The best health care in the world

[Dr.Who]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/07/two_different_worlds_part_ii_111223.html

A few weeks ago, I had what seemed to me a small medical problem, so I phoned my primary physician. However, after we discussed the problem, he directed me to a specialist.

After the specialist examined me, he directed me to a different specialist elsewhere. When I was examined and tested in the second specialist's office, he immediately phoned a hospital, asking to have an operating room available in an hour.

No more than 5 hours elapsed between my seeing the first specialist and the time when I was on an operating table.

This was quite a contrast with what happens in countries with government-run medical systems. In such countries, it is not uncommon to have to wait days to see a physician, weeks to see a specialist and months before you can have an operation. It is very doubtful whether I would have lasted that long.

In the intensive care unit, where I was sent after the first of two operations, I was hooked up to high-tech machines and had a small army of people looking after me around the clock. Would a government-run medical system have provided all this, especially for a man in his eighties?

In some countries with government-run medical systems, individuals are not even permitted to pay out of their own pockets for medications that the government has ruled are too expensive for people in their age bracket or medical condition.

That same mindset has already become evident in the United States, where a very expensive cancer drug has been refused federal approval to be sold, because it helps only a limited number of people and at very high costs.

But what if you are one of those limited numbers of people -- and you are willing to pay what it costs, with your own money?

You are free to take your life's savings and gamble it away in a casino, if you want to -- but you are not free to use your life's savings to save your life.

This is not an isolated paradox. This is the logical consequence of a vision of the world that prevails all too widely among the intelligentsia, and not just as regards medical care.

In that vision, people can draw on the available resources only to the extent that the government considers appropriate, in the light of other claims on those resources. This treats what the people have produced as if it automatically belongs to the government -- and as if politicians and bureaucrats have both the right and the wisdom to override the personal decisions that the people want to make for themselves.

This issue involves a difference between a world in which people can make their own decisions with their own money and a world in which decisions -- including life and death medical decisions -- are taken out of the hands of millions of people across the country and put into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington.

One of the big claims for government-run medical systems is that they can "bring down the cost of medical care." But anyone can bring down the cost of anything by simply buying a smaller quantity or a lower quality.

That is why countries with government-run medical systems have waiting lists to see doctors, and even longer waiting lists to see specialists or to get an operation. That is why those countries seldom have as many high-tech medical devices as in the United States or use the newest medications as often.

In those things that are crucially affected by medical care, such as cancer survival rates, the United States leads the way. In things that doctors can do little about -- such as obesity, homicide or drug addiction -- Americans shorten their own lives, more so than people in other comparable societies.

This enables advocates of government-run medical care to cite longevity statistics, in order to claim that our more expensive medical system is less effective, since Americans' longevity does not compare favorably with that in other comparable societies.

 

[ProudLefty]

Do you have facts to back you up? My understanding is that in most advanced countries your condition would have been detected and/or prevented long before you were diagnosed here, and you would never even have approached this danger point in your life. The fact that we didn't catch the problem until the last moment is frightening to me. It certainly is nothing to brag about.

As to the 5 hour wait - I suspect the waits would have been similar, or sooner, in most countries. America really isn't #1 in medical care anymore, regardless of your personal opinion.

By the way,. I am happy that your problem was caught. That is great news, however it came to have happened.

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you have facts to back you up? My understanding is that in most advanced countries your condition would have been detected and/or prevented long before you were diagnosed here, and you would never even have approached this danger point in your life. The fact that we didn't catch the problem until the last moment is frightening to me. It certainly is nothing to brag about.

As to the 5 hour wait - I suspect the waits would have been similar, or sooner, in most countries. America really isn't #1 in medical care anymore, regardless of your personal opinion.

By the way,. I am happy that your problem was caught. That is great news, however it came to have happened.

I am going to assume that you skimmed that rather than reading carefully. 1. because you failed to note the link at the beginning that would clue you into the fact that article was written by a person who is a professional at analyzing this sort of thing. (though I thank you for the kind words) 2. because I fail to understand how you could know that other advanced countries would be better at detecting or preventing a condition that was never named.

If the disease were cancer for example the US is generally better at detecting all cancers than many other industrialized nations.

In fact the US is superior to a lot of nations in a lot of ways and here are just a few of those facts:

"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]

act 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.]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

 

[PLC1]

It's good to know that we are getting at least some benefit from having the most expensive medical care system in the world.

Here's another anecdote: I have a grand nephew who was born in Denmark, not because his parents are Danish, but because his father was working there when he was born. He was born with a medical problem that is life threatening if not caught and treated immediately. Just what that was is beyond my own medical knowledge to describe, but it is something that hospitals in Denmark are prepared for, and hospitals here in the US are not.

This little boy is now a healthy and rambunctious preschooler. Had he been born in the US, he most likely would not have survived.

His parents are very religious, and believe that God sent them to Denmark so that he could be born safely.

His grandfather, my brother in law, is somewhere to the right of even the memory of Reagan politically, works in the health care industry and has the opinion of universal health care you would expect from someone with his political philosophy. Even he acknowledges that his grandson most likely would not have survived had he been born in the US.

So, there's another anecdote for you.

The bottom line, the big elephant in the room that no one wants to admit is there, is that our health care system is unsustainable financially for much longer.

But, it's good to know that Dr. Who is alive and well.

 

[Openmind]

It's good to know that we are getting at least some benefit from having the most expensive medical care system in the world.

Here's another anecdote: I have a grand nephew who was born in Denmark, not because his parents are Danish, but because his father was working there when he was born. He was born with a medical problem that is life threatening if not caught and treated immediately. Just what that was is beyond my own medical knowledge to describe, but it is something that hospitals in Denmark are prepared for, and hospitals here in the US are not.

This little boy is now a healthy and rambunctious preschooler. Had he been born in the US, he most likely would not have survived.

His parents are very religious, and believe that God sent them to Denmark so that he could be born safely.

His grandfather, my brother in law, is somewhere to the right of even the memory of Reagan politically, works in the health care industry and has the opinion of universal health care you would expect from someone with his political philosophy. Even he acknowledges that his grandson most likely would not have survived had he been born in the US.

So, there's another anecdote for you.

The bottom line, the big elephant in the room that no one wants to admit is there, is that our health care system is unsustainable financially for much longer.

But, it's good to know that Dr. Who is alive and well.

Since we are going into anecdotes, I have quite a few. . .in four different health care system: France, Belgium, England, and the US (in 4 different states).

My conclusions are this: There really is very little difference with any of those health care system, whether they be totally nationalized (like England), or semi nationalized with both public and private options (like France and Belgium), or private, except for Medicare and Medicaid (as in the US).

ALL of them will treat "emergency" conditions as . . . .emergencies.
ALL of them will treat "elective" conditions and "non emergency" conditions as. . .non-emergencies, and will therefore have some waiting time.

One of my friend has recently (earlier in August) been diagnosed with a tore rotary cuff in the shoulder. . . . she will have to wait until November (1 date available) or January (choice of several dates) before she can have this very minor, outpatient surgery, right here in the US. . . and she can pay!

My 89 year old brother in law got diagnosed with a clogged (85%) carotide artery in March. . .the was scheduled for beginning of April, but since he had planned his vacation during that period, the surgeon rescheduled it for the middle of March. . .so my brother in law could still go on his vacation to Canada! By the way. . . that was under universal BELGIAN healthcare.

Basically, if you stop listening to propaganda, if you experience different systems of healthcare, it is NOT so much about "quality," there will be good quality all over, with some unfortunate exceptions everywhere.

It's all about ACCESS, and COST.

And, if you consider that quality is about even everywhere. . .but it cost 1/2 to 2/3 LESS in other developped countries, and the ACCESS is 98 to 99% in those countries. . .it is clear that the rest is just "spin" and "propaganda.

 

[Dr.Who]

It's good to know that we are getting at least some benefit from having the most expensive medical care system in the world.

Here's another anecdote: I have a grand nephew who was born in Denmark, not because his parents are Danish, but because his father was working there when he was born. He was born with a medical problem that is life threatening if not caught and treated immediately. Just what that was is beyond my own medical knowledge to describe, but it is something that hospitals in Denmark are prepared for, and hospitals here in the US are not.

This little boy is now a healthy and rambunctious preschooler. Had he been born in the US, he most likely would not have survived.

His parents are very religious, and believe that God sent them to Denmark so that he could be born safely.

His grandfather, my brother in law, is somewhere to the right of even the memory of Reagan politically, works in the health care industry and has the opinion of universal health care you would expect from someone with his political philosophy. Even he acknowledges that his grandson most likely would not have survived had he been born in the US.

So, there's another anecdote for you.

The bottom line, the big elephant in the room that no one wants to admit is there, is that our health care system is unsustainable financially for much longer.

If we dont even have nough facts about the case to debate or counter it then you anectode is not very useful. A child went to a hospital in Denmark to get a condition treated that could not be treated in the US? I do not believe there is any single condition for which US hospitals are not prepared to handle.

But, it's good to know that Dr. Who is alive and well.

I see that you too are reading the posts in the thread with care

Though again I thank you for the misplaced kind words.



Yes our health care system is unsustainable as it stands. We need to restore market forces.

 

[Openmind]

If we dont even have nough facts about the case to debate or counter it then you anectode is not very useful. A child went to a hospital in Denmark to get a condition treated that could not be treated in the US? I do not believe there is any single condition for which US hospitals are not prepared to handle.



I see that you too are reading the posts in the thread with care

Though again I thank you for the misplaced kind words.



Yes our health care system is unsustainable as it stands. We need to restore market forces.

I guess some of us prefer to add a little of our own story rather than just copying and pasting what someone else writes. . .so we give others benefit of the doubt that they also prefer not to just "copy!"

The facts remain though. . .and you don't seem to have either the desire or the arguments to express your own response (except, of course, to attempt to belittle others!)

 

[bododie]

Don't forget the 50% income tax rate, in these wonderful European countries.

 

[PLC1]

Don't forget the 50% income tax rate, in these wonderful European countries.

How much do you think we pay, if you add up federal, state, local, payroll, sales, and property taxes, then add in the cost of health insurance and out of pocket payments? I'd be willing to bet we pay more than 50% in all.

 

[bododie]

I'd be willing to bet we pay more than 50% in all.

So figure it out for your own expenses, and let us know. Thanks for volunteering. Lol.

P.S. I don't pay any state taxes....

 

[pocketfullofshells]

what you ment was good health care system for you

and take what happened to you...now imagine your poor and while working you can't afford health care insurane or only have limited coverage even...

Now what are odds you have same thing happen?

If your rich America has a great health care system...if your not its not so great. And its always faster when you can take 25% of the population and not offer them care...speeds up the wait for the rich to get theres.

We could have the best highways as well for speed if we just limited there use to those who make over 80,000 a year....think how much better traffic would be...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

As I have stated before on health care, with our current system its only out of luck that my GF got a expensive new treatment that possibly saved her life...after budget cuts she lost her job with the school district...and got a few months extra coverage after she lost it...with her new job ( private sector now) her new insurance would not have covered it...

in the US you can live or die based on what company you happen to work for...and losing your job is not just risking loss of income and your home...it could be your life.

Why do workers stay at **** jobs? often its they are scared to lose there medical coverage...Its a nice way for companies to get workers to put up with a lot of crap... especially when they have family with medical issues...

 

[Alias]

As I have stated before on health care, with our current system its only out of luck that my GF got a expensive new treatment that possibly saved her life...after budget cuts she lost her job with the school district...and got a few months extra coverage after she lost it...with her new job ( private sector now) her new insurance would not have covered it...

in the US you can live or die based on what company you happen to work for...and losing your job is not just risking loss of income and your home...it could be your life.

Why do workers stay at **** jobs? often its they are scared to lose there medical coverage...Its a nice way for companies to get workers to put up with a lot of crap... especially when they have family with medical issues...

What makes you think if someone voluntarily changes their job they will not have health coverage in their new job?

 

[bododie]

Psst. For the first and last time as well, please learn the difference between "there" and their", "your", and "you're".

Can't get a good job and not be poor if you can't spell/communicate coherently. I'm certain this is true in those countries with better health care too.

Are you suggesting that health care isn't even "offered" to all citizens? It is you know. Just because it's more than you want to pay, or has restrictions, doesn't mean it's not offered.

Man, I just re-read the last sentence of your post.

We could have the best highways as well for speed if we just limited there use to those who make over 80,000 a year....think how much better traffic would be...

I'm pretty sure that purposely delusional isn't a medical condition, so I don't think there's hope for ya....here, there, or anywhere, except prison, where you get...you guessed it, FREE HEALTH CARE.

 

[PLC1]

What makes you think if someone voluntarily changes their job they will not have health coverage in their new job?

It is unlikely that anyone would voluntarily change jobs unless they did have health coverage at the new job, or unless they didn't have at the old job.