<link>

Just a follow-up to my post last week regarding the efficacy of the U. S. health care system vs. the sort of socialized medicine that the Democrats would subject us all to. Think long and hard before voting Democrat in Novemeber, unless you really want English or Canadian results when you fall ill.

The article states that we have higher survival rates for breast and prostate cancer, but what about the other 3 measured, or the many other types of cancer that exist?

Well for colon or rectal cancer if you're a man, your best best is Japan, who has universal healthcare. If you're a woman, France is apparently the best place to have colon or rectal cancer. UHC there too.

<link>

This isn't exactly a compelling argument, it just looks like you cherrypicked two facts and over-extrapolated from them.

FaxMeBeer:

<link>

Just a follow-up to my post last week regarding the efficacy of the U. S. health care system vs. the sort of socialized medicine that the Democrats would subject us all to. Think long and hard before voting Democrat in Novemeber, unless you really want English or Canadian results when you fall ill.

Differences shown in the chart are miniscule between US and Canada and certainly within the realm of other factors.

" Europe lags behind America, with wide differences in survival rates, ranging from 10% for breast cancer to 34% for prostate cancer."

The chart didn't show that.

My wife is currently fighting breast cancer and the thing I notice is how the expenses are padded; excessive multiple consultations within an oncology group, repetitive CT's and PETs, $200 billings for a two minute "how you feeling." We have great insurance and the industry is milking it like a big cashcow.

I gave the data which was presented. As I'm sure you saw, medicinenet doesn't rank survival for the remaining three cancers, so it's just as likely that America is second as it is that America is last. Japan does well, but it's also bleeding doctors because of the nation's constant cuts in reimbursement rates. France, similarly, is having to cut social services of all sorts due to it's bloated welfare system. So, while the U. S. has a solid private system that should only grow better (and cheaper) with competition and innovation, socialized systems will inevitably decrease in quality as they lose investment and talent to the open market systems in other countries.

...and how it's paid for are not determined solely by cancer statistics, Faxy. That's just absurd.

I want a single-payer healthcare system, one which guarantees care to all Americans. You don't like that? Tough shit.

the truth is...money will get you farther, more thorough, and better care.

same holds for insurance..the more paid in, the more that insurance will allow

If they are defrauding the insurance company, then you have a responsibility to say so and to dispute the charges.

Look at the Canadian Government's website and you'll find a listing of current waiting lists for all sorts of medical treatment. Right now, Canadians are waiting twice as long for chemotherapy as doctors are saying the patient should wait -- so they're getting half the treatment that they should. How would you like your wife to be forced into lesser treatment by her government?

Who cares what you want? I want good care without the government forcing me to buy insurance that I may or may not want/need. If I'm willing to pay out of pocket for insurance or for care, what business is that of yours? If I'd rather buy crack than insurance...who are you to stop me? Piss off.

"So, while the U. S. has a solid private system"

Our system is already half public in a piecework ad hoc way and has about 30% administrative costs. Our per capita annual cost is over $7,000, about twice Germany's. Our system can be improved and made more cost effective.

This is just a business excercise and an attempt to slow medicines long inflationary run-up. Single payer can cut administrative costs, a better tort system can cut malpractice costs, and the government providing malpractice insurance will end the gouging in that that we see in Missouri, where we got tort reform and malpractice rates continued to rise.

..that what I want is doable...what you want is magical.

Sounds like you HAVE been buying crack, though, FWIW...:)

are as high as they are, of course bankruptcy and unemployment a large factor as reported.

Suicide means $$$$$$$$ 4 for the family..........yep, sounds like just the place to go if one gets cancer?

<link>

you're worried about a canadian health model, yet canada's right there behind the us in both categories.

the question must be asked, how much cheaper is coverage is it per patient in canada than it is in the US yet they're able to stay right there with us?

i'd say pretty significant. how significant a drop-off in quality of patient care? i'd say apparently not significant at all.

i don't want cost considerations to get in the way of excellent patient care, but when you consider that whole corporate bureaucracies have been created to deny care in our current private system via 'pre-existing conditions' or the famous 4-5 questions to prospective customers, i'll take whatever it is you don't like about canada or the uk over what we have in the us anyday of the week.

think of all that overhead we could lose just by not employing people to deny benefits... and i know for a fact my employer does not want to be in the healthcare insurance providing business any longer. leave it to the state. the pool is bigger.

I don't see where it's the government's job to limit liability. But that's another discussion.

Our system will be improved and made more cost effective. But only if we become more private, not by becoming more public. Private companies have an inherent drive to cut costs while providing the most robust service possible -- that's the essence of open market competition. The government is currently making the system less effecient by bloating the system with money, forcing everyone to compete in driving prices up, rather than in driving prices down. I worked for a private insurance company in KC, and our admin costs were nowhere near 30%. We had minimized documentation from the doctors as well, reducing their costs. Meanwhile, Medicare and such were doing nothing but throwing more busy work at doctors -- essentially creating a situation in which we were reducing our operating costs to make up for increase costs from the government.

You're too smart to think that more government involvement could be anything but a drain.

<link>

There's the Lancet study, unfortunately I'm not paying $31.50 to drive home the point that you cherrypicked data, so all I can access is the abstract. The Economist was wrong, it only covers 4 cancers- breast, prostate, colon, and rectal. I showed you the best countries for the other two.

The rest of your post you just made up, there's no evidence to think that innovation is leading to lower costs when the innovations of the past few decades have coincided with skyrocketing costs.

for health care? VA health care the only socialized health care at present in America, I as this guy, had a four month wait for an MRI, when I blew out my knee:

<link>

VA does the best they can, evidently, yet, Veterans know why Americans do NOT want national health care........