Free health care is really very expensive. Check out Cuba, by the way.
Posted on 09/05/2006 7:54:28 AM PDT by aculeus
[snip] If Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, reaches the Oval Office, she likely would take another crack at socialized medicine, as she did so disastrously in 1994.
Amy Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research sees this model more as a poisoned chalice. Her Washington-based free-market think tank (with which I am a "distinguished fellow") has begun educating Americans on the massive belly flop that is state-sponsored health care. [snip]
It would be bad enough if national health care merely offered patients low-quality treatment. Even worse, Ms. Ridenour finds, it kills them.
• Breast cancer is fatal to 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain and New Zealand, both socialized-medicine havens, breast cancer kills 46 percent of women it strikes.
• Prostate cancer proves fatal to 19 percent of its American sufferers. In single-payer Canada, the National Center for Policy Analysis reports, this ailment kills 25 percent of such men and eradicates 57 percent of their British counterparts.
• After major surgery, a 2003 British study found, 2.5 percent of American patients died in the hospital versus nearly 10 percent of similar Britons. Seriously ill U.S. hospital patients die at one-seventh the pace of those in the U.K.
• "In usual circumstances, people over age 75 should not be accepted" for treatment of end-state renal failure, according to New Zealand's official guidelines. Unfortunately, for older Kiwis, government controls kidney dialysis.
• According to a Populus survey, 98 percent of Britons want to reduce the time between diagnosis and treatment.
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
.
yeah, me too. Ping for later.
But what about Cuba? They don't include stats on Cuba because there, THERE, the perfect utopian society is in place, with THE BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD!!!!!
I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
Hilary and her ilk want to change the lyric to read..."all-everything comes from ME!". Socialist are well known for their promises. They promise a better life and if you don't become a believer, unlike Jesus, they'll kill you. That's why the body count in the 20th Century by your friendly neighborhood communists exceeds 125 Million!!!
Notice those new union commercials where the rank and file expound on the union's racism, political support of a single party and the extravagant lifestyles that dues affords "the chosen ones!"
Sorry for the rant but today is pseudo Monday!
In my opinion W has taken her plan a long way with his institution of the recent medicines bonanzas for seniors (and I am well into that group).
I see no reason for my progeny to pay Big Pharma for chemicals/medicine for everyone in the USA including the WH invited illegals.
Fat Bottomed Girl always likes telling other people what to do.
Its "for the children."
US insurers want to turn off the meter. Also getting the post-ops up and moving greatly reduces the liklihood of adhesions.
Free health care is really very expensive. Check out Cuba, by the way.
But but but....
(you do know I was kidding, right?)
Yes I was told that I had a good chance of the op producing adhesions that might be painful for life (radical nephrectomy) but I have been quite free from any.
This assumes that the Americans would adopt the very foolish British or Canadian models of public health care, which are about the worst around.
Do the same comparison with France, and things look a bit different.
Ping.
Use www.bugmenot.com for access.
Here's an interesting link comparing the performance and cost of various international health programs.
Obviously Britain's at the bottom of most of the performance charts, which is one of the reasons why I think it's dishonest to compare "socialist health systems" to the American system by using the British model in particular. The British, and especially the Canadians, have chosen the worst possible model for public health care.
Compare France to the US, and you get a different picture: longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality rate, and five-year survival rates that are just about comparable...for far less per capita costs.
I do not mean to suggest that the French system would work in America. French bureaucracy is the most prized set of jobs in the country. Accordingly, the French civil servants who are processing the claims and running the health care payments system - although they are as prone to the bureaucratic "attitude" that all civil servants get - generally do a competent job. French government is NOT a place full of Affirmative Action hires.
The French national health care system is quite good, and it works well in France. It's also quite expensive, compared to other publicly-run programs, because it leaves choice up to patients and leaves doctors independent. But it's still cheap by American standards.
So, should we adopt it here?
Could we?
Well, we could, but with our current horrible standards of government civil service, it would be a nightmare. The problem doesn't lie, though, in the fact that it's "socialist". The problem is that in America we have made civil service the "employer of last resort", and we get the according quality of service.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/Int_Health_Comp.pdf#search=%22comparative%20international%20cancer%20cure%20rates%22
Me too! 1995
Fortunately, our pianist was able to recompose it at baritone level since I couldn't hack those high tenor notes!!!
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.