Saturday, May 12, 2007

US Cancer Care 10X better than socialized UK

Post lifted from The Anchoress . See the original for links

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.


For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: