Look at health data, not propaganda

Rebellion · #1 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 10:37 AM

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...ck=2&cset=true

Quote:

The Commonwealth Fund, a prominent health policy research foundation, has produced a new study that also portrays government-run health systems as far superior to ours.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Fund study and Mr. Moore's film are based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence.

Rather than use hard data for its study, the Commonwealth Fund report relies on public opinion surveys to conclude that Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom all provide better care than the United States - and for less money. Patients and doctors were called and asked if they were happy with the quality, access, efficiency, equity and outcomes offered by their government-managed health care systems. But phone calls do nothing to offer scientific data about whether these nations' systems outperform the U.S. system.

Consider access to timely care. Britain has more than 1 million citizens on its waiting lists for medical care, according to London-based Nurses for Reform. In Canada, a study found that more than 800,000 citizens are in the queue for medical procedures - and some will die, waiting for months and sometimes more than a year to get surgeries or treatments they need.

In America, we're used to speedy service. So it's hardly surprising that in a public opinion survey, we would complain about any wait at all. But waiting lists like those in Britain and Canada would be a national scandal here. We simply wouldn't tolerate it.

And what about access to the latest treatments? In government-managed systems, bureaucrats and politicians decide which surgeries and new medicines will be available. In Britain, for example, two new drugs for kidney cancer are being denied to cancer sufferers because they're too expensive, according to news reports. The Canadian government also refuses to purchase newer drugs until they've been on the market for years. From 1997 to 1999, for instance, 100 drugs were introduced in America, while only 43 of those drugs became available in Canada.

Consider cancer. In the United States, the survival rate is 90 percent for patients diagnosed with Stage I colon cancer. In Britain, it's just 70 percent.

For American women diagnosed with Stage I breast cancer, 97 percent are still alive after five years. In Britain, it's only 78 percent. Indeed, when adjusted for age, U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 1 percent per year since 1991.

The data show that if you are sick, the United States is where you want to be. We spend more in this country on health care, and we get more medical care as a result.

Like the author stated, Moore won't be going to Cuba for care if he gets sick. The US offers far and away the best health care in the world.

paul111 · #2 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion";p=&quot

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.sicko29jun29,1,1570837.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

Quote:

The Commonwealth Fund, a prominent health policy research foundation, has produced a new study that also portrays government-run health systems as far superior to ours.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Fund study and Mr. Moore's film are based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence.

Rather than use hard data for its study, the Commonwealth Fund report relies on public opinion surveys to conclude that Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom all provide better care than the United States - and for less money. Patients and doctors were called and asked if they were happy with the quality, access, efficiency, equity and outcomes offered by their government-managed health care systems. But phone calls do nothing to offer scientific data about whether these nations' systems outperform the U.S. system.

Consider access to timely care. Britain has more than 1 million citizens on its waiting lists for medical care, according to London-based Nurses for Reform. In Canada, a study found that more than 800,000 citizens are in the queue for medical procedures - and some will die, waiting for months and sometimes more than a year to get surgeries or treatments they need.

In America, we're used to speedy service. So it's hardly surprising that in a public opinion survey, we would complain about any wait at all. But waiting lists like those in Britain and Canada would be a national scandal here. We simply wouldn't tolerate it.

And what about access to the latest treatments? In government-managed systems, bureaucrats and politicians decide which surgeries and new medicines will be available. In Britain, for example, two new drugs for kidney cancer are being denied to cancer sufferers because they're too expensive, according to news reports. The Canadian government also refuses to purchase newer drugs until they've been on the market for years. From 1997 to 1999, for instance, 100 drugs were introduced in America, while only 43 of those drugs became available in Canada.

Consider cancer. In the United States, the survival rate is 90 percent for patients diagnosed with Stage I colon cancer. In Britain, it's just 70 percent.

For American women diagnosed with Stage I breast cancer, 97 percent are still alive after five years. In Britain, it's only 78 percent. Indeed, when adjusted for age, U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 1 percent per year since 1991.

The data show that if you are sick, the United States is where you want to be. We spend more in this country on health care, and we get more medical care as a result.

Like the author stated, Moore won't be going to Cuba for care if he gets sick. The US offers far and away the best health care in the world.

How many people are denied even being on a waiting list only because of financial reasons?
The article talked about American buying drugs before other countries.
How many Americans were denied those sames drugs just because they could not afford them?
Funny how that article doesn't answer those questions.

proof-hunter · #3 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 11:55 AM

Paul,
In America, you really don't get turned away, and the law will
not come after you, if you can't pay for your medical treatment.

The worst problem we have is with drugs, trying to make them affordable.
which is hard to do when we have company's here that pay the R&D and
pass it on to the Americans, yet gives the hard high cost R&D to other
country's like Canada for almost nothing. which is why drugs are cheaper
else where. just go brush your self up on that OK?

Then there is people like you, from Canada who is reaping from the
Americans who are paying the cost of the R&D and you treat us like crap.

The only way to cure this leaching of your own country from us, is to
pass a law that requires our drug company's to split the R&D out to any
other country to pay their share before sharing the ingredients or formulas.

Anyways, I have ALOT of proof that shows that the rich in Canada come
here to get medical, because it's the best. leaving the poorer or middle
class to suffer with the worst government health crap ever.

When you want the best, you have to pay the best, I like that type of
system, because it rewards our medical people for being the best.

.

f100supersabr · #4 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 12:19 PM

proof hunter claims

Quote:

Anyways, I have ALOT of proof that shows that the rich in Canada come
here to get medical, because it's the best. leaving the poorer or middle
class to suffer with the worst government health crap ever.

I would like to see that "data" because based on info I understand your "proof" is somewhat of an urban legend. Having said that I am not saying that our medical delivery system is not the best becasue it is.

The problem that we have is trying to figure out how/who is going to top pay for it. In a nut shell the problem is one of finacing medical care.

The basis is that we need to decide as a nation whenther health care is to be a right or a privilege of those who can afford it. And I will lot entertain any stupidtism about "health care was not granted in the Constitution by the founding fathers so it is not a right". The Constituion was written 225 years ago!! A great document but the founding fathers could not forsee everything.

paul111 · #5 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proof-hunter";p=&quot

Paul,
In America, you really don't get turned away, and the law will
not come after you, if you can't pay for your medical treatment.
.

You you are saying that no American is denied treatment simply because they can not pay???
Are you honestly trying to feed that to the American people??
Are you saying that if a drug is not "Affordable" the low income families in your country would still get them?
If a low income person needed expensive cancer treatment, they would not be turned away?
You are saying that not one American will ever be denied proper health care based on financial reasons?
You complained that only the Rich Canadians are coming to America for treatment.
Looks like the rich in your own country are getting the best treatment too.

Joker · #6 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul111";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by proof-hunter";p=&quot

Paul,
In America, you really don't get turned away, and the law will
not come after you, if you can't pay for your medical treatment.
.

You you are saying that no American is denied treatment simply because they can not pay???

There are places one can go in America, some hospitals and/or clinics, that won't turn away anyone, regardless of whether or not they are insured, or can afford treatment. It is not possible, however, to get the best possible care if you are uninsure or can't afford it.

From experience, I was briefly denied medical care at Sloane Kettering Memorial Cancer Center, one of the top cancer hospitals in the world (and one of the most expensive, too) because I didn't have acceptable insurance. Large successful private hospitals may turn away patients at will, but the smaller nonprofit hospitals will typically accept anyone. The level of care, of course, is significantly worse.

proof-hunter · #7 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 02:04 PM

Lets see if I can explain myself better for laymen.
In America, you mostly find in the REAL LARGE cities
Hospitals that may turn people down, they are all over
crowded etc. but I have lived in place's like North Dakota
South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Washington state
exclude Seattle because it's LARGE.

I have never had been turned down, nore have I ever seen poor people
or the uninsured get turned down on important medical help. but it does
happen in mostly large cities, allot of people I know that are not insured
say they have never been denied, but they are in debt. these are friends
and relations combined.

When I was in my 20's and just starting out, I had to have 2 important
surgery's, which I got done, even though I was un-insured and had no job
at the time. and there was no waiting list.

Now about my proof, that you say is just a myth, check these links
out. plus I know first hand about this because I have a Canadian
friend who lost his father because of waiting, while yet another
co worker came to America after his wife died because of waiting
lists, and then my dear friend of almost 16 years who passed away
in Canada, because of a waiting list.

It appears the CARD they give you in Canada, is a worthless card
if you need help right away. just swipe it into the machine and
wa la, your on the waiting list.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE-I0ombIEY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRBS-YXSknk

Because of my job, I am in and out of Canada alot, so I meet allot of
people and have mad allot of friends.

Oh, and if you have ever lived somewhere in America where you was turned
down for life threatening health treatment, I suggest you go else where
and I suggest you report it to the media.

.

f100supersabr · #8 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul111";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by proof-hunter";p=&quot

Paul,
In America, you really don't get turned away, and the law will
not come after you, if you can't pay for your medical treatment.
.

You you are saying that no American is denied treatment simply because they can not pay???

There are places one can go in America, some hospitals and/or clinics, that won't turn away anyone, regardless of whether or not they are insured, or can afford treatment. It is not possible, however, to get the best possible care if you are uninsure or can't afford it.

From experience, I was briefly denied medical care at Sloane Kettering Memorial Cancer Center, one of the top cancer hospitals in the world (and one of the most expensive, too) because I didn't have acceptable insurance. Large successful private hospitals may turn away patients at will, but the smaller nonprofit hospitals will typically accept anyone. The level of care, of course, is significantly worse.

Joker you are correct people will not get turned away in emergency situations and/or at non profits. Virtually everyone will get some care somewhere. The problems with the uninsured arise with preventative medicine and with early detection for the uninsured. The other problem is that the uninsured use emergency rooms as their PCP's so they end up clodding the systems and using the emergency rooms in the most inefficient and ineffective manner.

Going back on preventative medicine - the lack of preventative medicine opportunities end up costing all of us when the uninsured get sick with something that could have been prevented.

Whenever anyone tries to tell you that the medical delivery and medical financing system is just great because they "never saw anyone get turned down" for medical care you know that you are getting a line of crap.

I also know when someone tries to tell me that they know exactly how the Canadian system works just because they travek there I am getting a line of crap.

proof-hunter · #9 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 03:34 PM

f100supersabr,
When someone says what I say is a line of crap
then I know who talks the crap. you might be better
served by viewing the links I provided. before you
rant and rave about being feed crap.

You got that suppercrap?

.

f100supersabr · #10 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proof-hunter";p=&quot

f100supersabr,
When someone says what I say is a line of crap
then I know who talks the crap. you might be better
served by viewing the links I provided. before you
rant and rave about being feed crap.

You got that suppercrap?.

Your link postings are opinion and my opinion is that it is crap.

And I did not call you names, I had an opinion about your opinion. Got that!!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode