Did you read the book? While I am going to criticize the article itself I can't simply attack the book itself since I don't have it, so some of the things I am going to say about the article might not be right about the book itself and maybe you (or anyone who read it) could point those cases out.
Ok..he complains about the rhetoric from people who are in favour of “universal health care” but starts his review with “Read this book or die!” (well more or less).Before you do anything else, make a note to read "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care" by Sally C. Pipes. It might literally save your life, by checking the political stampede toward a government-controlled medical profession-- usually presented politically as "universal health care."
It is one of the painful signs of our times that millions of people are so easily swayed by rhetoric that they show virtually no interest at all in finding out the hard facts. Any number of other countries already have government-controlled medical professions. Yet few Americans show any interest in what actually happens to medical care in those countrie
something for nothing? Is he speaking of complete “free” healthcare? The only western country I can think of that has that is the UK, and I have never heart anyone in the US of wanting to create a NHS-clone. While we have here “universal coverage” everyone pays its insurances fees and small part of the price for each treatment or medicine he gets.Instead, we are being lured into a one-way process-- much like entering a Venus fly trap-- by the oldest of all confidence rackets, the promise of something for nothing.
Okay I am no expert on the Canadian system..but uhm...I am still rather waiting to hear about the “Top Ten Myths of American Health Care”. And while I am all for new treatments that can saves lifes I still want to some studies and checks before they enter the market, otherwise you harm or kill more people then you saved. An at least in my country the red tape for new medications is not too long. I myself am under the treatment of a recently created drug which was the first successful treatment of an incurable disease I have.Fortunately, Sally C. Pipes is one of the few who has explored the reality of government-controlled medical treatment in Canada and other countries. Among the things she discovered is that new life-saving medications that go immediately into the market in the United States take a much longer time to become available to Canadian patients-- if they ever get approved by the bureaucrats.
Uhm I can't really see the logic here. New drugs are usually the most expensive ones (each infusion I get from my new ones costs about 2000€), I don't see really how that LOWERS the costs (though it might still increase the success..but still only after sufficient tests and studies).No doubt that lowers the cost of medications-- if you count costs solely in money terms, rather than in terms of how many people literally pay with their lives when the bureaucrats are reluctant to buy new pharmaceutical drugs, while they can continue to approve obsolete and cheaper drugs for the same illnesses
Uhm he compares Europe, a continent of over 30 different nations (and number rising almost every year..) with a single county? This way he throws country like Ukraine or Belarus in the same category like Sweden. On can the game around. Germany has a higher cancer survival rate then the Americas. (Ok I did not look this up, but I dare to claim that when you throw countries like Haiti or Panama in the same category like the US and then compare it only to Germany, Germany would come out on top).Cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Europe. A recent report by the Fraser Institute in Vancouver estimates that annually tens of thousands of Canadians seek medical treatment outside of Canada, even though treatment is free inside Canada and they have to pay themselves for treatment elsewhere.
Second, nobody (ok at least me) does criticize the QUALITIY of treatments in the US, but the ability of people to ACCESS it. And if “importing” patients is a sign of quality of an health care system then Germany can'T be doing that bad since almost every of its smaller neighbours sends patients over here for treatments that are not available in their home countries, ot at least not in sufficient numbers (Countries like Denmark or Luxenbourg simply cannot have a clinic specialized for every rare disease.
Ok that might be true, counter argument might be that on the other hand in America there are thousands of people who simply don't get there surgery at all to lack of coverage and personal funds.Other studies show that waiting times for surgery are months longer in Canada, Britain and Australia-- all countries with government-controlled medical care-- than in the United States.
Okay now these actually might be some of mentioned Myths..which this article has been prett much missing so far by talking mostly about other countries.Among the many issues explained in plain English in "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care" are why pharmaceutical drugs cost so much, why it is misleading to talk about uninsured Americans as if they do not get medical care, and how politicians make existing insurance more expensive by blithely mandating coverage that people would not voluntarily pay for with their own money, if it was left up to them.
I have to admit that I am a bit confused here. Is he talking about States in the U.S. Or other Nations? I assume the later, if I am wrong then simply ignore the following part.In various states, these mandated coverages include alcoholism, acupuncture, breast reduction and treatment for baldness, among other things. You may just want insurance to cover you in case you get hit with some big-time medical problem, but many state laws will not allow an insurance company to sell you that "major medical" coverage, without all the add-ons that politicians and special interests have come up with
Treating alcoholism: While the person might not really deserve help of his insurance to deal with this self inflicting problem, I dare to claim that the insurances should do it out self interest. Getting someone away from the bottle (if successful) is fare more cheaper then getting him a new liver ten years later.
Acupuncture: If it WORKS and avoids the need for more expensive treatments..why not?
Breat REDUCTION: Maybe a woman could give a better answer but as far as I know can to big breats cause serious back problems and health problems. So why not have a one time operation that aviods further pain and treatments? After all those operation are not for cosmetic reason (in contrast to breast enlargements which should in now way be covered) but for health reason. So why not?
Treatment for baldness: Uhm never heart of this being a “demanded” coverage. At least here it is only used by private insurances to attract new clients. And offering more service to get more clients seems perfectly fine to me.
Correct me if I am wrong again here but to my understanding in the US you are usually covered over your job (and so is your family). Meaning that if you lose your job for whatever reason you also lose you health insurance (without getting automatically access to Medicaid). And even if you manage to get a new job with new coverage in time, old diseases would be considered “pre existing conditions” and would not be payed for by the insurances.As with so many government programs, "the poor" are used as a political justification for imposing government-controlled medical care on everyone. But "The Top Ten Myths of American Medical Care" shows what a fraud that is. First of all, the average uninsured American has above-average income-- and people living in poverty are already eligible for Medicaid.
I have spent almost 2 years of my life in hospitals and countless of days & hours in doctors offices. I never had to wait for month for any treatment and when one Doctor could give not a appointment in time I simply looked up the next one and tried it there. Nor did I ever had to wait for “approval” of my medication. The docs decide what I get and not my insurances company.The lure of something for nothing may be seductive when you are in good health. But it can become a bitter irony when you are waiting for months for surgery to relieve your pain or when your life hangs in the balance while some bureaucrat decides whether you can get the best medication or something older and cheaper.
and again the same rhetoric he complains about from his opponments. Now I still don't know if this is a good book, but this is certainly not a good review."The Top Ten Myths About American Medical Care" can literally be a life-saver. What it reveals is unlikely to be told by the mainstream media or by other enthusiasts for the magic phrase "universal health care."