from the 46 million, particularly since they are now being excluded from bills being considered by Congress.

President Obama even modified his position on 9 September, saying that, “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”  The BBC, of course, keeps reporting the number that Mr. Frei wrongly called a “fact”. 

Still, even the President’s revised statement is incorrect.  Around a third of the oft quoted 46 million deliberately choose not to buy health insurance on the grounds that they are young, single, wealthy or just don’t want it.  To say they “cannot get coverage” is wrong.   

Health plan transferability problems also contribute to the 46 million figure.  The U.S. tax system encourages a linkage between employment and health care so when Americans change jobs they have to sign up for new coverage.  State governance means that Americans can’t take their plans with them when they move to another state.  Neither are indications that people can’t get coverage, but these temporary situations are included in the 46 million.   

All this brings the actual figure of Americans who want insurance but don’t have it to less than 5 per cent of a population of 300 million.  Is this an “outrage”?  Or, to put it another way, with some 85 per cent of Americans saying they are satisfied with their health care, is it fair to say, as President Obama did, that the nation is at “breaking point”? 

The reality is that most Americans enjoy the best health care in the world.  Those without insurance are not prevented from receiving health care.  Emergency care is given to all, irrespective of their insurance status. 

Neither should anyone be surprised that the principle of universality should fail to appeal to many Americans.  The U.S. is built on a culture of free enterprise and personal responsibility and while it has significant government-run health care safety nets for seniors and those with low incomes, the American way is to allow private businesses compete for market share. 

The basic problem with U.S. health care is mandated gilt-edged policies that require insurance companies to cover a long list of medical procedures, including non-vital ones, many of which are not typically available even in European systems.  Each pool of insured Americans has to pay much higher premiums to subsidize those without insurance and those with medical preconditions, pushing up prices.   

Add to this the problem of tort reform – increased costs due to the potential for unlimited litigation awards – and it is not difficult to see where U.S. health care reform should be focused.  That President Obama has taken a radically different direction, naturally raises questions. 

Americans are also suspicious when President Obama constantly refers to his “plan” because it doesn’t actually exist anywhere on paper.  The White House’s failure to lead on drafting health care legislation is increasingly seen by many to be a derogation of the President’s responsibilities. 

His muddled performances at publicly staged events has also raised anxieties about what type of reform will ultimately emerge. 

That all of this has nurtured public concern and opposition should not be difficult to articulate for anyone who is prepared to consider actual facts. 

Which brings us back to the role of foreign journalists reporting about America.  Why are they are so keen to put America down?  Is it jealousy or do these reporters really think that their rationing systems are preferable to America’s unlimited, instant and massively superior health care?  Why do they try to project the U.S. as being morally inferior and lead their readers and viewers to think that Americans have no compassion for their own people?  Do they see an advantage in wrongly portraying Americans as selfish?  Or do they associate President Obama with their European political spirit, which is presumed to be superior to American crudeness? 

With such different cultures, intellectuals in Europe and the U.S. have often wondered at the way things are done on the other side of the Atlantic.  But Europeans would not be so bemused by opposition to universal health care in America if their news reporters were not pushing a political philosophy of their own.

• Obama’s Brilliant Re-election Ploy
• Grand Theft
• Free Passes and the Presidency
• Descent and Dissent
• Waves of Urgency