Maybe, maybe not.

Kirby Warnock likes Obamacare. He thinks private health care doesn't work. He compares cost per capita vs. life expectancy for the U.S. and other industrialized nations and finds the U.S. comes up short.

But I read an interesting paper on the fallacy of using life expectancy to gauge whether or not a health care system is effective. The paper contends that most analyses use infant mortality and life expectancy as gauges, and that using those criteria presents a skewed picture.

David Hogberg, Ph.D. and author of the paper, contends that "any statistic that accurately measures health-care systems across nations must satisfy three criteria. First, the statistic must assume actual interaction with the health care system. Second, it must measure a phenomenon that the health care system can actually affect. Finally, the statistic must be collected consistently across nations."

Under the first criteria, the individual must have actual contact with the health care system. Therefore, a death from a diagnosed cancer would count. However, an accident fatality would not.

Second, the health care system must be able to have a meaningful impact on the phenomenon being measured. For example, rates of cancer are not legitimate measures since the health care system can treat cancers, but it cannot affect the rates of its occurrence.

And last, the collection of data must be consistent across countries. This is not the case. Some countries do not count certain segments of the population while other countries do. The results end up as apples and oranges comparisons -- virtually meaningless.

The author of the paper makes the point that there is little, if any, correlation between life expectancy and health care -- the number of physicians, hospitals, hospital beds, etc. Rather life expectancy is more closely tied to sanitation, diet, clean water, income, and literacy.

Dr. Hogberg concludes that "life expectancy and infant mortality are wholly inadequate comparative measures for health care systems. Life expectancy is influenced by a host of factors other than a health care system, while infant mortality is measured inconsistently across nations. Neither of these measures provides the United States with conclusive guidance on health care policy, let alone serve as reliable evidence that a system of universal health care should be implemented in the United States."

So, Mr. Warnock, your contention that we "pay more and get less" just doesn't hold water. According to economist Dr. Thomas Sowell, we get what we pay for. He likens our health care costs to the rising costs of automobiles. They cost a lot less when they didn't have air conditioning, electronic computer systems, seat belts and air bags, cruise-control, intermittent wipers, windshield washers, and a whole host of other things we consider to be standard these days. We pay more, but we get more. He says that the cost of developing a new pharmaceutical drug will run about a billion dollars. Is it worth it if that drug is the one that can cure your disease? In comparison to other nations, we have far more medical access -- for example, the U.S. has four times as many MRI units per capita as Great Britain or Canada. In Canada, 27% of the people who need surgery wait four months or more. In the U.S., that's 5%. Dr. Sowell says that anybody can bring down the cost, but we shouldn't be surprised when we get less when we pay less. So, Mr. Warnock, to answer your question of "If not Obamacare, then what?" I'd say less government intrusion, private insurance, flexible spending accounts, a free market, and a whole lot of personal responsibility.

"If not Obamacare, then what?" The Dallas Morning News; June 28, 2012; p. 14A.
"You get what you pay for in health care." The Dallas Morning News; July 2, 2009; p. 17A.