Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- That’s it, folks. The U.S. is headed for “Euro-style socialism,” thanks to the public option in the House version of the universal health-care bill.

According to scare talk from right-wing radio hosts, and even the op-ed pages of some of America’s most respected newspapers, capitalist America is now speeding hell-bent down the road to socialized medicine -- following in Europe’s tragic footsteps.

Here’s what’s odd about this nightmare scenario. Few Europeans consider themselves doomed by their comprehensive health-care plans. Most rather like them. And there is no evidence that their system does damage to people’s health.

Justine Apesteguy, a 26-year-old employee at a mobile-phone company, was stopped on a Paris street recently and asked by Grazia, a weekly magazine, to define her French identity.

Her answer? “La secu,” an abbreviation for “la securite sociale,” the social-security system that includes health care. That doesn’t sound like a cry for help from a citizen imprisoned by a heartless bureaucracy.

Of course, the French also complain about “la secu” --its forms, its rules, its fees and its cost, the same things that bug Americans about their insurance companies. But when the bill for the French system recently came before the National Assembly, complete with a record 15 billion-euro ($22.3 billion) deficit for health care alone, no politician dared talk about changing it.

Socialized Medicine

France doesn’t have a government-operated health system, which is the standard definition of socialized medicine; the U.K. does, and so do several other European countries and even the U.S., in the form of the Veterans Administration which has its own doctors and hospitals, all 100 percent government subsidized.

The French model -- which got rave reviews from filmmaker Michael Moore in his 2007 movie “Sicko” -- is a government insurance program (similar to the so-called public option), which allows patients to choose their doctors, and lets doctors charge more than the government-set fees that determine reimbursement. Some 90 percent of the population has private insurance, which can make up the difference.

Prescription drugs, doctors’ bills, emergency care, and even eyeglasses are typically charged directly to the “securite sociale” and then on to the private insurers. When the patient does pay, reimbursement is prompt, often within a month.

Who’s No. 1

France spends a lot of money on health care - 11 percent of its gross domestic product, one of the highest after the U.S., with 15.3 percent, according to 2006 World Health Organization figures. (This year, the U.S. figure will rise to 17.6 percent of GDP, according to the National Coalition on Health Care.) And yet France’s per capita health spending of $3,361 was half that of the U.S.’s $6,714 in 2006.

In 2000, France was No. 1 in a worldwide ranking of health care by the WHO, while the U.S. was 37th. Since then, the Geneva-based organization has stopped trying to rank health-care systems, for good reason, given disparities in income, general well-being, medical qualifications and even homicide rates.

Measured by statistics on birth and death, the French system continues to outperform the U.S. In 2006, according to WHO, France had a lower infant-mortality rate than the U.S. (four per 1,000 live births versus seven); a higher life expectancy at birth (81 years for both sexes versus 78); and a lower adult- mortality rate (probability of dying between 15 and 60 years per 1,000 population -- 91 French versus 109 Americans).

Cultural Divide

Any comparison between France and the U.S. has to take into account different political cultures. The French look to government to solve their problems, while Americans want it to stay out of their business. Health care is just part of a social-safety net that the French consider their birthright.

As the health-care debate moves to the Senate, before the pundits start waving the specter of socialism again, it’s useful to take a look at a study for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute.

Published in August, the review sifts through international reports and statistics to answer a simple question: Would changes to the U.S. system in any way endanger the quality of health care now available to the American people?

Considering the large part of the U.S. population that now has no health insurance at all -- among the 30 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only Turkey and Mexico share that distinction -- the answer is a resounding no.

“In light of the fact that the United States spends twice as much per person on health care as its peers, those who question the value for money obtained in U.S. health expenditures are on firm footing,” the authors concluded. “Faced with the evidence, one might well ask why it is that assertions of the superiority of U.S. health care are so common.”

There’s nothing particularly socialist about the European approach to health care. Rather, providing more coverage for less money, with no adverse consequences for the health of the population, is just sound policy. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

(Celestine Bohlen is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

Click on “Send Comment” in the sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.

To contact the writer of this column: Celestine Bohlen in Paris at cbohlen1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: November 16, 2009 18:00 EST