US Cancer Care 10X better than socialized UK
Filed under: Medical, America, Socialism doesn't work
Gaius tells it:
Seriously, do you really think socialized medicine is a good idea? Do you really believe that the code phrase “Universal Health Care” is anything but socialized medicine? Read this article from the Telegraph before you answer. Read it all the way through because the really important information is buried toward the end. Because it matters.
Gaius highlights a bit: British cancer patients are substantially more likely to die of the disease than those in other western European countries because of poor access to the latest drugs, according to an authoritative report to be published today.
[…]
The proportion of colorectal cancer patients with access to the drug Avastin was 10 times higher in the US than it was in Europe, with the UK having a lower uptake than the European average.
It seems very strange to me that while Canada, Britain, France and the other countries with socialized health care systems find those systems in steady decline, the Democrats keep telling us that socialized medicine is the way to go.
It’s certainly the way to put an enormous amount of money and citizen control within the power of the Government…but will it save you’re life? Not if there’s a waiting list, and not if - as I suspect - availability of treatment will only be sanctioned by the government if you have lived your life by their standards. ‘Smith!’ screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. ‘6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please!
Money and power…I can’t think of any other rational reason why the Democrats want to push us toward a health care system that clearly does not work.
The other thing that worries me about socialized medicine is that there is no incentive there for the best-and-the-brightest to undertake the arduous work (and heavy cost) of obtaining medical degrees, so that they can be under the power of the Government, rather than allowed to strike out on their own. Then who will be our next doctors? The second tier students? The third? Socialism too often is a showcase for mediocrity. It doesn’t work. The private sector is imperfect, and there are certainly issues within our health care system that need addressing, particularly for the un-insured, but throwing us into this fresh hell is not the answer.
Maybe the answer is to help uninsured people, especially those with children, to buy into the same health insurance plan (or a reduced one, with reduced premiums) that our government employees tap into. Would that work?
Seems to me with all the big plans out there, already in existence, there should be a way for un-insured folks to participate for a manageable fee. People don’t need to be “given” things - all that does is strip them of their dignity and their sense of self-pride [See comments section for an expansion of that thought - admin]. But there must be a way to include them in some sort of discounted participation. We need some new people in government, with new ideas. These tired, old ones need to be put to bed.
Ed Morrissey picks up on the story here.
theanchoressonline.com
US Health Care Saves More Lives Than Socialized Medicine
A new study by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden shows that the American health care system outperforms the socialized systems in Europe in getting new medicines to cancer patients. The difference saves lives, and the existing Western European systems force people to die at higher rates from the same cancers, although the Telegraph buries that lede (via QandO):
The researchers studied Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, South Africa and the US, as well as 19 European countries, with a total population of 984 million, and looked at access to 67 newer cancer drugs.
They found that the proportions of female cancer patients surviving five years beyond diagnosis in France, Spain, Germany, Italy were 71 per cent, 64 per cent, 63 per cent and 63 per cent respectively. In the UK it was 53 per cent.
Among men the proportions still alive at five years in the same countries were 53 per cent, 50 per cent, 53 per cent and 48 per cent. Again in the UK it was lower at 43 per cent.
The Telegraph rightly focuses on the British system and its deficiencies. However, when one looks further into the article, the point about the American system finally surfaces:
Dr Nils Wilking, a clinical oncologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, said: "Our report highlights that in many countries new drugs are not reaching patients quickly enough and that this is having an adverse impact on patient survival. Where you live can determine whether you receive the best available treatment or not.
"To some extent this is determined by economic factors, but much of the variation between countries remains unexplained. In the US we have found that the survival of cancer patients is significantly related to the introduction of new oncology drugs." ...
The proportion of colorectal cancer patients with access to the drug Avastin was 10 times higher in the US than it was in Europe, with the UK having a lower uptake than the European average.
It's funny how the supposedly equalized treatment of people under Western socialized-medicine models holds people back from new therapies and new medicines, while the American model of market-based medicine (with significant regulation) outperforms in this regard by a factor of 10. That response allows patients to start treating their cancers earlier, but what this report misses is that the American model also allows for earlier detection, thanks to the long waits for procedures like CAT scans and the like in Britain and other socialized systems.
And yet, the Democrats this year have already begun discussing how they will bring the American system closer to nationalization. Perhaps their presidential candidates should read this report first. Certainly American voters should familiarize themselves with it.
captainsquartersblog.com |
