Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on August 09, 2009, 12:02:52 PM
-
Government Medicine Should Horrify Americans
Real Clear Politics ^ | Aug 7, 2009 | Deroy Murdock
Posted on Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:05:59 PM by lt.america
Imagine that your two best friends are British and Canadian tobacco addicts. The Brit battles lung cancer. The Canadian endures emphysema and wheezes as he walks around with clanging oxygen canisters. You probably would not think: "Maybe I should pick up smoking."
The fact that America is even considering government medicine is equally wacky. The state guides health care for our two closest allies: Great Britain and Canada. Like us, these are prosperous, industrial, Anglophone democracies. Nevertheless, compared to America, they suffer higher death rates for diseases, their patients experience severe pain, and they ration medical services.
Look what you're missing in the U.K.:
* Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.
* Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.
* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.'s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America's. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.
* The U.K.'s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. This should save the government 33 million pounds (about $55 million). "The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients," Dr. Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospitals Trust told London's Daily Telegraph. "It will mean more people on opiates, which are addictive, and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate."
* "Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets," Daniel Martin wrote last year in London's Daily Mail. "Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour [party] pledge. The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 911 calls. Doctors warned last night that the practice of ‘patient-stacking' was putting patients' health at risk."
Things don't look much better up north, under Canadian socialized medicine.
* Canada has one-third fewer doctors per capita than the OECD average. "The doctor shortage is a direct result of government rationing, since provinces intervened to restrict class sizes in major Canadian medical schools in the 1990s," Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and Manhattan Institute scholar, told the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee on June 24. Some towns address the doctor dearth with lotteries in which citizens compete for rare medical appointments.
* "In 2008, the average Canadian waited 17.3 weeks from the time his general practitioner referred him to a specialist until he actually received treatment," Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes, a Canadian native, wrote in the July 2 Investor's Business Daily. "That's 86 percent longer than the wait in 1993, when the [Fraser] Institute first started quantifying the problem."
* Such sloth includes a median 9.7-week wait for an MRI exam, 31.7 weeks to see a neurosurgeon, and 36.7 weeks - nearly nine months - to visit an orthopedic surgeon.
* Thus, Canadian supreme court justice Marie Deschamps wrote in her 2005 majority opinion in Chaoulli v. Quebec, "This case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."
Obamacare proponents might argue that their health reforms are neither British nor Canadian, but just modest adjustments to America's system. This is false. The public option - for which Democrats lust - would fuel an elephantine $1.5 trillion overhaul of this life-and-death industry. Having Uncle Sam in the room while negotiating drug prices and hospital reimbursement rates will be like sitting beside Warren Buffett at an art auction. Guess who goes home with the goodies?
A public option is just the opening bid for eventual nationalization of American medicine. As House Banking Committee chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) told SinglepayerAction.Org on July 27: "The best way we're going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option to demonstrate its strength and its power."Barack Obama seconds that emotion.
"I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately," Obama told a March 24, 2007 Service Employees International Union health-care forum. "There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision [single payer] a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out." As he told the AFL-CIO in 2003: "I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health-care coverage. . . . That's what I'd like to see."
And why a public option just for medicine? Wouldn't government clothing stores be best suited to furnish the garments Americans need to survive each winter? And why not a public option for restaurants? Shouldn't Americans have universal access to fine dining?
All kidding aside, government medicine has proved an excruciating disaster in the U.K. and Canada. Our allies' experiences with this dreadful idea should horrify rather than inspire everyday Americans, not to mention seemingly blind Democratic politicians.
Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
________________________ ________________________ ______________________
I think everyone really needs to take a step back and ask themselves if this is what they really want. A 10 week wait for an MRI????
-
Wow....
* Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.
* Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.
* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.'s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America's. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.
-
The numbers don't lie. Can anyone put up a good argument for gov healthcare?
-
Wow....
* Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.
* Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.
* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.'s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America's. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.
the numbers are staggering. If you talk to people who have serious health problems and live in those countries, they talk about the enormous wait to get specialzed care...and the result is pretty obvious by the above numbers.
-
What a lousy article this is. First of all, I don't believe the statistics cited. Second, if the death rates are so steep in these foreign countries, why do their life expectancies dwarf those in the US?
I can pick and choose survival rates from UHC countries that embarrass those of the US:
Swedish breast cancer survival rate nears 90 percent
Japanese prostate cancer fatalities are 1/2 the US rate
Heart mortality statistics from France are a quarter of that in Britain which makes it much better than the US rate. Puerto Rico ranks ahead of US heart mortality rates.
That's enough.
Just look at France's UHC system. It is superior in the US's.
-
the numbers are staggering. If you talk to people who have serious health problems and live in those countries, they talk about the enormous wait to get specialzed care...and the result is pretty obvious by the above numbers.
Where are all the cheerleaders now????
-
What a lousy article this is. First of all, I don't believe the statistics cited. Second, if the death rates are so steep in these foreign countries, why do their life expectancies dwarf those in the US?
I can pick and choose survival rates from UHC countries that embarrass those of the US:
Swedish breast cancer survival rate nears 90 percent
Japanese prostate cancer fatalities are 1/2 the US rate
Heart mortality statistics from France are a quarter of that in Britain which makes it much better than the US rate. Puerto Rico ranks ahead of US heart mortality rates.
That's enough.
Just look at France's UHC system. It is superior in the US's.
I heard a statistic that if you just include the white population of the USA, we have near identical rates as Europe as far as longevity is concerned.
Its sad and alamring, but certain minority populations in this country account for a disporportionate amount of bad stuff.
-
I heard a statistic that if you just include the white population of the USA, we have near identical rates as Europe as far as longevity is concerned.
Its sad and alamring, but certain minority populations in this country account for a disporportionate amount of bad stuff.
The US ranks 30th in the world for life expectancy.
IF our private system of health coverage is so damn great, as the article avers, why does this statistic exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
France, Switzerland, Sweden, the UK and Canada all have higher life expectancies than the US.
This article posted slams the UK and Canada yet if you lived in those countries and used their medical system, you'll live longer than you would in the USA.
-
The US ranks 30th in the world for life expectancy.
IF our private system of health coverage is so damn great, as the article avers, why does this statistic exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
France, Switzerland, Sweden, the UK and Canada all have higher life expectancies than the US.
This article posted slams the UK and Canada yet if you lived in those countries and used their medical system, you'll live longer than you would in the USA.
Look at my post. If you take only the white population, the rates are nearly the same or close.
-
Look at my post. If you take only the white population, the rates are nearly the same or close.
That's right. There are no minorities in Canada or the UK or France. And the Japanese...are they caucasian or something else?
Just what the hell was I thinking?
Only white people count.
Oh yes, can you post something that lends support to your implied racist commentary?
-
That's right. There are no minorities in Canada or the UK or France. And the Japanese...are they caucasian or something else?
Just what the hell was I thinking?
Only white people count.
Oh yes, can you post something that lends support to your implied racist commentary?
Crime rates, obesity rates, violent crime rates, etc. I will send it to you later where I read this.
-
I thought Americans went to Canada to buy their prescription medicine?
-
I'm sure the 40+ million with absolution zero health care aren't the least bit worried.
I'm sure the millions more who have insurance but can't use it because they can't afford the deductible aren't that worried
I"m sure the people who've paid for years only to be thrown off or denied care when they really need it aren't that worried
-
Second, if the death rates are so steep in these foreign countries, why do their life expectancies dwarf those in the US?
333386, how do you respond? very valid point here. They do live longer.
-
I thought Americans went to Canada to buy their prescription medicine?
And many Candaians come here for stuff they dont want to wait months on end for.
-
333386, how do you respond? very valid point here. They do live longer.
Because cancer like listed above is not the largest killer of people.
Additionally, 240 - this is sad, I read that if you just include the white population, and that includes asians, we are no different than Europe. I will find it later.
-
Look at my post. If you take only the white population, the rates are nearly the same or close.
This is true for most studies and statistice the govt here puts out.
Illegals have extremely high disease rates and lower life expectancy due in part to drug abuse, crime rates and culture/lifestyle,... yet they are included in all the surveys here. The social handout crowd always like to use groups of people that shouldn't be included to support their numbers.
Take non-Americans out of the numbers and usually the numbers for Americans greatly improve.
-
Because cancer like listed above is not the largest killer of people.
Additionally, 240 - this is sad, I read that if you just include the white population, and that includes asians, we are no different than Europe. I will find it later.
I did not know that. In that case, a lot of thesee numbers may be skewed if some groups pull the trend in a major way.
In the long run, heart disease will kill 50% of us and we'll never see it coming. 1/3 cancer. And no matter how much we alter our behavior, most of it is still genetic. Still, every little bit helps, and it'd be interesting to see these stats further broken down by groups.
-
What a lousy article this is. First of all, I don't believe the statistics cited. S
I know that the breast cancer statistic is erroneous. The author is referring to 20 year stats in the British case and 5- year statistics for Americans. The 5-year rates and 20-year rates are almost identical in both countries.
-
I heard a statistic that if you just include the white population of the USA, we have near identical rates as Europe as far as longevity is concerned.
Its sad and alamring, but certain minority populations in this country account for a disporportionate amount of bad stuff.
If this was the case, why should it "horrify Americans", as the title suggests? The purpose of the bill is to cover the large group of Americans that are currently uninsured, not to switch the insured to government programs.
-
I know that the breast cancer statistic is erroneous. The author is referring to 20 year stats in the British case and 5- year statistics for Americans. The 5-year rates and 20-year rates are almost identical in both countries.
Thanks for bringing that up. 20 years ago the breast cancer treatments were not nearly as effective as today.
Hell, there have been some remarkable advancements in the last 5 years. Advancements, like onco-type testing, which private insurance companies did not cover. They are grudgingly doing it now. It took my wife several appeals to get coverage for that test. It ain't cheap.
The anti-UHC, anti-poor people crowd will say just about anything to kill universal health insurance.
That's sad b/c there are real people behind the numbers they bandy about.
-
More lies it seems from the insurance company lobby. Such fear being perpetrated by an industry which takes away choice from the patient or worse yet makes them choose which limb, finger, they would like to save and which they would not.
-
Thanks for bringing that up. 20 years ago the breast cancer treatments were not nearly as effective as today.
Hell, there have been some remarkable advancements in the last 5 years. Advancements, like onco-type testing, which private insurance companies did not cover. They are grudgingly doing it now. It took my wife several appeals to get coverage for that test. It ain't cheap.
The anti-UHC, anti-poor people crowd will say just about anything to kill universal health insurance.
That's sad b/c there are real people behind the numbers they bandy about.
The point you made is actually a good point... cancer fatality rates are noticeably dropping in both countries.
But what I meant was that the author is using a statistic for Britons which measures the survival rate of cancer patients 20 years after the fact. The American statistic measured cancer survival rates of patients after only five years. Of course the five years statistic would look more impressive.
-
Oh wait...as long as big bad Pharma backs the healthcare bill..they're not lieing right KC! U libs with ur big awful Insurance and bill awful Oil. Did u put gas in ur car today? Ur a retarded monkey.
The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.
The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.
With House Democrats moving to extract more than that just as the drug makers finalized their advertising plans, the industry lobbyists pressed the Obama administration for public reassurances that it had agreed to cap the industry’s additional costs at $80 billion. The White House, meanwhile, has struggled to mollify its most pivotal health industry ally without alienating Congressional Democrats who want to demand far more of the drug makers. White House officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
-
Oh wait...as long as big bad Pharma backs the healthcare bill..they're not lieing right KC! U libs with ur big awful Insurance and bill awful Oil. Did u put gas in ur car today? Ur a retarded monkey.
...
You're better than this.
-
The point you made is actually a good point... cancer fatality rates are noticeably dropping in both countries.
But what I meant was that the author is using a statistic for Britons which measures the survival rate of cancer patients 20 years after the fact. The American statistic measured cancer survival rates of patients after only five years. Of course the five years statistic would look more impressive.
I see. Thanks.
-
You're better than this.
The Evil Leviathon Walmart is backing this mess.
So if the evil Walmart supports it, it must be bad right Decker?????
-
The Evil Leviathon Walmart is backing this mess.
So if the evil Walmart supports it, it must be bad right Decker?????
I think we can all agree america by far leads the world in eating unhealthy/smoking/drinking etc. It's amazing to think that we are even on par let alone beat other countries who lead much healthier lives.
Just my 2 cents.
-
The numbers don't lie. Can anyone put up a good argument for gov healthcare?
[/quote
Medicaid and medicare, Vetrans Administration, Congressional/Senatorial coverage, emergency room coverage even if you can't pay.
We already have gov healthcare
Sandra
-
The Evil Leviathon Walmart is backing this mess.
So if the evil Walmart supports it, it must be bad right Decker?????
hahahaha.
Yeah. I mean no.
I mean life is like, you know, complex.
UHC helps the poor.
WalMart has a massive workforce comprised of the working poor.
I think I see a connection. Do you?
-
hahahaha.
Yeah. I mean no.
I mean life is like, you know, complex.
UHC helps the poor.
WalMart has a massive workforce comprised of the working poor.
I think I see a connection. Do you?
UHC doesn't help the poor.
Medicad does.
This helps the Lower Middle Class that work at small businesses, that want coverage and aren't.
It also forces insurance on people that choose not to get covered to be covered.
If this passes many small business will redefine their benefits.
-
Sorry guys I dont buy those figures at all...not for one second. My family is very good friends with one of the top cancer surgeons in Britain, so ill check that out with him. Needless to say he hasn't bitched and moaned about death rates one bit, which believe you me he would have if the disparity was that large.
My own ten cents, The British system is the best in the world and far far better than the US system (which i have also experienced), you have genuine choice. You have public and private healthcare, which means if you pay more you get more. Yet if you cant pay you're still assured healthcare (even if the waiting time can sometimes be long...but times are coming down). I use both systems in Britain, depending on what I need, and how urgently it needs to get done, Im sorry but the idea of having to pay for private healthcare in the USA just to go to some crappy general hospital makes me kind of angry, you're not getting value for money, and on top of that is the underlying assumption that healthcare is not a given right, which it most certainly is. The fact that in the USA I have to call my frikkin insurance company before I go to the doctor or the hospital, to check if they will cover something, for me is verging on barbaric, in britain if you're hurt you just go to the damn hospital, no second worries, if's or buts. Like i said before, depending on the prognosis or if i feel i want the problem sorted out immediately then I'll go to a private hospital, where it will be sorted out immediately, and I get the choice of what kind of service I want.
No american will ever convince me, not in a million years that their system is better, from my experience it is inconvenient and overly expensive for a very general and average quality of service that you receive for free in Britain. Like i said before I feel fundamentally uncomfortable with the american attitude which seems to say you have to pay for health care to receive it, I dont believe thats where we should be going.
-
hahahaha.
Yeah. I mean no.
I mean life is like, you know, complex.
UHC helps the poor.
WalMart has a massive workforce comprised of the working poor.
I think I see a connection. Do you?
Great catch. You are an excellent addition to the team. ;)
Walmart has actually encouraged employees to take advantage of government benefits for years. The premium Walmart employees must pay on company provided health insurance is so high that only about 40% of the employees take advantage of it. Under most provisions of the plan, employees of large corporations like Walmart wouldn't be eligible for the plan. However, that probably wouldn't apply to a lot Walmart employees, since the company often limits workweeks to 38 hours or less.