Thread: Top Ten Myths of American Health Care

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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."

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.

Tarek,

Here's the article upon which the cancer survival rates are based: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/co...df/CONCORD.pdf.

Here's a link to the online version of the book: http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/d..._Ten_Myths.pdf.

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

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.

The law has changed to lag the end of coverage to allow for job transitions. However, most economists support decoupling health care from specific jobs since doing so would make for more fluid labor markets..

Originally Posted by Shek

Tarek,

Here's the article upon which the cancer survival rates are based: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/co...df/CONCORD.pdf.

Here's a link to the online version of the book: http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/d..._Ten_Myths.pdf.

Thanks for the links.

I have yet to take a longer look into it but from the first glance the study seems to show that while with some cancer type the US comes out on top, one many others countries like France or even Cuba seem to archive a higher survival rate. The study does not really look like a great argument against europe-style health care.

Ahhh, Americans...when you are going to learn that the entire world is not USA?
If the health care for profit works for you that is fine...It doesn't work for the rest of the world, cause if it worked, rest of the world would run also health care for profit...

"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."

The irony is even bigger and more bitter when you can't afford that medicine or the treatment that you need. If you wait you at least have the chance but if you don't have the money, sorry that is it.

But I must admit, in our case (Serbia) it would work better if we had the health care for profit. Too many doctors are in jail for asking money (enormous amounts) from the patients to perform treatment or surgery, since they are state employees and have state paycheck...I think that the canceling the general health care and going full for health care for profit would be better. It would reduce the corruption dramatically...but the bad thing is that it would also reduce the population as well...

So what if America is a nation of dumbasses for not embracing nationalized health care?
Why would you care which way we go? We're too busy printing more money to go the way of the Wiemar Republic to worry about national healthcare...

I find it interesting that opponents of National Healthcare always use negative examples of a select few countries to justify their arguments but do not look at the countries that have a national healthcare system that works.

Rather than use the English system as an example why not use the Australian or the Swedish or any other number of health care systems that are internationally accepted as being the best there is.

The Australian system is a dual system, everyone has a right to public but your expected to get a private supplament if your earning over a certain amount (otherwise you pay a small tax increase).

If for some reason the government wont subsidize the medicine you take you can always buy it at market rates or use your private medical insurance. Noone is forcing you to accept ONLY what the government gives you.

It hasnt bankrupted us.. in fact overall, per capita our economy seems to be doing better than the US economy. We are proof that you can run a capitalist system alongside a 'socialist' social policies and still come out on top. In fact last time i checked we are still running a budget surplus (not sure after the meltdown if thats the case but i really doubt that has to do with medicare).

So i challenge anyone here to have a look at how our healthcare system works and argue that it is less effective than the system used in the US.

Also in regards to the comment Shek made about waiting lists; You are comparing elective public waiting lists to US waiting lists that are generally based on private health coverage. If you want to get operated on quicker in Australia you go private, pay the premium and jump the queue. The poor may have to wait a little longer but at least they get treatment.

Originally Posted by chakos

I find it interesting that opponents of National Healthcare always use negative examples of a select few countries to justify their arguments but do not look at the countries that have a national healthcare system that works.

Rather than use the English system as an example why not use the Australian or the Swedish or any other number of health care systems that are internationally accepted as being the best there is.

The Australian system is a dual system, everyone has a right to public but your expected to get a private supplament if your earning over a certain amount (otherwise you pay a small tax increase).

If for some reason the government wont subsidize the medicine you take you can always buy it at market rates or use your private medical insurance. Noone is forcing you to accept ONLY what the government gives you.

It hasnt bankrupted us.. in fact overall, per capita our economy seems to be doing better than the US economy. We are proof that you can run a capitalist system alongside a 'socialist' social policies and still come out on top. In fact last time i checked we are still running a budget surplus (not sure after the meltdown if thats the case but i really doubt that has to do with medicare).

So i challenge anyone here to have a look at how our healthcare system works and argue that it is less effective than the system used in the US.

Also in regards to the comment Shek made about waiting lists; You are comparing elective public waiting lists to US waiting lists that are generally based on private health coverage. If you want to get operated on quicker in Australia you go private, pay the premium and jump the queue. The poor may have to wait a little longer but at least they get treatment.

That's because Australia spends over twice as much on health care as it does on defense: http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/con...verview_40.htm and almost six times more than defense on social services. By contrast the US spends much more on defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy...bycategory.png

Being an ally of the US does have its benefits.

Well then cut your defence spending in half, or to a quarter.. You would still be able to look after yourselves, the world will still keep turning, and you can look after your populations properly. Let Israel deal with Iran, South Korea and Japan deal with China, Europe deal with Russia. Im sure your allies are strong enough to look after themselves.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

That's because Australia spends over twice as much on health care as it does on defense: http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/con...verview_40.htm and almost six times more than defense on social services. By contrast the US spends much more on defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy...bycategory.png

Australia may spend more of its budget, but per capita we are about half the US. I'm pretty sure we don't get half the coverage or half the quality, so it looks like a pretty good deal to me.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Being an ally of the US does have its benefits.

Not so sure about that in straight financial terms. If we were just interested in defending our soil we could do it for a lot less coin. Quite a bit of our expensive kit (Abrams tanks, destroyers) is at least partly aimed at being able to deploy more easily with our major ally.

Likewise we have spent quite a bit in recent years deploying troops to conflicts in support of the US (as we did in Korea & Vietnam). None of that was cheap, and I'm not sure that any of it made us objectively more secure.

Anyhoo, thats my 5c worth (which will cost you 10c ))

Originally Posted by pate

So what if America is a nation of dumbasses for not embracing nationalized health care?
Why would you care which way we go? We're too busy printing more money to go the way of the Wiemar Republic to worry about national healthcare...

I never said that Americans are dumb, Pate. I just think that you (the Americans) can do much much better than this with the power you have.
Hehe, the reason why I worry so much is a good question. To put it short I am a man with a mission.