Warhammer
Member
+18|5983
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world.  Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government rôle in health care.  Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex.  However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1:  Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1]  Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom.  Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway.  The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2:  Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2]  Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3:  Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3]  Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease.  By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4:  Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4]  Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

    * Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
    * Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
    * More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
    * Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5:  Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.  Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent).  Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5]

Fact No. 6:  Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.  Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6]  All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7]  In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7:  People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.   More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]

Fact No. 8:  Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.  When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

Fact No. 9:  Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.  Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11]  [See the table.]  The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain.  The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]

Fact No. 10:  Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13]  The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14]  Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15]  In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize.   Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16]  [See the table.]

Conclusion.  Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
Generally Americans are better conditioned than other countries despite costs...Thoughts?

Last edited by Warhammer (2009-03-27 11:52:26)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6858
Your organization's Internet use policy restricts access to this web page at this time.
 
Reason:
The Websense category "Advocacy Groups" is filtered.



.... says it all really. Saved me a pointless read I guess.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6934|949

The funny thing is that this is what the article concludes with:
Conclusion.  Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
Escalating costs and the amount of people uninsured are the two biggest problems with our healthcare system.  All the pros the article states have nothing to do with associated costs or the amount of insured in those systems compared.  So it's comparing the two systems without comparing the most glaring discrepancies and the biggest issues with our system against more completely socialized systems.
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|6943|Your moms bedroom
They forgot to mention that we are number one cause we pay thru the ass for it
rammunition
Fully Loaded
+143|6164
worst propaganda ever, worse than the iraq dossier
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

rammunition wrote:

worst propaganda ever, worse than the iraq dossier
Well, we all know that it is all 'propaganda' if it does not agree with your particular worldview, ram, while anything you post is light and truth bent on blowing the evil Amercian propaganda back and showing the world the Big American Lie.

As for the topic, I never said or thought that our healthcare system is great, but I don't think we need to throw it out and design one that will pull us down even further.  We can fix our current system, so let's not toss it away.
Karbin
Member
+42|6597
Article is from National Center for Policy Analysis

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is an American non-profit conservative think tank. NCPA states that its goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.

The NCPA web site states that it "receives 70% of its funding from foundations, 20% from corporations, and 10% from individuals." According to Greenpeace it has received roughly $400,000 from ExxonMobil over the last 10 years. Expenditures in 2001 were $5.2 million.

The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by organizations such as People for the American Way, which noted that NCPA funding has come from foundations with a conservative orientation: Bradley, Scaife, Koch, John M. Olin Foundation, Earhart Foundation, Castle Rock, and JM Foundation.
PureFodder
Member
+225|6588
The problem with Americas healthcare system is not that it isn't very good, but that it is firmly on course to ruin the US economy. Currently it's 15.2% GDP, it's estimated to hit 20% GDP by 2017-18. It's not a sustainable system, so it really doesn't matter how good it is because it can't continue. The sensible question is what healthcare system is the US going to change to.

Interestingly points 5 and 6 are about the high quality of care for old people, which is mostly provided by the US government, not private industry. Apparently even in this piece they applaud the efforts of government run healthcare, showing that the US government can run apparently very effective healthcare services.

Point 6 - waiting times in the US do not include the huge waiting times experienced by people who can't get treatment at all due to costs.

Points 7 & 8 isn't a sensible comparison due to cultural differences in questionaire answering.

Point 9 doesn't discuss whether or not the extra CT scanners are useful or not. It's perfectly possible that Canada and the UK have enough CT scanners and the extra ones in the US are wasteful.

Point 10 is about predominantly government run research, again applauding the efforts of state run programs.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina
It's not surprising this article would gloss over the numerous problems we have with insurance companies in this country.

If nothing else, we should socialize health insurance.  I could stomach keeping healthcare services private, but the insurance part of the equation is rife with corruption.

To be honest, insurance for many things should probably be socialized.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6884|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

It's not surprising this article would gloss over the numerous problems we have with insurance companies in this country.

If nothing else, we should socialize health insurance.  I could stomach keeping healthcare services private, but the insurance part of the equation is rife with corruption.

To be honest, insurance for many things should probably be socialized.
Hmmmm......

Maybe a socialised health insurance program paid for by tax contributions from the users, that those with private healthcare could opt out of and not pay the associated tax contributions?

Although with the current cost of the American system this could not work. Costs need to come down. Malpractice insurance costs a lot and is a major factor, if that were eliminated it would help.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It's not surprising this article would gloss over the numerous problems we have with insurance companies in this country.

If nothing else, we should socialize health insurance.  I could stomach keeping healthcare services private, but the insurance part of the equation is rife with corruption.

To be honest, insurance for many things should probably be socialized.
Hmmmm......

Maybe a socialised health insurance program paid for by tax contributions from the users, that those with private healthcare could opt out of and not pay the associated tax contributions?

Although with the current cost of the American system this could not work. Costs need to come down. Malpractice insurance costs a lot and is a major factor, if that were eliminated it would help.
Good points...  tort reform would fix some of that though.
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6984|Disaster Free Zone

Turquoise wrote:

If nothing else, we should socialize health insurance.
I don't get it.

ATM you either pay or you have insurance, right?
If you nationalise insurance then everyone would effectively be insured and would never pay because the government does. Which is in fact exactly the same as every other nationalised health system just with the huge extra cost of paying for insurance company employees who effectively do nothing.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If nothing else, we should socialize health insurance.
I don't get it.

ATM you either pay or you have insurance, right?
If you nationalise insurance then everyone would effectively be insured and would never pay because the government does. Which is in fact exactly the same as every other nationalised health system just with the huge extra cost of paying for insurance company employees who effectively do nothing.
Well, the perception by many people here is that socialization would involve making every doctor and hospital run by the government.  That's what most people here fear.

My argument is that you could socialize insurance but keep the services private, so that way, everyone would have affordable coverage, but services would still be efficient enough to keep the quality from falling.

The general assumption is that government run services are lower quality and less efficient.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6832|Global Command

rammunition wrote:

worst propaganda ever, worse than the iraq dossier
How so kamran?
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6796|N. Ireland
Everyone in the UK who works legally pays national insurance contributions. Therefore everyone has access to the NHS. How many Americans don't have access to basic healthcare as a percentage rate in comparison to the UK?

..sicko

If a range of Americans used the UK system I'm sure then when they look back at their own system they'll see how poor it actually is. You spend more on healthcare per capita than anyone else in the world. I think that the World Health Report shows it all.

Last edited by kylef (2009-03-28 15:39:50)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard