US Private Health Insurance Fails Cancer Patients

Healthcare Liberalism: When Insurance Doesn't Cover Cancer

Liberal ideals crumble when fine print bites back. The debate over public versus private healthcare has resurfaced with a painful case: an American family that saw twenty years of savings wiped out by five months of cancer treatment, despite paying for health insurance. In Spain, the same narrative presents uncomfortable figures for both sides: a colonoscopy costs the Social Security system about €4,000, while the public system spends just over €2,000 per person per year. The issue isn't free versus expensive; it's about different ways of paying.

The Insurance That Promised Protection

Average health insurance in the United States runs around $1,000 a month. It’s not necessarily poor quality, but it only covers a percentage of very costly treatments, such as oncology care. The story circulating recently involves a couple who did everything right—studied, saved, avoided debt—and yet the system forced them to refinance their home. Life expectancy in the US is 79 years compared to 84 in Spain, a statistic that dismantles the myth of the private model being the world's best. Or at least nuances it: some argue the problem isn't the free market itself, but the lobbies preventing competition in the hospital sector.

Underinsurance and Fine Print

You don't need cancer stories to see the gaps. A home insurance policy costing €70-80 a year didn't cover a burst pipe or damage to the neighbor downstairs; a decent policy costs double, around €175 annually. The same logic applies to health: those who buy the cheapest coverage are often those who need it most, discovering exclusions only when it's too late. Information asymmetry is the Achilles' heel of liberalism applied to insurance: the company knows more than the client, and the incentive isn't to cure, but to avoid paying.

What Public Healthcare Really Costs

In Spain, healthcare consumes about €100 billion a year, equivalent to nearly €2,000 per inhabitant. For a four-person family with a single income, the bill approaches €8,000 annually, though few perceive it this way because it's deducted via taxes. Critics note that a worker contributing for 45 years may pay over €800,000 in taxes throughout their life and still die on a waiting list. But the cost-per-user argument has a counterpoint: a life-saving colonoscopy costs the Spanish Social Security system about €4,000, a figure that becomes unaffordable in the US private system.

Franco's Shadow and the Liberal Paradox

The discussion has turned into institutional archaeology regarding the origins of Spain's Social Security. The 1963 Basic Law, cited with official gazette references, unified previous insurance schemes, but the system actually began with the 1900 Work Accidents Law, the 1908 National Institute of Provision, and the 1919 Workers' Retirement scheme. Add to this the anecdote: Adam Smith, the father of liberalism, was a customs official, and most free-market gurus work in public universities. The state isn't just the insurance of last resort; it also pays the salaries of those preaching against it.

The conclusion, so far, isn't elegant. Theoretical liberalism crashes against information asymmetry, disease risk, and the ability of major insurers to externalize losses. And the public system, with all its flaws, remains the safety net for those who trusted the other side. Until one day it's their turn. Meanwhile, the numbers are on the table: who pays, how much they pay, and what they get. The rest is ideology.