Posted on 05/27/2007 9:56:52 AM PDT by street_lawyer
First let's look at what "universal" healthcare actually means: The British government says that, at any one time, there are about a million people waiting to get into hospitals. According to the Fraser Institute, almost 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list at any point in time. And, according to the New Zealand government, 90,000 people are on the waiting lists there.
As for “guaranteed” healthcare, Canadian and British doctors see 50 percent more patients than American doctors do, and, as a consequence, they have less time to spend with each patient. Furthermore, being the 100th person on the list for a back operation does not guarantee that position, if for example, a paying customer jumps into the line.
The cry for help for the uninsured never includes the statistics on Medicare nationally: In generous states, you could earn triple the poverty level, $61,332 for a family of four, and still be eligible. About 53 million people are covered, better than one out of six, and counting. Meanwhile, the total projected cost this year will be about typical, inflating another 6 percent, to $336 billion.[1] In effect 53 million American are already covered by universal health insurance.
According to John Goodman, founder and president of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas: Among women diagnosed with breast cancer, only one-fifth die in the United States compared to one-third in France and Germany and almost one-half in Britain; similarly, Americans enjoy significantly better outcomes for prostate cancer – statistics that do not support the claim that Socialized Medicine is efficient, or effective.
Lindsay McCreith lives in Ontario Canada . He worked as an auto body repair specialists for many years, until he began having headaches. His Canadian doctors suspected a brain tumor and ordered an MRI. It would have taken Mr. McCreith four months to obtain the critical MRI in the one-pay government run socialized medicine plan in Canada . He was willing to pay for the test to be performed in Canada , but the Ontario Minister of Heath, George Smitherman, a strong advocate of socialized medicine refused to allow private physicians to treat paying clients.
Choosing instead US medical providers, Mr. McCreith underwent an MRI the day after he contacted a private physician in Buffalo , New York . He returned to Ontario to schedule surgery for the known tumor which was by that time the size of a golf ball. The soonest the operation could be scheduled in Canada was three months away. He might well have died waiting of that surgery. Instead surgery was scheduled within a few days by private medical providers in Buffalo , New York .
As for “free” medical care in Canada , the McCreith’s spent their entire inheritance, which was left to them as by Mrs. McCreith’s father who had died a few months prior. According to Mrs. McCreith, if they had not had the money, they would have had to place a mortgage on their home to pay for the life saving operation.
The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care, a strong proponent for single-payer government sponsored universal Health Care in the United States has published statistics which seem to indicate that the quality of health care in the United States is below that of countries that provide Socialized Medicine. According to that organization, the United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, 20th in life expectancy for women, and 21st in life expectance for men.
Out of more than 200 countries listed by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a trusted information source, out of 1,000 live births, in the United States , 6.43 deaths occur, while in the United Kingdom 5.08 deaths are recorded, and in Canada the number of deaths per 1,000 is 4.69; however, these statistics can be misleading.
As reported in the “International Journal of Epidemiology”, “Differences in birth registration practices for infants weighing <1500 g are primarily responsible for the poor, deteriorating performance by the US in the International rankings of neonatal mortality rates.”[2] Menstrual dates in U.S. data misclassify gestational duration and overestimate both preterm and post term birth rates.
For international comparisons, gestational age in the United States should be based on the clinical estimate.[3] In stark contrast to Tokyo , Paris , and London , the association of income and infant mortality rate was strongly evident in Manhattan .[4] International comparisons of infant mortality are compromised by a lack of standardization with regard to birth registration practices. Studies have documented wide variations in the rate at which extremely small babies at the borderline of viability (e.g., < 500 g) are registered in different countries. In fact, recent secular trends and interprovincial comparisons of infant mortality within Canada are also affected by such differences in birth registration.[5]
[2] Oxford Journals Medicine International Journal of Epidemiology Volume 24, Number 3 Pp. 583-588
[3] Obstetrics & Gynecology 2007;109:813-822
[4] January 2005, Vol 95, No. 1 | American Journal of Public Health 86-90
[5] CMAJ • September 5, 2000; 163 (5)
This is great ammunition, thanks taking the time to compile the data.
The politicians live like aristocrats, the indifferent normal person is made in essence a slave with taxes of every imaginable descriptions, and the losers enjoy their big-screen TVs, loud music systems, fancy cars and welfare of 50 different varieties,, and all they got to do is go vote every couple of years.
When will that change? I don't know. I do hope to get to live long enough to see it. I'm stocking up on popcorn, among other things...
great post
free??
only a moron (and or a democrat) could fall for that one.
The battle over one payer heath care has already been lost. When you have around 20 million illegals, with sixth grade educations, already getting free heath care.
“Free”?
So all doctors and health care workers will be expected to do their jobs as volunteers then?
The most significant results are actually not just in morbidity, but also in quality of life, since US pharmaceuticals and innovative treatments keep those with disease MUCH healthier and able to live normal lives, in much less pain, suffering and discomfort.
Yes, the costs of our system are high, however, at the moment, our prosperous nation CHOOSES to spend a significant portion of money on staying healthy.
You think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it’s “free.”
However, there is one big fallacy in that reasoning. Life expectancy of an individual or average life expectancy of a nation's population depends on factors other than "qualility of health care," such as genetics and lifestyle. The possibilty, however, that individuals and societies may differ in such factors is almost never acknowledged by the left in its never-ending zeal to impose its idea of Utopia on all of us.
bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.